The court disposed of the appeal by directing the trial court to decide the notice of motion within eight weeks. The court did not examine the merits and maintained the status quo between the parties.
Trial court directed to decide notice of motion within eight weeks; status quo maintained.
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.
SMITA Digitally signed by SMITA JOHNSON JOHNSON GONSALVESDate: 2024.03.20 GONSALVES 09:55:31 +0530
8.ao601-22.doc
sg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 601 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3622 OF 2022 IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 601 OF 2022
Mahesh Valaramji Choudhary vs.
Dilip Babulal Ranka
...Appellant/Applicant
...Respondent
Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, i/b. Kaushik & Co., for the Appellant.
Mr. Ankit Rajput, a/w. D.V. Saroj, for the Respondent.
CORAM : R.N. LADDHA, J.
DATE : 19 MARCH 2024
P.C. :
. The learned Counsel for the parties, in unison, submitted that this appeal can be disposed of by directing the learned trial court to decide the notice of motion finally in a time bound manner.
1 / 2
8.ao601-22.doc
of the matter, and if the occasion so arises, the appellant is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law. Till then, the parties to maintain status-quo.
of.
2 / 2
Mahesh Valaramji Choudhary
Dilip Babulal Ranka
R.N. Laddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court