Disposed

Shri Dev Narayan Feku Yadav v. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and Another

Bombay HC12 Nov 2024AO/451/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Procedural order on an appeal from order with office objections outstanding. Two weeks' time was earlier given but not complied with; the Registrar granted one final two-week opportunity to remove office objections, failing which registration would stand refused without further reference.

What did the court decide?

Final two weeks' time to remove office objections; on failure registration to be refused without further reference.

Shri Dev Narayan Feku Yadav vs Mumbai… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.451 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.9531 OF 2024

¶4

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s orders appearance, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders CORAM : S.R. AGRAWAL REGISTRAR (JUDL. - II) DATE : 26^th November, 2024

¶5

None Present.

¶6

The above numbered Appeal from Order No.451 of 2024 alongwith Interim Application No.9531 of 2024 are listed on the board of Registrar second time. Already two weeks time has been granted, however, despite granting two weeks time, the office objections are not removed.

¶7

Here reference to Chapter V of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (for short “Rules”) may be conveniently made. It states about procedure after presentation, removal of office objections etc.

¶8

In view of provisions under Chapter V, Rule 3(ii), the Advocates/Parties are expected to remove the office objections within 14 days from the date of notification.

¶9

Rule(5) further provides that, if the office objections are not removed as provided under Chapter V, Rule 3, the office shall place the matter before the Registrar, who shall refuse the registration of all such matters. The prescribed time to remove the office objections provided under Rule 1960 has been expired long back. 02 weeks time was granted, but all in vain. The matter is lying ideally without any progress due to non removal of office objections. However, instead of passing order of refusal of registration outrightly, it would be just and proper to give one opportunity to remove the office objections. In turn, two weeks time is granted with directions to remove the ofce objections fi without fail. On failure, registration would stand refused, without further reference to the Court of Registrar. No further extension will be granted . sd/Registrar (Judl. - II) dsm

Shri Dev Narayan Feku Yadav v. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Dev Narayan Feku Yadav v. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anita Shashikant @ Raju Damate and Anr. vs Avinash Vasantrao Powar and Ors.

Giridahrilal Shankarlal Mehta and Anr. vs Sou. Jagdevi Hanmantu Gaikwad and Ors.

Bhimashankar Gangadhar Vadle vs Vithal Wamanrao Dhokale and Anr.

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division No. 1, Solapur and Anr. vs Dhondopant @ Appasaheb Nanasaheb Deshmukh and Ors.

Arun Savlaram Kashikar and Anr. vs Monarch Constructions Company and Ors.

Vitthal Kindalika Kambale vs the Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State and Ors.