Dismissed

Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Sept 2016CAW/768/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment rejects an application filed by the Applicant in Civil Application No. 768 of 2016, which was filed in a writ petition (WP No. 11828 of 2013). The Applicant sought an interim order directing Respondents to deposit Rs. 3,11,89,590. The court held that the substantive prayer was for recovery of money, preventing any interim relief, and thus dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

Application for interim deposit of Rs. 3,11,89,590 rejected.

Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs Union of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

caw-768.16

¶3

Sng

¶4

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.768 OF 2016 IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.11828 OF 2013

¶7

Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or orders or directions & Judge’s orders. Registrar’s orders.

¶8

Shri Sarvajit B. Patil i/b Shri Sandeep S. Salunkhe for the Applicant. Mrs. Neeta V. Masurkar and Shri S.G. Thakur and Shri Kango for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶9

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ DATED : 23RD SEPTEMBER 2016

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

The Advocate for the Applicant seeks time.

¶12

Perused the order dated 21st August 2014. The Applicant is the Writ Petitioner. Clauses 2 and 3 of the said order dated 21st August 2014 read thus:

¶13

“2. Rule The Advocate on record for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 waives service.

¶14

Considering the fact that the substantive prayer is for recovery of money, there cannot be any interim relief granted in this Petition. Hearing is expedited.”

¶15

¶16

caw-768.16

¶17

Sng

¶18

In this Application, by way of interim relief, following relief is sought.

¶19

“(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to deposit amount of Rs.3,11,89,590/- with interest and the Applicant be permitted to withdraw the same.”

¶20

Grant of such relief at this stage will amount to granting final relief which in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be granted. Hence, the Application is rejected.

¶21

(A.A. SAYED, J) (A.S.OKA, J)

Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.

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

Dr. Waman Pangaji Gengaje and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ramesh Pahilajrai Nagrani Vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shri Baliram Indrajit Dubey Vs State Bank of India

Ashraf Moinuddin Shaikh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rukshar Furkhan Qureshi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kalamueddin Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.