The High Court dismissed the writ petition unconditionally withdrawn by the petitioners. The court directed corrections to prior typographical errors in the cause title regarding the petition year and party names.
Petition dismissed as unconditionally withdrawn. Pending notice and summons disposed of.
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.
oswp1795
1
ssp
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1795 OF 2009
Aditya H. Shah & Anr. ...Petitioners
vs.
Anil G. Shah & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr.Bipin Vora for the Petitioners
Mr.Anil Shah the respondent No.1 in person
Mr.P.J.Thorat for the respondent No.6.
Ms Shobha Ajitkumar for the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
Ms Neha Bhide, AGP for the respondent No.8.
CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
C.V.BHADANG,JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 20, 2016
P.C.:
1The learned counsel for the petitioners has
tendered across the bar the affidavit of the first
petitioner dated 16th January 2016. The affidavit is
taken on record and marked `B-1' for identification.
In the paragraph 1 thereof, it is stated that the
affidavit is filed for himself and on behalf of the
second petitioner. In the paragraph 5, it is
stated that the petitioners want to withdraw this
writ petition unconditionally with liberty to file
appropriate legal proceedings in future. Paragraph
6 of the said affidavit reads thus:
“6I therefore petitioners humble pray that
the reasons mention above is to be accepted
and Hon'ble Court allow to withdraw present
Writ Petition unconditionally and without any
2
oswp1795
cost.”
2The learned counsel for the petitioners now on
instructions states that the petitioners want to
withdraw this petition unconditionally and they are
not seeking any liberty. We accept the said
statement. The first respondent has something to
say about the averments made in the affidavit.
Suffice it to say that we have made no adjudication
on the correctness of the factual statements made
in the said affidavit and all contentions of the
parties in that behalf are kept open.
3The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2
and 7 invited our attention to the copy of the
letter dated 18th January 2016 addressed by the
respondent No.1 to him as well as to the Advocate
for the petitioners. Suffice it to observe that
there was no reason for the respondent No.1 to make
personal allegations against the learned counsel
about the concealment of facts.
4Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as
unconditionally withdrawn. As a consequence of
disposal of the writ petition, pending Notice of
Motion and Chamber Summons do no survive and the
same stand disposed of.
5There are two typographical errors in the cause
title of the order dated 11th January 2016. The year
of the writ petition shall be read as 2009 instead
of 2012. The name of the petitioners shall be
3 oswp1795
corrected as `Aditya H. Shah and another' instead of
Adity H. Shah & Anr. Corrections shall be carried
out to the original order as well as the order
uploaded on server.
(C.V.BHADANG,J.)(A.S.OKA,J.)
Aditya H. Shah & Anr.
Anil G. Shah & Ors.
A.S. OKA
C.V. BHADANG
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court