This order refused to restore a civil application filed to enhance compensation, deeming it improper due to the appeal's 2009 vintage. The main appeal was listed for final disposal.
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.
5-CAF4284-2016INFA188-2009-RESTORATION.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4284 OF 2016 (Restoration) IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 188 OF 2009
SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI
Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2021.12.09 18:58:46 +0530
Sunder Dattaram Govekar ...Applicant In the matter between Anand Dattaram Govekar & anr. ...Appellants Versus Sunder Dattaram Govekar …Respondent
...Applicant
Mr. Abhishek Patil, for the Applicant/original Respondent. Mr. Sushil Inamdar, for the Respondents/original Appellants.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED : 9th DECEMBER, 2021
PC:-
(St) No.2397 of 2016, which was filed by the applicant to enhance the amount of compensation which was ordered to be deposited by the appellants towards the unlawful occupation of the subject premises.
be heard and decided finally. At this juncture, there is no
1/2
5-CAF4284-2016INFA188-2009-RESTORATION.DOC
propriety in restoring the Civil Application (St) No.2397 of 2016.
Hence, the application stands disposed of.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
2/2
Santosh Subhash Kulkarni
Anand Dattaram Govekar
Sunder Dattaram Govekar
N. J. Jamadar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
