Dismissed
Mep Infrastructure Developers Ltd. v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.
Bombay HCRPW/9/2022
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL…
What the court decided
AI extract
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.
VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD
Digitally signed by VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Date: 2023.07.21 11:08:54 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO. 9 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 7158 OF 2021
MEP Infrastructure Developers Ltd. ...Petitioner
V/s.
South Delhi Municipal Corporation…Respondents
and Ors.
Mr. Rafiq Dada, Senior Advocate with Ms. Madhu Gadodia with Mr.
Deepak Chitnis, with Mr. Vivek Dwivedi with Mr. Hrishikesh Nadkarni
I.by Naik Naik and Co. for petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Joshi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Vashishth with Mr.
Shreyas Shrivastava with Mr. Tanmay Bidkar with Mr. Aakash
Chandran with Mrs. Tanisha Choudhary with Mr. Hemant Kumar
Fauzdar for respondent no. 1 in RPW/9/2022.
Ms. M.P. Thakur-AGP for the State.
CORAM:SUNIL B. SHUKRE &
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.J.
DATE:20th JULY 2023.
P.C. :
Heard.
2.Although, learned Senior counsel for the review petitioner
submits that review petitioner was not joined as a party respondent to
the original petition which is true in fact, we are of the view that non
joining of the review petitioner as a party respondent to the original
1-rpw-9-2022.doc
varsha
1 of 2
petition has not caused any prejudice to the review petitioner as other
remedies for redressal of it’s grievance are already available to the
petitioner and they have not been foreclosed so far. After all, by the
order under review this Court has only accepted the statement made
by the learned AGP that the respondents would have no objection if
prayer clause (a) is granted.
3.In this view of the matter, we find no error apparent on the
face of record. The review petition stands dismissed. All contentions
are kept open.
(MILIND N. JADHAV, J)
(SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J)
1-rpw-9-2022.doc
varsha
2 of 2
MEP Infrastructure Developers Ltd.
South Delhi Municipal Corporation
SUNIL B. SHUKRE
MILIND N. JADHAV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court