Single-paragraph order dismissing a review petition as it raised no grounds to review a prior order where counsel was present.
Review petition dismissed with no orders passed in the underlying writ petition.
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.
rpw 30.18.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 30 OF 2018 in
WRIT PETITION NO.1085 of 2017
Salebhai Yusuffally Plumber ...Petitioner versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. …Respondents
Mr. H. D. Devaranjan along with Mr. J. Shah I/b. Aagam Doshi, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sagar Patil, advocate for MCGM. Mr. Milind More, advocate for the SRA.
Mr. H. Diamondwala I/b. Diamondwala and Co., advocate for the original respondent No.3 in writ petition No.1085 of 2017.
Mr. J. G. Reddy, advocate for the original respondent No.5 in writ petition No.1085 of 2017.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT.ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. DATE : 6th AUGUST, 2018.
P. C. :
Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we
do not find any ground to review the order dated 18th June, 2018 passed in the aforesaid writ petition, particularly when the same was passed in
the presence of the review petitioner's counsel. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
[SMT.ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]
Shubhada S Kadam 1/1
Digitally signed by Shubhada Shubhada Shankar Shankar Kadam Kadam Date: 2018.08.08 17:25:50 +0530
Salebhai Yusuffally Plumber
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Ranjit More
Anuja Prabhudesai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
