The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed the appellant's appeal without engaging in merits, holding that it should not have been listed due to non-compliance with a previous order recorded in the case history.
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.
912-NMAL577-19.DOC
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (L) NO. 288 OF 2019
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 577 OF 2019 WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1429 OF 2019
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 691 OF 2019
Sarthak Developers & Anr
Versus
Priyadarshini CHSL
...Appellants
...Respondents
Mr mm Vashi, with Ms Meenakshi Adate, Ms Prachi K, i/b MP Vashi
Associates, for the Appellants.
Mr Ashraf Diamondwala,with Aftab Diamondwala, i/b
Diamondwala & Co, for the Respondents.
CORAM: S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & G.S. PATEL, JJ DATED: 10th July 2019
PC:-
1.By virtue of the self-operative order passed on the previous
occasion and since there is non-compliance with the statement
Page 1 of 2
10th July 2019
912-NMAL577-19.DOC
recorded in paragraph 2, the consequences in paragraph 3 of the
order of 10th June 2019 follow.
2. The Appeal stands dismissed. It should not have been listed at all.
3. In view of this, all pending applications are also dismissed.
(S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J)
(G. S. PATEL, J)
Page 2 of 2
10th July 2019
Sarthak Developers & Anr
Priyadarshini CHSL
S. C. DHARMADHIKARI
G.S. Patel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court