Disposed

Mr. Vinayak Puranchand Rajput and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Feb 2021CAW/5/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the civil application to bring legal heirs on record in an abated writ petition. The sole petitioner had expired, and there was no prayer to set aside abatement despite a delay of nearly six years. The court noted the proceedings ended due to abatement.

What did the court decide?

The civil application was disposed of. No costs awarded. Nothing survives in the application.

Mr. Vinayak Puranchand Rajput and Anr. Vs State of… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

6.CAW5_2021.doc

¶2

 Vidya Amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5 of 2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2006 of 2009 WITH

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2006 OF 2009

¶6

Vinayak Puranchand Rajput & Ors. ... Applicant
in the matter between
Puranchand Kaluram Rajput…Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.… Respondents

¶7

Mr. S.N. Gawadei/b.M/s. Ram & Co. for the applicant.
Mr. P.P. Kakade, GP a/w. Smt. V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for the State.

¶8

CORAM :-G. S. KULKARNI, J.
DATE :-FEBRUARY 5, 2021

¶9

PC :-

¶10

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

2. A short issue which had arisen in this petition was a challenge to

¶12

an order dated 5 November, 2008 passed by the Commissioner of Police,
Navi Mumbai whereby a permission to the petitioner’s hotel, namely,
P.K. Bar and Restaurant to conduct orchestra was rejected. The petition

¶13

was admitted by an order dated 19 March, 2009. A perusal of the
record indicates that there was no substantive interim order passed by
this Court.

¶14

3. The sole petitioner expired on 30 October, 2012 during the

¶15

pendency of the writ petition for final hearing. The petition thus stood Order is corrected as per speaking to the minutes of the order dated 22/2/2021.

¶16

6.CAW5_2021.doc

¶17

abated.

¶18

4.The above Civil Application, to bring on record the legal heirs of
the deceased sole petitioner, was filed on 6 February, 2018, which was
after a delay of 5 years and 99 days. There is also no prayer in the Civil
Application for setting aside of the abatement.

¶19

5.On the above backdrop, today, learned counsel for the parties are
ad idem to state that as of now, the law bars activity of a dance bar. The
petition as it stands abated, there was no interim order whatsoever for
more than 11 years. All contentions of the petitioner in regard to any
permissible activity, are expressly kept open. Nothing would survive in
the Civil Application as well.

¶20

6. The proceedings accordingly stand disposed of. No costs.

¶21

 (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by Prashant Prashant V. Rane V. Rane Date: 2021.02.23 18:32:14 +0530

¶23

Order is corrected as per speaking to the minutes of the order dated 22/2/2021.

Mr. Vinayak Puranchand Rajput and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Vinayak Puranchand Rajput and Anr. v. 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

Zakhirhussain Shamashuddin Bargir Vs Shripati Ganpat Ghugare and Ors.

Sanjay Harakchand Nanawati and Ors. Vs Lilabai @ Bharti Bachhubhai Shah and Ors.

Zakhirhussain Shamashuddin Bargir Vs Shripati Ganpat Ghugare and Ors.

Salim Hussain Sayyed vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Vishwantah Vishnu Kulkarni Decd. through Lhr and Anr. Vs Shrikant Krishnaji Kulkarni

Tukaram Ganapati More Vs Vishnu Govind Nandekar and Ors.