Allowed

Mr. Nivrutti L. Bagul and Ors. v. Prakash Nivrutti Gholap

Bombay HC4 Sept 2018CAW/152/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of two intervention applications filed by Bagul and Jain in Writ Petitions 4657/2017 and 4666/2017, allowing them to intervene as they were vitally concerned with the subject matter.

What did the court decide?

Civil Applications 152 and 153 of 2018 allowed and disposed of; applicants permitted to intervene in Writ Petitions 4657/2017 and 4666/2017.

Mr. Nivrutti L. Bagul and Ors. Vs Prakash Nivrutti… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

6.CAW.152, 153.18.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 152 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4657 OF 2017

¶4

Nivrutti L. Bagul & Ors. … Applicants

¶5

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Prakash Nivrutti Gholap … Petitioner

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Agricultural Produce Marketing & Ors. … Respondents

¶8

AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 153 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4666 OF 2017

¶9

Nivrutti L. Bagul & Ors. … Applicants IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Arvind Hukamichand Jain … Petitioner V/s. Agricultural Produce Marketing & Ors. … Respondents

¶10

Mr. Sham V. Walve for the Applicants in both the Civil Applications. Mr. B.V. Samant, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Ms. Avanti Inamdar i/b Mr. R.N. Gite for Respondent No.2.

¶11

Mr. I.M. Khairdi for the Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.4657/2017 and 4666/2017.

¶12

CORAM : R.M. SAVANT & K.K. SONAWANE, JJ. DATE : 4^th SEPTEMBER, 2018.

¶13

1/2

¶14

Waghmare

¶15

6.CAW.152, 153.18.doc

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

1 The above Civil Applications have been filed by the applicants seeking to intervene in the above Writ Petition. The intervention is sought on the ground that they are vitally concerned with the subject matter of the above Petition and would resultantly be affected by any decision that would be rendered in the above Writ Petitions. The learned Counsel Mr. I.M. Khairdi appearing for the original Petitioners submits to the orders of the Court. The learned Counsel Ms. Inamdar h/f Mr. Rameshwar Gite also submits to the orders of the Court. Insofar as the Intervention Applications are concerned, it is between the original Petitioners and the Applicants, and the Respondent No.1 i.e. the A.P.M.C. cannot have any say in the matter. In our view, therefore, the Applications are required to be allowed and are accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) of both the Civil Applications.

¶18

2 The Civil Applications accordingly stand disposed of.

¶19

Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from date.

¶20

3 List the Petitions for admission on 25.09.2018.

¶21

Waishali Digitally signedby Waishali Sushil Sushil Waghmare Date: 2018.09.06 Waghmare 11:35:50 +0530

¶22

2/2

¶23

Waghmare

Mr. Nivrutti L. Bagul and Ors. v. Prakash Nivrutti Gholap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Nivrutti L. Bagul and Ors. v. Prakash Nivrutti Gholap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Kailash Nathu Mare Vs High Power Committee Mumbai and Ors.

Shri. Rajendra Pundlikrao Deore and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Shivaji Ramchandra Harugade and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Pramod Raghunath Bamane Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Smita Rudrappa Jamadar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr. Nivrutti L. Bagul and Ors. Vs Arvind Hukamichand Jain