Dismissed

Bhagwan Jagannath Nitnaware v. the Union of India and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Jun 2017WP/1182/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order permitting respondent to record evidence by a Court Commissioner. Petitioner's counsel sought withdrawal after respondent undertook not to delay proceedings. Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn and directed expeditious disposal.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn; parties directed to appear before the Tribunal on 03.07.2017 for expeditious disposal.

Bhagwan Jagannath Nitnaware Vs the Union of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

16_wp_1182_2017.doc

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1182 OF 2017

¶4

Bhagwan Jagannath Nitnaware ...Petitioner

¶5

Versus The Union of India and Anr. ...Respondents

¶6

...

¶7

Mr. Rajeshwar G. Panchal for the Petitioner. Mr. A.V. Bukhari, senior counsel with Mr. A.M. Nathani for the Respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

¶9

DATED : 12^th JUNE, 2017.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

The Petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 23.3.2017 whereby the learned Presiding Officer of C.G.I.T.-2, Mumbai, permitted the Respondent No.2 to record the evidence by Court Commissioner.

¶12

The main grievance of the Petitioner is that the Respondent No.2 has filed the said application only with an intention of delaying the said proceedings. In the course of the arguments the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 submitted that the Respondent No.2 is interested in expeditious disposal of the proceedings. He undertakes to

¶13

Megha

¶14

1/2

¶15

16_wp_1182_2017.doc

¶16

file the affidavits of the witnesses to be examined on behalf of the Respondent No.2 on 3.7.2017. He further submits that the Respondent No.2 would not delay recording of the cross examination and will extend his full cooperation to conclude the cross examination within a period of 60 days from the date of the filing of the affidavit. He further submits that Respondent No.2 would bear the total fees of the Court Commissioner who would be appointed for recording the evidence of the witnesses of the Respondent No.2. The aforesaid statements are accepted.

¶17

The learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the Petition in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.

¶18

Hence, the Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 3.7.2017. The learned Presiding Officer, CGIT-2, Mumbai to endeavour to dispose of the matter expeditiously.

¶19

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

¶20

Megha

¶21

2/2

Bhagwan Jagannath Nitnaware v. the Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwan Jagannath Nitnaware v. the Union of India and Anr.

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

Manugraph Employees Association Vs Manugraph India Ltd.

Manugraph Unit 2 Employees Union Vs Manugraph India Ltd., Unit NO.2

Manugraph Employees Association Vs Manugraph India Ltd., Unit NO.1

Indian Airlines Ltd. Vs Mrs. J.P. Verma and Anr.

Kuwait Airways Corporation Vs Cornelius Pereira and 2 Ors.

Kuwait Airways Corporation Vs Kuwait Airways Corporation Employees Association and 2 Ors.