Allowed

Rajesh Chunilal Meghani v. the Andheri Recreation Club and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Mar 2016WP/1642/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition petitioners challenged the rejection of their plaint. The court allowed the withdrawal of the petition with liberty to appeal, clarifying that the suspension of the petitioner continued. The court explicitly did not examine the merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file substantive appeal; ad-interim order continued with clarification on suspension.

Rajesh Chunilal Meghani Vs the Andheri Recreation… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

912.wp.1642-16.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

Writ Petition NO. 1642 OF 2016

¶5

RAJESH CHUNILAL MEGHANI Versus THE ANDHERI RECREATION CLUB AND ORS.

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mr.Mukesh Vashi, Senior Advocate a/w. Chirag Shah i/b. Priyadarshan V. Shah, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. R.S.Apte, Senior Counsel a/w. Dilip Shukla, for Respondent Nos.1 to 6. Mr. R.S. Mishra, Advocate for Respondent Nos.7 & 8. Mr. G.C. Singh, Advocate for Respondent Nos.11 and 12.

¶9

CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J.

¶10

DATE : 11^th MARCH, 2016

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Heard Mr. Mukesh Vashi, learned Senior Counsel for

¶13

the petitioner, Mr. R.S. Apte, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6, Mr. R.S.Mishra, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.7 & 8 and Mr. G.C. Singh, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.11 and 12.

¶14

By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

¶15

India, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 30.1.2016 passed by learned Judge, presiding over court

1 / 3

912.wp.1642-16.doc

room No.2 of the City Civil Court at Mumbai, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Goregaon, Mumbai in Notice of Motion No.183/2016 in Suit No.3602/2015. By that order, learned trial Judge held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. By subsequent order dated 26.2.2016, the learned trial Judge rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC').

¶20

In view thereof, Mr. Vashi seeks permission to withdraw this Petition with liberty to file substantive appeal as the learned trial Judge has rejected the plaint. On the motion made by Mr. Vashi, the petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It is made clear that I have not examined the merits of the case. Order accordingly.

¶21

At this stage, Mr. Vashi prays for continuation of the ad-interim order dated 8.2.2016 for a period of two weeks from today. By order dated 8.2.2016, the matter was adjourned to 16.2.2016 and till next date the order directing the defendants not to take further steps against the plaintiff and to maintain status quo was ordered to remain in force. Mr. Apte submits that the membership of the plaintiff is suspended. In view of the

2 / 3

912.wp.1642-16.doc

decision of Apex Court in the case of Kishore Kumar Khaitan and another vs. Praveen Kumar Singh, (2006) 3 SCC 312, the status quo will have to be clarified. On the oral application made by Mr. Vashi, ad-interim order dated 8.2.2016 is continued for a period of two weeks from today, with clarification that the suspension of the plaintiff continues.

¶26

Deshmane (PS)

¶27

3 / 3

Rajesh Chunilal Meghani v. the Andheri Recreation Club and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Chunilal Meghani v. the Andheri Recreation Club and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Vasant Laxman Mazire (Since Decd) through Lrs. and Ors. Vs Shri Kisan Rambhau Mazire and Ors.

Vipul M Kothari Vs Bharti Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.

The State Bank of India Vs the Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.

Abdul Gani Abdul Majid Dongre and Ors. Vs Liyakat Abdullah Dhole and Ors.

Sai Service Agency Bombay Limited Vs Bapu Sonu Gaikwad (Since Decd) through Lrs.

Rajiyabano Mohammadh Ramjan and Ors. Vs Raizwan Ahmed Mohammadh Ramjan