This is a thin list order passed on abandonment due to the non-appearance of the appellant. The single judge dismissed the appeal and disposed of the interim application because the appellant failed to present themselves without assigning any excuses.
Appeal dismissed; Interim application disposed of.
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.
SMITA Digitally signed by SMITA JOHNSON JOHNSON GONSALVESDate: 2023.03.30 GONSALVES 11:13:30 +0530
30.app58-23.doc
sg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO.58 OF 2023 IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2177 OF 2019 WITH
COURT RECEIVER'S REPORT NO.243 OF 2021
IN
APPEAL NO.58 OF 2023
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.6129 OF 2021 IN APPEAL NO.58 OF 2023
Hamida Habib Merchant ...Appellant vs. Asra Constructions And Ors. ...Respondents
None for the Appellant.
Mr. Prithvi Aringale, i/b. Auris Legal, for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Javeed Hussein, i/b. Hussein & Co., for Respondent No.3.
CORAM: K.R. SHRIRAM & RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 28th MARCH 2023
P.C:-
On 6th December 2022, following order came to be passed:-
1 / 2
30.app58-23.doc
sg
“1. Ms. Pulekar states that appellant had taken away the papers from Mr. Pagare more than two months ago, i.e. before Diwali vacation and they have no instructions to appear.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)
(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)
2 / 2
Hamida Habib Merchant
Asra Constructions And Ors.
K.R. SHRIRAM
RAJESH S. PATIL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
