Dismissed

Shri. Austin Jerome Rodricks and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra through Revenue Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Aug 2023WP/11258/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ petition which was disposed of on consent terms. The court recorded the settlement, marked consent terms on record, and disposed of the petition accordingly, accepting undertakings given to the court.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to delete petitioner died; Consent terms taken on record marked X; Writ Petition disposed of accordingly.

Shri. Austin Jerome Rodricks and Ors. Vs the State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

SWAROOP Digitally signed bySWAROOP SHARAD SHARAD PHADKE PHADKE Date: 2023.08.1014:24:55 +0530

¶2

4 wp 11258 of 2018.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11258 OF 2018

¶4

Austin Jerome Rodricks and Ors. … Petitioners versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents

¶6

Ms. Shaista Pathan i/by Y&A Legal for Petitioners. Mr. P.P.Poojari, for Respondent Nos.1 to 5. Ms. Anusha Pravin Amin, for Respondent No.7.

¶7

Mr. Austin Rodricks, Petitioner No.1 and Mr. Prakashchand Jain, Respondent No.7 are present.

¶8

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 9 AUGUST 2023

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶11

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioner No.2

¶12

has passed away and seeks leave to delete Petitioner No.2 from the array of the Petition as the Petitioner Nos.3 to 7 are the only legal representatives of the Petitioner No.2.

¶13

Leave granted.

¶14

Necessary amendment be carried out in the Petition forthwith.

¶15

The learned Counsel submit that the Petitioners and Respondent No.7

¶16

have amicably resolved the dispute and the Consent Terms have been executed. The

¶17

learned Counsel seeks leave to tender Consent Terms.

¶18

SSP

¶19

4 wp 11258 of 2018.doc

¶20

Leave granted.

¶21

Mr. Austin Rodricks, Petitioner No.1 and the Power of Attorney holder

¶22

of Petitioner Nos.3 to 7 and Mr. Prakashchand Pukhraj Jain, partner of Respondent No.7 are present in Court. They admit the contents of the Consent Terms and the execution thereof. They are identified by their respective Advocates.

¶23

Mr. Austin Rodricks, Petitioner No.1, upon being inquired, specifically submits that the Petitioners have voluntarily agreed to enter into the settlement.

¶24

It seems that the parties have voluntarily settled the dispute and there is no coercion or duress.

¶25

Hence, the Consent Terms are taken on record and marked ‘X’.

¶26

The Writ Petition stands disposed in accordance with the Consent

¶27

Terms, ‘X’.

¶28

The undertakings given in the Consent Terms are accepted as

¶29

undertakings to the Court.

¶30

( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

¶31

SSP 2/2

Shri. Austin Jerome Rodricks and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra through Revenue Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Austin Jerome Rodricks and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra through Revenue Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Sherona John Rodrigues vs Mr. Khozema Firoz Sager and Ors.

Sheelkumar Shitalprasad Nirala vs Satyaswapna Shailesh Nirala

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs S.Ramaswamy

M/S. Skyline Developers, Thr. Its Partner Shri Narendra Janardan Pathak Vs Suresh Yashwant Phadke and Others

St. Philomena Bakery Thr. Its Partner Shoeb Atta Mohd.Siddiqui Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Another

Santosh Appaso Naik Vs State of Maharashtra