Partly allowed

The Chief Executive Officer v. Latika Balasaheb Kakade

Bombay HC16 Mar 2017CAO/70/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court in chambers condoned a 27-day delay in filing review petitions and civil applications for certificate of delay, finding satisfaction in the explanation. Subsequently, the Review Petitions were dismissed as no case was made out for invoking the limited review jurisdiction, while the Civil Applications were allowed and disposed of. The decision covers four review petitions file

What did the court decide?

The Civil Applications were allowed and disposed of. The Review Petitions were dismissed as no case was made out.

The Chief Executive Officer Vs Latika… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

901-rpw-52-2017.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATTE JURISDICTION

¶3

REVIEW PETITION NO.52 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.70 OF 2017 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4857 OF 2016

¶5

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune ...Petitioner Versus Latika Balasaheb Kakade ...Respondent

¶6

WITH

¶7

REVIEW PETITION NO.53 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.71 OF 2017 IN

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.2965 OF 2015

¶9

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune ...Petitioner Versus Jayshree Madhukar Lohkare ...Respondent

¶10

WITH

¶11

REVIEW PETITION NO.54 OF 2017 WITH

¶12

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.72 OF 2017 IN

¶13

WRIT PETITION NO.3223 OF 2015

¶14

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune ...Petitioner Versus Varsha Nagnath Satpute ...Respondent

1/3

Vishal Parekar

901-rpw-52-2017.doc

WITH

REVIEW PETITION NO.56 OF 2017 WITH

¶20

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.74 OF 2017 IN

¶21

WRIT PETITION NO.3224 OF 2015

¶22

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune

¶23

...Petitioner

¶24

Versus

¶25

Sharadkumar Bhaskar Khandekar and Ors.

¶26

...Respondents

¶27

Mr. Pankaj Pandey, for the Applicants/Ori. Respondents. Mr. S.S. Pakale, for Respondent No. 1/Ori. Petitioners. Mr. N.P. Deshpande, AGP for Respondent-State.

¶28

CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & RANJIT MORE, JJ. DATE : MARCH 16, 2017 (IN CHAMBER)

¶29

P.C.:

¶30

. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the Civil Applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the Review Petitions. The delay is of 27 days. We find that the same has been satisfactorily explained. Accordingly, the delay in filing the Review Petitions is condoned. The Civil Applications are allowed. The Civil Applications stand disposed of as such.

2/3

Vishal Parekar

901-rpw-52-2017.doc

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the Review

¶35

Petitions.

¶36

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the order of which the review is sought, we are of the view that no case is made out to invoke the jurisdiction of the review which is extremely limited.

¶37

Accordingly, the Review Petitions are dismissed.

¶38

(RANJIT V. MORE, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)

¶39

3/3

¶40

Vishal Parekar

The Chief Executive Officer v. Latika Balasaheb Kakade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Executive Officer v. Latika Balasaheb Kakade

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

Inamdar Ayub Babasaheb Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

Shri Shamsundar Laxman Malvankar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Sou. Devibai Narayandas Chhabada Rural Education Society and Anr. Vs Shivaji University and Ors.

Smt. Ranjana Vinod Kejriwal Vs Mr. Omprakash L. Changoiwal and Ors.