Disposed

Sandeep Lahiri Choudhury and 15 Ors. v. Small Industries Development Bank and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Aug 2018WP/2698/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the Union of India to decide on a proposal submitted by the Small Industries Development Bank within ten weeks, without requiring a fresh proposal, and disposed of the writ petition on this limited aspect.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.2 to take a decision on the proposal submitted by Respondent No.1 within ten weeks from the date.

Sandeep Lahiri Choudhury and 15 Ors. Vs Small… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(904) WP 2698-17.doc

¶2

Amk

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2698 OF 2017

¶5

Sandeep Lahiri Choudhury & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Small Industries Development Bank & Anr. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. C. G. Gavnekar a/w. Mr. G. S. Hiranandani, Mr. A. C. Gavnekar for the Petitioners.

¶7

Mr. S. K. Talsania, Sr. Advocate a/w. Ms. Anisha Nair i/b India Law LLP for the Respondent No.1.

¶8

Mr. Dushyant Kumar for the Respondent No.2-UOI.

¶9

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & K. K. SONAWANE, JJ. DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2018.

¶10

P. C. :

¶11

The above Writ Petition has been filed, inter alia, for the reliefs which are comprised in prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the Petition.

¶12

Amongst the said reliefs, is the relief seeking a direction to be issued to the Respondent No.2 to grant concurrence to the proposal submitted by the Respondent No.1 vide its communication dated 15.04.2014 annexed at Exhibit 'F' to the Petition. As the said prayer itself discloses the proposal submitted by the Respondent No.1 is awaiting decision since the year 2014.

¶13

The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2-Government of India through Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, Shri Dushyant Kumar, on instructions, makes a statement that though the

¶14

1/3

¶15

(904) WP 2698-17.doc

¶16

proposal in the past has been received from the Respondent No.1, and though no decision has been taken on the said proposal, a decision would be taken within eight weeks from date, if a fresh proposal is submitted by the Respondent No.1.

¶17

In the context of the aforesaid submission, it is required to be noted that the Respondent No.1 has submitted the proposal dated 15.04.2014 and thereafter as also necessary requisitions which were made by the Respondent No.2. We, therefore, do not find the necessity of the Respondent No.1 being directed to submit a fresh proposal to the Respondent No.2. The said proposal dated 15.04.2014 is admittedly awaiting decision of the Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 is, therefore, directed to take a decision one way or the other on the said proposal within ten weeks from date. The said proposal is part of the Petition annexed at Exhibit 'F', page 130. Since we have considered the Petition only from the aforesaid aspect, we have not dealt with reliefs as comprised in prayer clauses (a) and (b).

¶18

We, accordingly, leave the contention of the Petitioner open insofar as the said prayer clauses (a) and (b) are concerned to be urged at the appropriate time in appropriate proceedings. We hope and trust that the Respondent No.2 would take a decision on the proposal of the Respondent

¶19

2/3

¶20

(904) WP 2698-17.doc

¶21

No.1 within the time stipulated by us.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶23

All parties to act on a copy of the instant order duly authenticated.

¶24

[K. K. SONAWANE, J.]

¶25

[R. M. SAVANT, J.]

¶26

Digitally signed by Arjun Arjun Machhindra Machhindra Kadam Kadam Date: 2018.08.28 12:05:47 +0530

¶27

3/3

Sandeep Lahiri Choudhury and 15 Ors. v. Small Industries Development Bank and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Lahiri Choudhury and 15 Ors. v. Small Industries Development Bank and Anr.

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

Jay Constructions Vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Shri. Yuvraj Dhondu Bhadane Vs the State of Maharashtra through Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Dinesh Parmar Vs the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks and Anr.

Ashokkumar Laxmirajam Nampelli Vs Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited and 3 Others

Sachin S. Desai Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Hanumant Kashinath Pawar and Ors. Vs Satara Education Society, Satara and Ors.