Partly allowed

Morarjee Textiles Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India Thr. Its Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Feb 2016CAW/102/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil application filed for amendment of a writ petition and expeditious disposal was partly allowed; the amendment was granted but the plea for urgent hearing was rejected due to pending appeal in the Supreme Court.

What did the court decide?

Amendment to the petition allowed to be carried out within two weeks; application for urgent hearing rejected.

Morarjee Textiles Ltd. and Ors. Vs Union of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

caw102-16.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION No.102 OF 2016 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.2874 OF 2012

¶6

Morarjee Textiles Limited, Mumbai, a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and another.

¶7

-Vrs.-

¶8

Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi and others.

¶9

_______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.

¶10

Mr. Anand Parchure, counsel for petitioner. Mr. Girish Choube, counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2. Mr. S. Dhole, counsel for respondent no.3.

¶11

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ . DATED : 17th FEBRUARY, 2016

¶12

By way of present application two fold reliefs have been claimed - (i) for amendment of the petition and (ii) for disposal of the petition expeditiously.

¶13

The prayer for amendment is vehemently opposed by Mr. Dhole, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3.

¶14

However, taking into consideration the nature of the amendment, we find that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the amendment is allowed as the respondents have an opportunity to controvert it by way of filing consequential reply to the amendment.

¶15

However, in so far as the prayer for disposal of the

¶16

¶17

caw102-16.odt

¶18

petition expeditiously is concerned, we are not inclined to entertain the same inasmuch as the Special Leave Petition arising out of an interlocutory order is pending before the Apex Court.

¶19

The application is, therefore, partly allowed. The prayer for amendment is granted. The amendment be carried out within a period of two weeks from today. The respondents would be at liberty to file consequential amendment.

¶20

If the respondents desire to file any consequential return, the same shall be done within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶21

CAW 3239/2012

¶22

In so far as the application for grant of urgent hearing is concerned, the same is rejected. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to move this court afresh after the Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court is disposed of.

¶23

JUDGE JUDGE

¶24

Hirekhan

Morarjee Textiles Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India Thr. Its Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Morarjee Textiles Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India Thr. Its Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhartiya Sewa Acharya Education Society, Thr Its Secretary, Nagpur Vs Ku. Tulsi D/O Shankar Parate and Other

Bhimrao S/O Prabhusingh Rathod Vs the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati and 3 Others

M/S. R.B. Contractors, a Proprietor Concern Thr Proprietor Shri Ramraoji B Girolkar, Yavatmal Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Secretary Public Works Dept., Mantralaya, Mumbai

Indarsingh S/O Hiralal Parihar Vs the Joint Director (Higher Education), Nagpur Division, Nagpur, Others

Shri. Kishor S/O. Narayan Sonune Vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Buldhana and Others

Kedar S/O Gangadhar Agrawal Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and 3 Others