Disposed

Queen'S Chemists Manufacturing Dept. v. Maxim Electronics Private Limited

Bombay HC2 Aug 2017CAC/730/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay disposed of civil applications seeking clarification on a prior order. The court ruled that review petitions filed by both parties must be restricted solely to the question of the applicability of Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.

What did the court decide?

Review petitions restricted to the applicability of Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.

Queen'S Chemists Manufacturing Dept. Vs Maxim… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1/3 5.CAC.728-16GR.doc

¶2

[Queens v Alisha]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.728 OF 2016 IN

¶5

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.710 OF 2014

¶6

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.729 OF 2016 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.711 OF 2014

¶7

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.730 OF 2016 IN

¶8

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.712 OF 2014

¶9

Office Notes, Office	Court's or Judge's orders.
Memoranda of
Coram,
appearances,
Court's orders or
directions and
Registrar's orders

¶10

Ms.Ranjana Parikh, Advocate for the applicants.

¶11

Ms. Punita Shah i/b. M/s Jay Vinod Shah, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4.

¶12

CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J.

¶13

DATE : 02/08/2017

¶14

P. C.:

¶15

Heard Ms.Ranjana Parikh, learned Counsel for the applicants and Ms.Punita Shah, learned Counsel for respondents No.1 to 4.

¶16

By these applications, the applicants have sought clarification of the order dated 11.8.2016 passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.5280/2014, 5281/2014 & 5282/2014

¶17

2/3 5.CAC.728-16GR.doc

¶18

[Queens v Alisha]

¶19

along with C.R.A. Nos.710/2014, 711/2014 & 712/2014.

¶20

Ms. Parikh invited my attention to paragraphs-2 and 3 of the order dated 11.8.2016 and submitted that the only question that was argued before this Court was about applicability of the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, 'Act'). It was contended that Section 3(1)(b) of the Act is not applicable to defendant No.1. Though this contention was specifically agitated, that was not dealt with by the Appellate Court. In view thereof, permission was sought to withdraw Civil Revision Applications as also Writ Petitions with liberty to file Review Petitions before the Appellate Court.

¶21

Ms.Parikh submitted that by filing Review Petitions, the respondents are enlarging the scope of review by agitating the contentions other than applicability of Section 3(1)(b) of the Act.

¶22

On the other hand, Ms.Shah relied upon paragraph-8 of the order dated 11.8.2016 wherein all contentions on merits in the proposed review petitions were expressly kept open. In other words, she submitted that the petitioners in the Writ Petitions and the applicants in Civil Revision Applications were permitted to file Review Petitions raising all contentions that were available to them.

¶23

It is not possible to accept this submission. Only grievance made at the time of hearing of the Petitions and Revision Applications was that the Appellate Court did not consider the contentions agitated as regards applicability of

¶24

3/3 5.CAC.728-16GR.doc [Queens v Alisha]

¶25

Section 3(1)(b) of the Act on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 Bank.

¶26

In view thereof, Review Petitions shall be restricted only on the question about applicability of Section 3(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, Civil Applications are disposed of.

¶27

All parties, including the appellate Court, to act upon the authenticated copy of this order.

¶28

(R. G. KETKAR, J.)

¶29

Deshmane(PS)

Queen'S Chemists Manufacturing Dept. v. Maxim Electronics Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Queen'S Chemists Manufacturing Dept. v. Maxim Electronics Private Limited

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

Dilip Manglu Borse Vs Deepika Sanjay Chavan and 9 Others

The Nashik Jilha Stariya Samiti Vs Dashrath Lahanu Thete

The Nashik Jilha Stariya Samiti Vs Chagan Fakira Rathod

Queen'S Chemists Manufacturing Dept. Vs Ms. Alisha Miten Marfatia and Ors.

Rajesh Construction Company Private Limited Vs the Minister for Co-Operation, Marketing and Textiles and 3 Ors.

Haresh M. Patel Vs Deputy District Registrar of Co-Operative Societies and 3 Ors.