The court dismissed a civil application for extension of time as infructuous because the respondent had already decided on the petitioner's refund and royalty representation within the stipulated period.
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.
56.caw593.18.doc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 593 OF 2018
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 10845 OF 2017
The State of Maharashtra & ors. .. Applicants.
In the matter between Tata Projects Ltd. .. Petitioner. v/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors. .. Respondents.
Mr. A.I. Patel, AGP for Applicant-State.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 13, 2018.
P. C. :
Mr. Patel, learned AGP at the outset submits that the orders dated 8/11/2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 10845/2017 is complied with, in as much as respondent No. 3 has decided the representation of the petitioner for refund of the amount and for requisite permission including leviability of any royalty on 27/3/2018. In that view of the matter, present Civil Application taken out for extension of time to comply with the said order dated 8/11/2017 is rendered infructuous. The same is accordingly dismissed.
[SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]
Talwalkar
The State of Maharashtra
Tata Projects Ltd.
Ranjit More
Sadhana S. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
