Dismissed

Sakharam S/O Ramji Thorat and Others v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC3 Nov 2017MCA/1287/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected a review application challenging an order dated 22.8.2017 in Writ Petition No. 1134/2016. The review sought to quash observations made regarding documents issued after an Ordinance lapsed. The court held that since the underlying action was initiated on 13.3.2015 when the Ordinance was alive, the review submission is misconceived.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sakharam S/O Ramji Thorat and Others Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

SPL.BENCH.R.P.No. 1287.17

¶2

¶3

IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR REVIEW APPLICATION NO.1287/2017

¶4

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1134/2016(D)

¶6

(Sakharam Ramji Thorat and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others)

¶7

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

¶8

.............................................................................................................................................. Mr. A.S.Deshpande, Adv. for petitioner/applicant Mrs. M.A. Barabde, AGP for respondents 1 to 3

¶9

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & ARUN D.UPADHYE, JJ. DATED : 3^rd November, 2017.

¶10

Perused the Review Application. Heard learned counsel.

¶11

Submission is, documents at Annexure 4 dated 29.6.2015

¶12

and at Annexure 5 are issued after lapsing of Ordinance and, therefore, observations of this Court in its order dated 22nd August, 2017 are wrong and an error is apparent on the face of record.

¶13

In very first line in paragraph 3 of this Court’s order, it has been observed that action was initiated on 13.3.2015 when Ordinance was alive. Thus, action initiated is proceeding further and hence effort to seek review on the basis of above contention, is totally misconceived.

¶14

Rejected.

¶15

JUDGEJUDGE

¶16

sahare

Sakharam S/O Ramji Thorat and Others v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sakharam S/O Ramji Thorat and Others v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Namdeo S/O Lahanuji Chaple Vs the Joint Director of Higher Education, State of Maharashtra, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Others

Smt. Sangita W/O. Sunil Agrawal Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Akarashan Busiplex, 26 Central Bazar Road, Nagpur

M/S Madan Wine Shop Thr. Partner, Sachin S/O Madanlal Jaiswal and Another Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, State Excise, Mumbai and Others

Samiksha D/O Raju Dhole and Another Vs Union of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Director Gen. Health Service and Ors.

Divisional Manager, Central Bank of India, a Nationalized Bank Akola Vs Rameshkumar S/O. Harkishanji Sharma (Dead) through Lrs. Sanjaykumar S/O Harikishanji Sharma and Ors.

Samiksha D/O Raju Dhole and Another Vs Union of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Director Gen. Health Service and Ors.