Disposed

M/S. Sun Corporation through Its Partner Shri. Vinod B.Nisar v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Mar 2023WP/7869/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition seeking status regarding the petitioner's project. The judge directed CIDCO to submit a complete proposal with proper signatures within three weeks, mandating MCZMA to decide upon receipt.

What did the court decide?

CIDCO directed to submit complete project proposal in proper format within three weeks; MCZMA to take decision upon receipt.

M/S. Sun Corporation through Its Partner Shri. Vinod… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

23-WP.7869.2021

¶2

jvs

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

SALUNKE J V

¶5

Digitally signed by SALUNKE J V Date: 2023.03.28 11:01:20 +0530

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 7869 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2532 OF 2023

¶7

M/s. Sun Corporation } Petitioner versus Union of India & Ors. } Respondents

¶8

Mr. D. S. Sakhalkar with Mr. Yash Tiwari i/b. Mr. K. R. Tiwari & Co. for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Santosh Shetye for the applicant in IA/2532/2023.

¶10

Mr. R. P. Kadam, AGP for State (R-2).

¶11

Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo for respondent no. 3 (CIDCO).

¶12

Ms. Jaya Bagwe for respondent no. 6.

¶13

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, Act.CJ.& SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE: MARCH 27, 2023

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1. Under order dated 17^th February 2023, we had asked respondent no. 3 to give the status with regard to the petitioner’s project within 15 days to the respondent no. 6 (MCZMA).

¶16

2. Ms. Sakhadeo, learned advocate for respondent no. 3 submits that respondent no. 3 had given the list of all the projects to respondent no. 6 long back.

¶17

3. The learned advocate for respondent no. 6 submits that the CIDCO has to submit the proposal in a proper format and under the signature of the Commissioner or the Managing Director of respondent no. 3.

¶18

¶19

23-WP.7869.2021

¶20

4. The respondent no. 3 shall, within three weeks from today, submit the proposal in proper format and under the signature of the competent authority. The said proposal shall be complete in all respects. The respondent no. 6 shall thereafter consider the said proposal in the first meeting that would be held upon receipt of the proposal from the respondent no. 3 and take a decision on the same.

¶21

5. Depending upon the decision taken by respondent no. 6, the parties may take steps immediately.

¶22

6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶23

7. In light of the disposal of the writ petition, the interim application stands disposed of.

¶24

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

¶25

(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶26

M/S. Sun Corporation through Its Partner Shri. Vinod B.Nisar v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Sun Corporation through Its Partner Shri. Vinod B.Nisar v. Union of India 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

Namdeo G Ahirrao Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Yogesh Laxman Jadhav Vs the Collector Solapur and Ors.

Vishal Prabhakar Naik and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Gen. Administration Dept. and Ors.

Union of India Vs Deepak Kumar

Kiran Bhairu Tanavade Vs the State of Maharashtra Secretary Revenue and Forest and Ors.

Mr. Ramesh Subedar Pandey and Ors. Vs M/S. Sun Corporation and Ors.