Disposed

Mrs. Savita Ananta Terave v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Jul 2016WP/8012/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court set aside a non-speaking order rejecting a stay application, remanding the matter to the Additional Commissioner, Pune to decide the stay application afresh or finally resolve the appeal within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to Additional Commissioner, Pune Division for fresh order on stay application or final disposal of appeal.

Mrs. Savita Ananta Terave Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

910-WP-8012-2016.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.8012 OF 2016

¶4

Mrs. Savita A. Terave Versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶6

..Petitioner

¶7

..Respondents

¶8

Mr. Prabhanjan Gujar , Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.P.Thakur , AGP for the State.

¶9

Coram : SHANTANU KEMKAR & M.S.KARNIK, JJ.

¶10

Date : 20^th July, 2016.

¶11

P. C. :

¶12

Heard the parties through their counsel. Being aggrieved by the order dated 11.5.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune in the Appeal No.37 of 2016 whereby Petitioner's application for stay has been rejected, the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

¶13

2 Briefly stated, the Petitioner challenged the order dated 8.2.2016 passed by the Collector, Solapur in the Dispute Application No.226 of 2015 by filing an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune. Along with the Appeal, the Petitioner has also filed an application for stay. The stay application has been rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune by the impugned order. The grievance of the Petitioner is that in the impugned order, the Additional Commissioner while

1/2

Shivgan

910-WP-8012-2016.doc

rejecting Petitioner's prayer for interim relief, has not taken into consideration various grounds raised by the Petitioner in the stay application and the impugned non-speaking order has been passed.

¶18

3 Having gone through the impugned order, we find that the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division Pune has not assigned reasons for rejecting Petitioner's application for stay.

¶19

4 In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division Pune for passing fresh order on the stay application or to decide the appeal itself finally. Petitioner to appear before the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division Pune, on 27.7.2016. Latter shall decide stay application afresh or the appeal itself finally within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the Petitioner before the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune. Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶20

[M.S.KARNIK, J.]

¶21

[SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.]

¶22

2/2

¶23

Shivgan

Mrs. Savita Ananta Terave v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Savita Ananta Terave v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Shri Kamlakar Shankar Pawar Vs Principal Secretary and Anr.

Girish Manohar Mokashi Vs Kalyan Dombivili Municipal Corporaton and Ors.

Yateemkhana and Madarasa Anjuman Khairul Islam Trust through Its Trustees and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Joyce Rath Nath and Anr. Vs Mr. Ravi Sawant and Ors.

Joyce Rath Nath and Anr. Vs Ravi Sawant and 9 Ors.

Dilip Manglu Borse Vs Sangeeta D/O Suklal Bhamre @ Dipika W/O Sanjay Chavan