Dismissed

The Ulhasnagar Biscuit and Confectionery Manufactuers Association v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Oct 2018WP/8978/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution. The petition, filed in 2013, was adjourned multiple times. Despite being made aware of prior orders, the petitioner failed to provide a Vakalatnama or brief an advocate in sufficient time, leading to the order of dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Dismiss of the writ petition for non-prosecution.

The Ulhasnagar Biscuit and Confectionery… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

wp-8978-2013

¶2

S.R.JOSHI

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 8978 OF 2013

¶5

The Ulhasnagar Biscuit and Confectionery Manufacturers Association .. Petitioner. v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Others .. Respondents.

¶6

Ms. Minal Chandnani, for the Petitioner.

¶7

Ms. Shruti B. Vyas, 'B' Panel Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Saurabh Kurade i/b. Mr. Vijay Patil, for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

¶8

CORAM: M.S.SANKLECHA & RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ. DATE : 1^st OCTOBER, 2018.

¶9

P.C:-

¶10

On 27^th September, 2018, we passed the following order:-

¶11

“ On 6^th September, 2018, this Court has passed the following order in this Petition:-

¶12

“1 Ms. Minal Chandnani, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that she has just been instructed to appear for the petitioner as the earlier advocate has passed away.

¶13

2 In the above view, she seeks time to file Vakalatnama and take instructions.

¶14

3 At her request, Petition is adjourned to 27^th September, 2018.”

¶15

2 Today, Ms. Minal Chandnani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks time on the ground that she would be

1 of 2

wp-8978-2013

S.R.JOSHI

getting Vakalatnama by tomorrow. As this Petition is of the year 2013 still awaiting admission, it was adjourned on the last occasion to today as sought by the Petitioner's advocate. However, the petitioners have neglected to give her any Vakalatnama till today. It appears that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting this petition. Nevertheless, at the request of Ms. Minal Chandnani, we are dismissing the petition today.

¶20

3 We adjourn the petition to 1^st October, 2018. The petition to be on board under caption for dismissal. In case, the petitioner does not brief an Advocate before the next date and/or the Advocate briefed is not ready to conduct the matter, we shall dismiss the petition.”

¶21

2 Ms. Chandnani, learned Counsel states that she has not received a copy of the Vakalatnama from the Petitioner. Thus, she is unable to represent the Petitioner who were made aware of the baove order.

¶22

3 In the above view, Petition dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶23

(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA,J.) (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.)

¶24

Smita Digitally signedby Smita Rajnikant Rajnikant JoshiDate: 2018.10.03 Joshi 23:01:55 +0530

¶25

2 of 2

The Ulhasnagar Biscuit and Confectionery Manufactuers Association v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Ulhasnagar Biscuit and Confectionery Manufactuers Association v. the State of Maharashtra and 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

M/S. Fab Trade Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Sales Tax Maharashtra State Mumbai and 2 Ors.

M/S Fab Trade Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Sales Tax Maharashtra State and 2 Ors.

The Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise, Palghar Commissionerate Vs Ritex Overseas

Arya Omnitalk Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs Union of Inida Ministry of Finance through the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Central Tax, Pune I Commissionerate

the commissiner opf central excise-thane-i Vs m/s ajanta papeer and central products Ltd.