Disposed

Sheetal S. Gajabhiye and 2 Others v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 16 Others and Shreshta Rakesh and 12 Others

Bombay HC11 Jun 2018CHSW/16/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was an order granting an impleadment application in a writ petition. The court allowed the proposed respondents to be impleaded in the petition and directed the amendment and subsequent statement of claim.

What did the court decide?

Chamber summons allowed to implead proposed respondents; one week to amend petition.

What the court decided

Sheetal S. Gajabhiye and 2 Others Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

19 CHSW 16.18.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 16 OF 2018 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1920 OF 2017

¶5

Mrs. Sheetal S. Gajabhiye and ors. …..Applicants/ (Org.Petitioners)

¶6

versus Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and ors. …..Respondents

¶7

Ms. Huda Diamondwala i/b. Diamondwala and Co., advocates for the applicants/original petitioners.

¶8

Mr. V. M. Parashurami, advocate for the respondent Nos 1 to 3. Mr. M. M. Vashi, senior advocate along with Ms.Panthi Desai i/b. M. P. Vashi and Associates, advocates for the respondent Nos.4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16.

¶9

Mr. Nimeet Sharma i/b. Kalpesh Joshi and Associates, advocates for the respondent No.5.

¶10

Mr. Pravin Samdani, senior advocate along with Mr. Abhijeet Marathe, advocate for the proposed respondent Nos.18 to 30.

¶11

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT.ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. DATE : 11^th JUNE, 2018.

¶12

P. C. :

¶13

The learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners, at the outset, makes a statement that she is restricting this petition to the relief

¶14

claimed in prayer clause (i) with liberty to make fresh application/chamber summons for the relief claimed in prayer clause (ii). The statement is accepted.

¶15

Shubhada S Kadam 1/2

¶16

19 CHSW 16.18.doc

¶17

By prayer clause (i), the applicants/petitioners seeks to implead proposed respondent Nos.1 to 13 as respondent Nos.18 to 33 in the petition. Mr. Samdani, learned senior advocate appearing for the proposed respondents and Mr. Vashi, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.4,6,7,9,10 to 13, 15 and 16, have no objection if the chamber summons is allowed in terms of prayer clause (i). In that view of the matter and for the reasons stated in the affidavit-in-support, the chamber summons is allowed in terms of prayer clause (i). Necessary amendment be carried out within a period of one week from today and, thereafter, copy of the amended petition be served upon all concerned.

¶18

The proposed respondents are at liberty to file reply to the petition within a period of two weeks from the date of service of the copy of the amended petition.

¶19

4 . The chamber summons stands disposed of.

¶20

The writ petition to be placed on board on 2^nd July, 2018.

¶21

[SMT.ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶22

Shubhada S Kadam 2/2

Sheetal S. Gajabhiye and 2 Others v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 16 Others and Shreshta Rakesh and 12 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Sheetal S. Gajabhiye and 2 Others v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 16 Others and Shreshta Rakesh and 12 Others

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

Lavina Brass Gomes Vs the Chief Executive Officer (Ceo) Slum Rehabilitationa Authority, Mumbai and 6 Ors.

Shri. Dattatray Panditrao Khopade Vs State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department and Ors.

Shri. Dattatray Panditrao Khopade Vs State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department and Ors.

Khurshed Soli Dhondy Vs Her Royal Majesty Queen Beatrix of the Kingdom of the Neatherlands and Ors.

Sou. Sharada Tukaram Kadam and Ors. Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune and Ors.

Sou. Sharada Tukaram Kadam and Ors. Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune and Ors.