Disposed

Prasad Kamalakant Acharya v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority through Its Chief Officer, Mbrr Board

Bombay HC30 Apr 2024WP/2368/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay granted leave to the petitioner to amend the writ petition to implead Shraddha Enterprises as respondent No. 6. Notices were issued to respondents returnable on a specified date.

What did the court decide?

Leave to amend the writ petition to implead Shraddha Enterprises as respondent No. 6 was granted.

What the court decided

Prasad Kamalakant Acharya vs Maharashtra Housing and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Darshan Patil

¶2

41-WP-2368-2024.docx

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2368/2024

¶5

PRASAD KAMALAKANT ACHARYA AND ORS. ..PETITIONERS

¶6

VS. MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. ..RESPONDENTS

¶7

Adv. Freddy Bhadha i/b Adv. V.S. Kapse for the Petitioners. Adv. Umesh Tawari a/w Adv. Preet Vora i/b Adv. S. Ashwinikumar Co. LLP. for the Respondent No.2.

¶8

Adv. Vishal Thadani, Addl. GP for the State- Respondent No.4.

¶9

Adv. Jagdish G. Aradwod (Reddy) for Respondent No.1/MHADA.

¶10

Adv. S.S. Kharat for the proposed Respondent No.6 (Shraddha Enterprises)

¶11

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK & KAMAL KHATA, JJ.

¶12

DATE : APRIL 30, 2024

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶15

Learned counsel Shri Kharat appears on behalf of the

¶16

developer – Shraddha Enterprises and submits that Shraddha Enterprises should be impleaded as partyrespondent No.6.

1/3

Darshan Patil

41-WP-2368-2024.docx

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to amend, to implead Shraddha Enterprises as partyrespondent No.6.

¶21

Leave as sought for is granted. Amendment to be carried out before 10/05/2024. After the amendment is carried out, issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 14/06/2024.

¶22

Learned counsel Mr. Reddy appears on behalf of respondent No.1 and waives service of notice. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 appears and waives service of notice. Learned AGP appears for the State and waives service of notice.

¶23

Reverification is dispensed with.

¶24

In the meantime, learned counsel appearing for the proposed respondent No.6 submits that respondent No.6 is willing to pay the agreed rent to the petitioners. It is open for the petitioners to approach the proposed respondent No.6 for collecting the rent if they are so advised.

(KAMAL KHATA, J.)

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

2/3

Darshan Patil

41-WP-2368-2024.docx

3/3

Signed by: Darshan Patil Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 30/04/2024 19:10:17

Prasad Kamalakant Acharya v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority through Its Chief Officer, Mbrr Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Prasad Kamalakant Acharya v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority through Its Chief Officer, Mbrr Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Foodlink F and B Holdings India Private Limited vs Union of India and Ors.

Tanaji Dnyaneshwar Nimbalkar vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary Revenue and Forest Department

Mrs. Ramchandra Mahipat Nachare vs the Union of India and Ors.

Mr. Dashrath Rajaram Dalvi vs the Union of India and Ors.

Mrs. Sarita Ganesh Chavan vs the Union of India and Ors.

Mrs. Madhu Nanji Gohil vs the Union of India and Ors.