Allowed

State of Maharashtra through the Collector of Stamps Mumbai City v. Pinak Bharat and Co. and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Jan 2024IA/100/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court condoned a delay of 383 days in filing an interim application seeking to quash an order rejecting the main appeal for non-removal of office objections. The appeal was restored to the file subject to the removal of objections within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 383 days condoned; appeal restored to file subject to removal of office objections within two weeks.

State of Maharashtra through the Collector of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

3 ia. 100-24.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE

¶4

Digitally signed by LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE Date: 2024.01.24 14:50:26 +0530

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 100 OF 2024 IN COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO. 19226 OF 2023

¶6

State of Maharashtra

¶7

..Applicant/Org. Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Pinak Bharat and Co. & Ors.

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. GP for the Applicant/Appellant.

¶12

Mr. Prerak Sharma a/w Nihir Dedhia for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶13

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 23, 2024

¶14

P. C.

¶15

The above Interim Application is filed seeking a condonation of delay of 383 days in preferring the above Interim Application to quash and set aside the order dated 21^st November, 2022 passed in the above Appeal, whereby the Appeal was rejected for non removal of office objections under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court [Original Side] Rules, 1980.

¶16

Laxmi

¶17

Page 1 of 3 JANUARY 23 2024

¶18

3 ia. 100-24.doc

¶19

The learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant/Original Appellant submitted that the only contesting parties are Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and they have been duly served.

¶20

The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 fairly stated that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have no objection if the delay is condoned and the above Appeal is restored to file.

¶21

In these circumstances, the above Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) which read thus:

¶22

“(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to condone the delay of 383 days (12 months 18 days) in preferring the above Interim Application in the interest of justice and equity.

¶23

(b) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside Order dated 21.11.2022, passed in the above Appeal whereby the above Appeal was rejected for nonremoval of office objections under Rule 986 of High court Original Side Rules 1980, and this Hon’ble Court be further pleased to restore the above Appeal alongwith the Interim Application bearing Lodging No. 1570 of 2023, to the rank and file to this Hon’ble Court.”

¶24

Now that the Appeal is restored, the Appellant/Applicant shall remove all office objections within a period of two weeks from today.

¶25

Page 2 of 3 JANUARY 23 2024

¶26

Laxmi

¶27

3 ia. 100-24.doc

¶28

The above Interim Application is disposed of in the aforesaid

¶29

terms. No order as to costs.

¶30

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶31

[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]

¶32

[ B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶33

Page 3 of 3 JANUARY 23 2024

¶34

Laxmi

State of Maharashtra through the Collector of Stamps Mumbai City v. Pinak Bharat and Co. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Maharashtra through the Collector of Stamps Mumbai City v. Pinak Bharat and Co. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India Vs District Magistrate Pune

Sangli Aluminium Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Mahendra Meghani Vs Ms Shree Tirupati Greenfield

Tourism Finance Corporation of India Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. Arthur Import Export Company and Another Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

The Suburban Table Tennis Association ( Tstta ) Thr. Its Authorised Representative Chairman Vs Maharashtra State Table Tennis Association, ( Mstta ) and Ors.