The High Court disposed of the appeal from an interim order refusing ad-interim relief regarding notice of motion proceedings, directing the trial court to decide the matter expeditiously.
Notice of motion to be decided expeditiously on merits; pending civil application disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Shridhar Sutar 1 20-ao-146.16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 146 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 200 OF 2016
Jayram Koraga Shetty … Appellant
Versus
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai … Respondent
Mr. Vivek Agrawal, Advocate i/b Mr. Vinod Kumar Shukla, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mrs. Madhuri More, Advocate for the Respondent-BMC.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR, J. DATE : 27th NOVEMBER, 2018.
P. C.:
1 of 2
Shridhar Sutar 2 20-ao-146.16.doc
( A. S. CHANDURKAR, J. )
2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the single judge should decide the notice of motion expeditiously on its own merits without influence from the interim order.
Jayram Koraga Shetty
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
A. S. Chandurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
