Dismissed

Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Chief Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Jun 2018CAW/752/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court disposed of civil applications filed by petitioners in writ petitions that had been dropped by order of withdrawal on 13 December 2017. The petitioners sought a fresh withdrawal order based on a subsequent letter dated 24 January 2018.

What did the court decide?

The prayers for a fresh order for withdrawal and for marking the subsequent letter as an exhibit were rejected.

Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt. Ltd. Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

caw-752.18 group.odt

¶2

pmw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.752 OF 2018 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.10245 OF 2015

¶6

Kalyan Toll Highways Private Limited In the matter between	… Applicant
Kalyan Toll Highways Private Limited Vs.	… Petitioners
The State of Maharashtra and Ors.	… Respondents

¶7

WITH

¶8

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.753 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.10368 OF 2015

¶9

Kalyan Keti Toll Private Limited In the matter between	… Applicant
Kalyan Keti Toll Private Limited Vs.	… Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. WITH	… Respondents

¶10

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.754 OF 2018 IN

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO.10613 OF 2015

¶12

Kalyan Infratech Pvt. Ltd. In the matter between	… Applicant
Kalyan Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs.	… Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra and Ors.	… Respondents

¶13

WITH

¶14

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.755 OF 2018 IN

¶15

WRIT PETITION NO.10807 OF 2015

¶16

Keti Sangam Infrastructure (I) Ltd. In the matter between	… Applicant
Kalyan Toll Highways Private Limited	… Petitioners

1 of 3

caw-752.18 group.odt

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents

¶21

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.756 OF 2018 IN

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO.11177 OF 2015

¶23

Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd. … Applicant In the matter between Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd. … Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents

¶24

Mr. Kamlesh Ghumre I/by Ms. Sonali S. Jadhav for the Applicants. Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶25

CORAM : A.S. OKA & M.S. SONAK, JJ.

¶26

DATE : 26^th JUNE 2018 [In Chamber at 2.40 pm]

¶27

P.C.

¶28

1 These Civil Applications have been made by the petitioners in disposed of writ petitions which were disposed of by a common order dated 13^th December 2017. The said common order reads thus :-

¶29

“1. Not on board. Taken on Board.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed on record a print out the e-mail sent by the petitioners. It is taken on record and marked 'X1' for identification. In view of the contents of the e-mail, he seeks permission to withdraw these petitions. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of as withdrawn.”

¶31

2 In these applications, there are two prayers made in the alternative which are prayers clauses (a) and (b) which read thus :-

¶32

“(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a fresh order for withdrawal in pursuance of the letter of the Petitioners dated 24.01.2018 (Exh. G herein);

¶33

2 of 3

¶34

caw-752.18 group.odt

¶35

(b) or in the alternative the letter dated 24.01.2018 be marked as an “Exhibit” in the Order dated 13.12.2017 so that the right of the Applicants to claim balance compensation can be reserved.”

¶36

3 In the light of the e-mail a print out of which was taken on record and marked 'X-1' for identification, writ petitions were withdrawn on 13^th December 2017. Now, we cannot pass an order recording that writ petitions were withdrawn on the basis of instructions contained in the subsequent letter dated 24^th January 2018. Therefore, prayer clause (a) cannot be granted. As far as prayer clause (b) is concerned, in substance, it seeks a relief in terms of prayer clause (a) in a different form. When the writ petitions were disposed of as withdrawn, the letter dated 24^th January 2018 was not in existence. Therefore, even prayer clause (b) cannot be granted.

¶37

4 For the reasons recorded above, we reject the applications.

¶38

(M.S. SONAK, J) (A.S. OKA, J)

¶39

3 of 3

Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Chief Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Chief Secretary and Ors.

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

Byculla House Premises Co-Operative Society Limited Vs the Municipal Corporation of Gr Mumbai and 6 Ors.

Kaushalya Atmaram Shinde and 399 Ors. Vs Slum Rehablitation Authority and 2 Ors.

Ami and Monika Developes Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 19 Ors.

Rustom N. Nanavaty and Anr. Vs Manek Dara Sukhadwala

The Loot India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Houseful Internationla Ltd.

Prashant Ratnakar Khadilkar Vs Shri Rakesh Vasant Salunke and Ors.