Allowed

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. v. Municipal Karmachari Sangh, Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Jun 2022CAW/3007/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge high court allowed a civil application seeking restoration of a writ petition and extension of time for the petitioner to remove office objections within a specified period, finding the contentions uncontroverted due to the respondent's absence.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition restored; petitioner allowed four weeks from the date to remove office objections.

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

Arjun 43-CAW-3007-16.doc

¶2

1/3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3007 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 24623 OF 2015 IN

¶5

REJECTED CASE NO. 1786 OF 2016

¶6

The Municipal Corporation of …Applicants Greater Mumbai & Ors. V/s. Municipal Karmachari Sangh, …Respondents Mumbai & Ors.

¶7

Mr. Om Suryavanshi, for the Applicants. None for the Respondents.

¶8

CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 10^th June, 2022

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

The Applicants have prayed for restoration of the Writ

¶11

Petition and that the Applicants be permitted to comply with the order

¶12

dated 12^th April, 2016 by extending time to comply to remove the office objections.

¶13

Arjun 43-CAW-3007-16.doc

¶14

2/3

¶15

Mr. Om Suryawanshi, learned counsel appearing for the Applicants states that, by conditional order dated 12^th April, 2016 passed by learned Registrar (Judicial-I) in the writ Petition, four weeks time was granted to remove office objections failing which the Writ Petition was directed to be dismissed. He submits that, for some administrative difficulties, office objections could not be removed within time and therefore, the Writ Petition was dismissed by said conditional order.

¶16

This Court has issued Rule on this Civil Application and made the same, returnable after 8 weeks by order dated 06^th December, 2016.

¶17

The office noting shows that the Respondent No. 1 to 3 are

¶18

duly served. However, none appears for the Respondents. The Respondents have not filed affidavit in reply. Therefore, the contentions raised in Civil Application have remained un-controverted

¶19

For the reasons set out in Civil Application, the same is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b). The Writ Petition is

¶20

Arjun 43-CAW-3007-16.doc

¶21

3/3

¶22

restored to file. The Petitioner to remove office objections within a period of four weeks from today.

¶23

The Civil Application is disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶24

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J)

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. v. Municipal Karmachari Sangh, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. v. Municipal Karmachari Sangh, Mumbai 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

Mr. Mahesh Ashoodomal Meghnani Vs Mr. Shailesh Ajitmal Doshi

Executive Engineer, Nandur Madhyameshwar Project, Nashik Vs Rambhau Shankar Shirsat and Anr.

Executive Engineer, Nandur Madhyameshwar Project, Nashik Vs Rambhau Shankar Shirsat and Anr.

Rajesh J Gupta Vs Manohar Mulchand Dorwani and Ors.

Naresh Nanakchand Agarwal and Anr. Vs Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Pune and Ors.

Jai Anant Sagar Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Anr. Vs Sunil Vishnu Sarang and Anr.