Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution as the Appellant did not appear despite two calls, notwithstanding a fresh appearance request during the second session.
The Appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
902-AO-60-16+.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 60 OF 2016 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 75 OF 2016 IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 60 OF 2016
Mr. Sandip Baban Taware …Appellant Versus
Mr. Baban Taware & Anr. …Respondents
Mr. S.L. Mhatre, i/b Shraddha Gholap, for the Appellant.
Mr. Hemant Ghadigaonkar, for the Respondent No. 1.
CORAM : G.S. KULKARNI, J. DATE : 6th December 2016
ORDER :
none appeared for the Appellant and therefore, it was placed today under the caption of 'Dismissal'.
Sharayu . 1 / 2
902-AO-60-16+.doc
none appears. However, in the second sessions, Mr. Mhatre appears and requested to keep back the matter. On second call, none appears for the Appellant.
[G.S. KULKARNI, J.]
Sharayu . 2 / 2
Sandip Baban Taware
Baban Taware
G.S. Kulkarni
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
