Allowed

Manoj Suresh Udmale v. the State of Maharashtra through the Chief Secretary and Others

Bombay HC14 Jul 2023CA/4869/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad disposed of a civil application for review filed by Manoj Suresh Udmale. The Court condoned a delay of 125 days due to lack of knowledge about staff approval orders and allowed the application to proceed by registering the review application and seeking an affidavit from respondents.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Application stands allowed; registry is directed to verify and register the review application.

Manoj Suresh Udmale Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

901-CA-4869-2023.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4869 OF 2023

¶4

IN
REVIEW APPLICATION STAMP NO. 9250 OF 2023

¶5

IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 6882 OF 2019

¶7

MANOJ SURESH UDMALE
VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶9

Mr. A. S. Shelke, Advocate for applicant
Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for the State

¶10

Mr. Sanket S. Jangale, Advocates h/f Mr. Rahul R. Karpe, Advocate
for respondent Nos. 3 and 4

¶11

Mr. P. S. Dighe, Advocate for respondent No.5

¶12

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

¶13

DATE:14.07.2023

¶14

PER COURT :-

¶15

1.Learned Advocate Mr. Dighe submits that he has

¶16

instructions to appear for respondent No.5. He is tendering the
Vakalatnama. Learned Advocate Mr. Jangale, holding for learned
Advocate Mr. Rahul R. Karpe, submits that they have instructions
to appear for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Vakalatnama to be filed
within a period of two weeks.

¶17

1 of 2

¶18

(( 2 ))

¶19

901-CA-4869-2023

¶20

2.Though both the learned Advocates are strongly opposing
the application, taking into consideration the duration of the delay
i.e. 125 days and the reason that on account of lack of knowledge
about staff approval orders dated 21.11.2018 and 05.05.2022, it is
stated that he approached late for the review. We take that it is a
good ground to condone the delay. Hence, the Civil Application
stands allowed and disposed of.

¶21

3. Registry to verify and register the review application.

¶22

4.As regards review application is concerned, if advised,
respondent Nos. 3 to 5 may file affidavit-in-reply on or before
27.07.2023 by giving a copy of the same to the other side in advance.
We clarify that this opportunity will not be given to them, later on.

¶23

5.Stand over to 28.07.2023.

¶24

[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]

¶25

SMS

¶26

 2 of 2

Manoj Suresh Udmale v. the State of Maharashtra through the Chief Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Suresh Udmale v. the State of Maharashtra through the Chief Secretary and Others

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

Kailash Baburao Maind Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Chandrakant Sanduji Hivrale Vs Dayaram P. Bhoite and Others

Indubai W/O. Ashok Dandge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dipak Sadashiv Khandare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nana Bhimrao Patil (Dukre) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manoj Suresh Udmale Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Chief Secretary and Others