Dismissed

Shri. Surajmal Budhmal Lodha (Huf) through Poa Shri. Kantilal S. Lodha and Ors. v. the Surajmahal Co-Op. Society Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jun 2018WP/2293/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition No.8400 of 2014 disposed via consent terms. Writ Petition No.2293 of 2016 dismissed as withdrawn relying on said consent terms. No order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition No.8400 of 2014 disposed via consent terms; Writ Petition No.2293 of 2016 dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs.

What the court decided

Shri. Surajmal Budhmal Lodha (Huf) through Poa Shri. Kantilal S. Lodha and Ors. Vs the Surajmahal Co-Op. Society Ltd. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

4-wp8400-14c

¶2

vai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.8400 OF 2014

¶5

M/s.Suraj Construction ...Petitioner V/s. Surajmahal Co-op. Soc. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

Mr.Jaydeep Deo i/b Mr.Abhijeet Kandarkar for the Petitioner. Mr.Parag M.Tilak for the Respondent No.1. Mr.S.H. Kankal, A.G.P. for the State – Respondent No.2. Mr.S.A. Tarale for the Respondent Nos.3 to 8.

¶7

WITH

¶8

WRIT EPTITION NO.2293 OF 2016

¶9

Surajmal B. Lodha (HUF) & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. Surajmahal Co-op. Soc. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

¶10

Mr.S.A. Tarale for the Petitioners. Mr.Parag M.Tilak for the Respondent No.1. Mr.S.H. Kankal, A.G.P. for the State – Respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. DATE : 13TH JUNE, 2018.

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ

¶14

Petition No.8400 of 2016 and the respondent nos.3 to 8 have tendered the consent terms dated 13^th June, 2018 duly signed by the parties and their respective advocates. The respondent nos.3 to 8 have filed the consent terms through the constituted attorney. A copy

¶15

4-wp8400-14c

¶16

of the power of attorney is annexed with the consent terms.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 to 8 states that Mr.Ramesh S. Lodha is authorized to sign the consent terms on behalf of the respondent nos.3 to 8. The statement is accepted. Insofar as the respondent no.1 is concerned, the consent terms are signed by two of the office bearers. A copy of the resolution passed by the respondent no.1 society is annexed to the consent terms. The signatures of the parties are identified by their respective advocates. The consent terms are taken on record and marked “X” for identification.

¶18

The Writ Petition No.8400 of 2014 is disposed of in terms of the consent terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

In view of the consent terms filed in Writ Petition No.8400 of 2014, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2293 of 2016 seeks liberty to withdraw this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn in view of the consent terms already arrived at in Writ Petition No.8400 of 2014. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

All the parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶21

(R.D. DHANUKA, J.)

¶22

2/2

Shri. Surajmal Budhmal Lodha (Huf) through Poa Shri. Kantilal S. Lodha and Ors. v. the Surajmahal Co-Op. Society Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Shri. Surajmal Budhmal Lodha (Huf) through Poa Shri. Kantilal S. Lodha and Ors. v. the Surajmahal Co-Op. Society Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Ganpat Govale and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Hamid Aziz Shaikh Vs Mr. Sayed Faizulla

Rajendra @ Ekanath Bhimarao Chavan Vs the Collector of Solapur and Anr.

Yogendra N.Thakker Vs Vinay Balse and Anr.

The National Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs M/S. Shilpa Shares and Securities and 6 Ors.

Shri Vitthal Kisan Mate and Anr. Vs Shri Balu Pundalik Punde and Anr.