Two-judge bench found no infirmity in the impugned order and held the appeal itself not maintainable.
Impugned order upheld; appeal and interim application dismissed.
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.
14.ia.1459.2023.doc
Chaitali Ekke
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1459 OF 2023 IN
APPEAL (L) NO. 7221 OF 2023
Kaizer Taher Mithaiwala Applicant …(Org. Plaintiff) In the matter between Kaizer Taher Mithaiwala Appellant …(Org. Plaintiff) Versus Shamima Taher Mithaiwala and Ors. Respondents …(Org. Defendants) ….
None for Applicant / Appellant.
CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ. DATED : 24th April 2023
P.C.:
infirmity in it. Appeal itself is not maintainable.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)
1/1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order possessed any legal infirmity mandating interference.
Whether the appeal filed by the applicant was legally maintainable.
Kaizer Taher Mithaiwala
Shamima Taher Mithaiwala 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
