Disposed

Ashok Laldas Pardeshi Son of Late Mr. Laldas Mahagalal Pardeshi v. State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC2 Mar 2016WP/620/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted the petitioner leave to withdraw WPL 516 of 2016 with liberty to institute a fresh petition after modifying an order regarding the withdrawal of specific prayer clauses. The court kept all contentions open pending fresh filing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted leave to withdraw the present petition with liberty to institute a fresh petition seeking comprehensive reliefs.

Ashok Laldas Pardeshi Son of Late Mr. Laldas… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

WPL 516-16.doc

¶2

Chittewan

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.516 OF 2016

¶5

Mr. Ashok Laldas Pardeshi .. Petitioner V e r s u s The State of Maharashtra & Others .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Sanjeev Savant with Yogesh Sankpal for the Petitioner. Mr. Amit Shastri, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. Mr. Nikhil Chavan i/b Mr. Vijay Patil for Respondent No.2. Ms. K.H. Mastakar for Respondent No.5.

¶7

Mr. Sanjay Jain with Mr. Nishant Sasidharan, Mr. Kalpesh Mehta and Mr. Vasim Shaikh i/b Pravin Mehta & Mithi & Co. for Respondent No.6

¶8

CORAM : M.S. SONAK, J.

¶9

DATE : 2 MARCH, 2016.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1 Mr. Sawant, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner

¶12

states that on 29 February, 2016, the statement to the effect that the Petitioner is not pressing for reliefs in terms of prayer clauses-(c) and (d), was made on account of some communication gap between the Petitioner and the learned Counsel, who made the same. He submits that in the present case, the Petitioner is required to file a comprehensive petition, and therefore, leave may be granted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file an appropriate petition, seeking comprehensive reliefs, including reliefs as prayed in prayer clauses-(c) and (d) of this petition.

¶13

1/2

¶14

WPL 516-16.doc

¶15

Chittewan

¶16

2 In peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the Petitioner is permitted to withdraw his statement that he is not pressing for reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (c) and (d). The order dated 29 February 2016 is modified to the said extent.

¶17

3 Further, the Petitioner is granted leave to withdraw this Petition with liberty to institute a fresh Petition. This Petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

¶18

4 All the contentions of all the parties, including the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.6 with regard to the effect of an order dated 12 June 2016 in Writ Petition (L) No.1330 of 2015, are specifically kept open.

¶19

(M.S. SONAK, J.)

¶20

2/2

Ashok Laldas Pardeshi Son of Late Mr. Laldas Mahagalal Pardeshi v. State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Laldas Pardeshi Son of Late Mr. Laldas Mahagalal Pardeshi v. State of Maharashtra and 5 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

Bhiku Daulat Jarande (Since Decd) through Lrs. and Ors. Vs Dattatray Shivram Jarande and Ors.

Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs Mohan Tukaram Bhosale and Ors.

Srei Equipment Finance Limited Vs State of Maharashtra, through Public Prosecutor and Ors.

Poonam Rajan Puri Vs Th Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Ramchandra Hari Kank Vs Yashwant Jagannath Malusare and Anr.

Shri. Hambirrao Annaso Jadhav Vs Smt. Gajrabai Yasahwant @ Babanrao Jadhav and Ors.