Disposed

Smt. Shimgu Janu Vayde and Ors. v. M/S. M.A. Planks through Partners M.H. Baqvi and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Dec 2019WP/11919/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a writ petition challenging an order condoning delay in an appeal. The court held it was not just to invoke Article 227 jurisdiction as petitioners participated in the related appeal. Petitioners to seek remedy later if aggrieved by the appeal outcome.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of. Petitioners left open to seek remedy against the appellate order.

Smt. Shimgu Janu Vayde and Ors. Vs M/S. M.A. Planks… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2019)

30 wp 11919-19

Priya Soparkar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.11919 OF 2019

¶6

Smt. Shimgu Janu Vayde and ors. … Petitioners V/s. M/s M.A.Planks and ors. … Respondents

¶7

Mr.Rajesh N. Kachare with Mr.Gautam Kanchanpurkar i/by Mr.Vinod P. Sangvikar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Vishal Kanade i/by Mr.S.B.Amin, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶8

CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN, J. DATE : DECEMBER 03, 2019.

¶9

P.C.:-

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

Challenge made in this petition filed under Article

¶12

227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 12^th

¶13

February, 2019 passed by the learned member (Administrator) Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai condoning the delay of 285 days in preferring the related appeal bearing No.APL/TRB/MUM/L-264/18 subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/-.

¶14

Though at the first blush it would appear that the order condoning the delay is not a reasoned one, it has

¶15

been brought to the notice of the court that there was

¶16

Priya Soparkar 2 30 wp 11919-19

¶17

actual no serious objection to the delay condonation application. That apart, after the delay was condoned, the appeal was heard on 13^th November, 2019 and 5^th December, 2019 is fixed for delivery of order.

¶18

On the other hand, it is seen that the present writ petition was filed on 13^th November, 2019 i.e. on the same day when the arguments were concluded before the Appellate Authority.

¶19

When the petitioners had participated in the hearing of the related appeal, court is of the view that it would not be just and proper to intervene in the matter at this stage, that too, by invoking jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

If the petitioners feel aggrieved by any order that may be passed by the Appellate Authority, it would be open to them to avail their legal remedy in accordance with law, if so advised.

¶21

Keeping all contentions open, present writ petition is disposed of.

¶22

(UJJAL BHUYAN, J.)

Smt. Shimgu Janu Vayde and Ors. v. M/S. M.A. Planks through Partners M.H. Baqvi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shimgu Janu Vayde and Ors. v. M/S. M.A. Planks through Partners M.H. Baqvi 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

Case details

Similar cases

Parmanand K. Mhatre and Ors. Vs the Slum Rehabilitation Auth. Thru CEO , Bandra E and Ors.

Rustomjee Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chief Controller of Revenue Authority and Ors.

Shri.Krishnakumar Karsandas Ashar Vs the Rupee Cpo-Operative Bank Ltd..

Rama Motiram Bhoir Decd Thru Lr and Ors. Vs the Jt. Dist. Registrar, Co-Op. Soc. (Mofa ) Cidco, Navi Mumbai and Ors.

Ramdas Patilbuva Kotwal Vs Balasaheb Dhondiba Kotwal and Ors.

Pravin Ankushrao Gawade and Anr. Vs the Deccan Mercantile Co-Op Bank Ltd. and Anr.