Dismissed¶30

Vijay Dyanoba Kate and Ors. v. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation Thr Commissioner and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Jun 2025WP/6616/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court; Writ Petition No. 6616 of 2025; Vijay Dyanoba Kate & Ors. vs Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation & Ors.; petition not entertained due to pending Regular Civil Suit No. 357/2006, 9th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division Pune; dismissed as withdrawn with liberty; contentions on merits kept open; Rs.1,00,000/- deposit undertaking to Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa Advocate Aid Fund; compliance on 9 July 2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed; liberty to pursue remedies available and already being pursued by the petitioner; all contentions of all parties on merits kept open; petitioner to deposit costs within one week; compliance listed for 9th July 2025. ¶30

Vijay Dyanoba Kate and Ors. vs Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation Thr Commissioner and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Digitally signed by SHAGUFTA QUTBUDDIN SHAGUFTA PATHAN QUTBUDDIN Date: PATHAN 2025.06.27 16:28:09 +0530

¶2

10-WP-6616-2025.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 6616 OF 2025

¶5

Vijay Dyanoba Kate & Ors. … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal … Respondents Corporation, Through Commissioner & Ors.

¶8

Mr. S. S. Patwardhan a/w Mr. Harshad Sathe and Mr. Siddhesh Bane for the Petitioner

¶9

Mr. S. P. Kamble, A.G.P for the Respondent No.1-State

¶10

Mr. Kedar B. Dighe for the Respondent No. 6

¶11

Dr. Milind Sathe, Sr. Advocate a/w Ms. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) for the Respondent No.9

¶12

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. WEDNESDAY, 25th JUNE 2025

¶13

P.C :

¶14

1 Mr. Sathe, learned senior counsel appearing for

¶15

respondent No. 9, has tendered a compilation of documents. The

¶16

same is taken on record.

SQ Pathan

1/3

10-WP-6616-2025.doc

2 After arguing for some time, when we were not inclined to entertain the petition, since the petitioner is already pursuing Regular Civil Suit No. 357/2006 before the 9^th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition, with liberty to pursue the remedies available to the petitioner and already being pursued by the petitioner.

¶21

3 Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, further states that the petitioner voluntarily undertakes to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and

¶22

Goa Advocate Aid Fund, within one week from today, for suppression of certain facts. The said statement is accepted. Details of the bank account for payment of cost are as under :

¶23

Account No.10996711937

¶24

Bank Name: State Bank of India

¶25

Branch Name: Mumbai Main Branch

¶26

IFSC Code:SBIN0000300

¶27

SQ Pathan

¶28

2/3