Allowed

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

Bombay HC23 Jan 2024IA/250/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This interim application sought condonation of delay of 119 days to set aside an earlier dismissal of a writ petition for want of prosecution. The High Court allowed the application, quashed the dismissal order, and restored the writ petition on its file without opining on the petitioners' locus standi.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 119 days delay. The order setting aside the writ petition for want of prosecution was quashed. The writ petition and other pending interim applications were restored.

M/S. Arthur Import Export Company and Another Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2.ia.250.2024.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by UTKARSH UTKARSH KAKASAHEB KAKASAHEB BHALERAO BHALERAO Date: 2024.01.24 10:43:08 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.250 OF 2024

¶5

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.6320 OF 1998

¶7

M/S Arthur Import Export Company .. Applicant/ Petitioner No.1

¶8

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S Arthur Import Export Company & Anr. .. Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

Mr.Rahul Kedar a/w Shraddha Jadhav i/b Aagam Doshi, Advocates for the Applicant.

¶14

Mr.Prathamesh Sawant i/b Mandar Limaye, Advocates for Respondent No.5.

¶15

Mr.A.I.Patel, Addl. G.P. a/w Ms.M.S.Bane, AGP for the State/Respondent.

¶16

Mr.R.S. Datar , Advocate for Respondent No.7.

¶17

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ.

¶18

DATE : JANUARY 23, 2024

Page 1 of 3

JANUARY 23, 2024

Utkarsh

2.ia.250.2024.doc

P. C.

1. The above Interim Application is filed seeking a Condonation of Delay of 119 days in preferring the above Interim Application which seeks to set aside the order dated 16^th June, 2023 passed by this Court dismissing the above Writ Petition for want of prosecution.

¶25

2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant/Petitioner, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Respondent No.5 and Respondent No.9 we are satisfied that the delay ought to be condoned.

¶26

3. In these circumstances, the Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (d) which read thus:-

¶27

"(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 119 days in preferring the present interim application.

¶28

(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and/or set aside the Order dated 16^th June 2023 (Exhibit A hereto) passed by this Hon'ble Court interalia dismissing the Writ Petition No.6320 of 1998.

¶29

(c) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to restore the Writ Petition No.6320 of 1998 on the file of this Hon'ble Court.

Page 2 of 3

JANUARY 23, 2024

Utkarsh

2.ia.250.2024.doc

(d) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restore all the other interim applications and/or civil applications as preferred by the Petitioners on the file of this Hon'ble Court."

¶35

4. Since, no interim orders granted in the above Writ Petition are placed before us, we have not granted prayer clause (e).

¶36

5. We make it clear that by restoring the Writ Petition we have not opined on the locus of the Petitioner to file the above Petition and that is something which would be decided in the Writ Petition.

¶37

6. The Interim Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

7. 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.

¶39

[SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN,J.] [B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶40

Page 3 of 3

¶41

JANUARY 23, 2024

¶42

Utkarsh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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

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

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

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