Disposed

Mep Infrastructure Developers Ltd. and Anr. v. Msrdc Sea Link Ltd. and 2 Ors. and Ozoneland Private Ltd. through Ankur Mangal

Bombay HC21 Jul 2022IA/3300/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court granted liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh writ petition instead of granting leave to amend the current application, due to subsequent events rendering the original relief infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file a fresh writ petition; original writ petition dismissed as withdrawn.

Mep Infrastructure Developers Ltd. and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

907.ia.3300-22

¶2

PMB

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

Digitally signed by PRADNYA PRADNYA MAKARAND MAKARAND BHOGALE BHOGALE Date: 2022.07.21 13:32:21 +0530

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3300 of 2022 IN WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 20131 OF 2022

¶6

MEP Infrastructure Developers Ltd. and anr. .. Applicants/ Petitioners

¶7

vs. MSRDC Sea Link Ltd. and ors. .. Respondents ------------

¶8

Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Advocate, Mr. Ashish Kamat, Mr. Yashish Kamdar, Mr. Deepak Deshmukh, Ms. Swati Singh, Mr. Rakesh Gupta i/b. Naik Naik & Company for applicants/petitioners.

¶9

Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Prashant Chawan, Mr. Arun Siwach, Ms. Priyanka Mitra, Mr. Karan Gandhi i/b. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

¶10

Mr. Abhay Patki, Additional Government Pleader for State – respondent no. 3.

¶11

CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶12

DATE : JULY 21, 2022

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

1. This is an application for amendment seeking to bring on record certain subsequent events after institution of the writ petition as well as after the last order dated July 1, 2022. In our view, such subsequent events afford the petitioners a fresh cause of action to move Court and have

¶15

¶16

907.ia.3300-22

¶17

the effect of rendering relief claimed in the writ petition infructuous. Instead of granting leave to amend, it would be better if the petitioners are granted liberty to file a fresh writ petition.

¶18

2. At this stage, Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, learned senior advocate, on instructions, prays for withdrawal of the writ petition. He also seeks liberty to file a fresh writ petition raising all points of facts and law.

¶19

3. Leave, as prayed for, is granted.

¶20

4. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

5. Interim Application No. 3300 of 2022 does not survive and stands disposed of.

¶22

6. This order shall not preclude the petitioners to file a fresh writ petition on the fresh cause of action.

¶23

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶24

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶25

Mep Infrastructure Developers Ltd. and Anr. v. Msrdc Sea Link Ltd. and 2 Ors. and Ozoneland Private Ltd. through Ankur Mangal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mep Infrastructure Developers Ltd. and Anr. v. Msrdc Sea Link Ltd. and 2 Ors. and Ozoneland Private Ltd. through Ankur Mangal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharadchandran K Swaminathan Vs Union of India and 5 Ors.

Lt Col Pankaj Ahuja (Retd) Vs Union of India through the Ministry of Defence and Ors.

Saji Iyakaramuruyil Pappachan Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and 3 Ors.

Madhuri Ulhas Mokashi and Anr. Vs M/S Sunita Constructions

Sudhakar Shamrao Patil Vs Shriniwas Sudhakar Patil and Ors.