Disposed

Prem Leela Developers v. the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC5 Jun 2018WP/1750/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding a rejected interim stay. The court directed the appellate authority to decide the pending appeal within three months and allowed the petitioner a two-week posting delay for potential adverse effects.

What did the court decide?

Directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal within three months; respondent No. 6 held off further steps for two weeks after an adverse order.

Prem Leela Developers Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 23) wpl-1817-18.doc

¶2

SAS

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1817 OF 2018

¶6

M/s. Prem Lala Developers ..Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶7

..Respondents.

¶8

Mr.Vaibhabv Joglekar with Mr.Parag Tilak and Ms.Shivani Samel for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr.Milind More, AGP for the respondent-State.

¶10

Mr.Vijay D. Patil for respondent No.3 & 4.

¶11

Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Chirag Balsara and Mr.Aftab Diamondwala i/b. M/s. Diamondwala for respondent No.5.

¶12

Mr.Milind Sathe i/b. Mr.Jayesh R. Vyas for respondent No.6.

¶13

CORAM: SHANTANU S.KEMKAR AND NITIN W.SAMBRE, JJ.

¶14

DATE : JUNE 5, 2018

¶15

P.C.:-

¶16

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶17

having gone through the impugned order dated April 7, 2018

¶18

(Exhibit-Q) passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee in

¶19

Application (L) No.53 of 2018, we find that the appellate authority

¶20

2 23) wpl-1817-18.doc

¶21

while allowing the application for early hearing by observing that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case, rejected the application for interim stay without assigning any reasons.

¶22

Having considered the fact that the authority has now fixed the appeal for final hearing on June 8, 2018, we are inclined to dispose of the petition by directing the appellate authority (respondent No.2) to consider and decide the petitioner's appeal (Exhibit 'O') as expeditiously as possible but in any case not later than three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶23

Mr.Milind Sathe, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.6 states that till the petitioner's appeal is decided, respondent No.6 shall not take any further steps in regard to the subject development work.

¶24

It is further ordered that if the order is passed adverse to the interest at the petitioner, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of two weeks from the date of its uploading.

¶25

The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶26

( NITIN W.SAMBRE, J. ) (SHANTANU S.KEMKAR, J.)

Prem Leela Developers v. the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Leela Developers v. the State of Maharashtra and 5 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

Krystal Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Joint Director (Policy) and 3 Ors.

Shri. Layakalli Bashaso Mulla Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Social Welfare Dept. and Ors.

Shri. Vishnu Ramkrishna Lele Vs the Chairman and Managing Director, United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.

Dipak Kisan Shinde and Ors. Vs the Joint Director and Ors.

Manoj Bhalchandra Kulkarni Vs National Agricultural Co-Operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. and Ors.

Yadav Sunita Rajendraprasad Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Ors.