Dismissed

Michael Pinto v. Suzan Pinto and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC19 Apr 2021MCA/120/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous civil application, the applicant sought a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court, claiming a conflict between two High Court judgments. The bench rejected the prayer, noting the relied-upon judgment was not cited during hearings and saw no substantial constitutional question in the earlier order.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for a certificate for preference of appeal before the Apex Court stands refused/rejected.

Michael Pinto Vs Suzan Pinto and 2 Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 9-mca-120-2021 in wp-431-2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 120 OF 2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO.431 OF 2019

¶3

Michael Pinto

¶4

... Applicant.

¶5

 V/s.

¶6

Suzan Pinto And 2 Ors… Respondents.

¶7

Mr. M. Pinto, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶8

C oram: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. Date: 19th April 2021

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

This application is taken out by the petitioner to the
writ petition No.431 of 2019 seeking a certificate under Article
132(1) and 134 A of the Constitution of India so as to enable him to
prefer an appeal before the Apex Court, claiming involvement of
substantial question of law on the ground that the Apex Court in the
judgment of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan,1
has taken a contrary view to the judgment of this Court in the
matter of Sopan Maruti Thopte v. Pune Municipal Corporation2,
which is relied on in the judgment of this Court delivered on
08.03.2021 whilst deciding the writ petition.

¶11

1(2010) 9 SCC 496

¶12

2 1996 AIR (Bom) 30

¶13

2 9-mca-120-2021 in wp-431-2019

¶14

2.It is not in dispute that the authority, i.e. the
respondents to the said judgment have already started acting on the
directions given in the judgment dated 08.03.2021.

¶15

3.Apart from above, the factum is that the judgment that
is relied on for the purpose of seeking certificate was not at all cited
before this Court during the course of hearings.

¶16

4. Having gone through the judgment delivered in this

¶17

Writ Petition on 08.03.2021, I hardly notice involvement of any
question of law as to the interpretation of constitution.

¶18

5.In that view of the matter, the prayer stands
refused/rejected.

¶19

 NITIN W. SAMBRE, J

¶20

msr.

Michael Pinto v. Suzan Pinto and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Michael Pinto v. Suzan Pinto and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Casmiro Charles Mario Lobo @ Charles Casmiro Lobo., Vs Universal Exports, Rep. by Its Prop., Sayyed Moiruddin Qadri and Anr.

The Bhatagram Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Rep. by Its C.E.O., Sanjay Gajanan Parmekar., Vs Viddya Dnyaneshwar Naik Goltekar and Anr.

State of Goa, Thr. Police Sub-Inspector, Dinesh Gadekar, Attached to Fatorda Police Station., Vs Savlo Chodankar and 2 Ors.

The Edenwoods Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Thr. Aut. Sign., Waman K. Nayak., Vs the Registrar, the Office of Registrar of Co-Op. Societies, Govt. of Goa and Anr.

Vishal Gomantak Shipping Compnay Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Aut. Rep. Subramany., Vs the Mormugao Water Front Workers Union

Nagu Fondu Velip and Anr. Vs Thulo Bombo Velip and 3 Ors.