Court considered delay explanation in review petition and civil application related to prior appeals. Held delay satisfactorily explained and allowed application.
Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
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.
1
cao-84-18
pdp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 84 OF 2018 IN
REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO. 7166 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2477 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 882 OF 2017
Mr. Hiten Hasmukh Shah
.. Applicant/
Org. Appellant No.2
In the matter between :
1. Mahalaxmi Resorts and ors. .. Petitioners
Org. Appellants
Vs.
Dr. Abhay Gangadhar Pagdhare .. Respondent
Mr. G. S. Hegde i/by Ms. P. M. Bhansali for applicant. Ms. Yogita Deshmukh Chitnis for respondent.
CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & R. G. KETKAR, JJ.
MARCH 20, 2018.
P.C.
2
cao-84-18
the submissions advanced before us, we are convinced that the delay is satisfactorily explained.
(R. G. KETKAR,J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.)
Mahalaxmi Resorts and ors.
Dr. Abhay Gangadhar Pagdhare
Mr. Hiten Hasmukh Shah
NARESH H. PATIL
R. G. KETKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
