Rama Sakharam Parab & Ors. v. Ambika Prasad Kaushik & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 05 Aug 2010
- Bench
- R V MORE
Provisions considered
- Indian Contract Act, 1872 ss. 202, 203
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The Petitioners themselves are before this Court and they have filed the civil application stating therein that they do not want to proceed with the writ petition and accordingly sought leave to withdraw the petition unconditionally . In my view, unconditional leave for withdrawal…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2060 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4754 OF 2010 Rama Sakharam Parab & Ors. Versus Ambika Prasad Kaushik & Ors. ....Petitioners ...Respondents Mr. Uday Warunjikar, Advocate for Constituted Attorney of the Petitioners. Mr. P. S. Dani a/w. Mr. R. M. Pethe i/b. M/s. Sanjay Udeshi & Co., Advocates for Original Petitioners/Applicants in Civil Application No. 2060 of 2010. Mr. Y. S. Jahagirdar, Sr. Advocate i/b. M/s. Shiralkar & Co., Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mrs. S. S. Bhende, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 6 & 8. P.C.: CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 5th AUGUST, 2010. The petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioners by Power of Attorney holder – Dr. Arjun S. Nittinwar. The civil application is filed by the Petitioners for leave to withdraw the petition on the ground that the power of attorney in favour of Dr. Arjun S. Nittinwar. is revoked prior to filing of the writ petition.
Mr. Warunjikar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners in the writ petition submits that revocation and/or cancellation of WP 4754/10 2 SSK/1 the power of attorney is not legal in view of the provisions of sections 202 and 203 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the ratio of judgments of the Apex Court in Seth Loon Karan Sethiya Versus Ivan E. John & Ors.reported in A.I.R. 1969 Supreme Court 73 and Barses J. A. D’Souza versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Brihan Mumbai & Ors. 2003 (6) Bom. C. R.846.
The Petitioners themselves are before this Court and they have filed the civil application stating therein that they do not want to proceed with the writ petition and accordingly sought leave to withdraw the petition unconditionally . In my view, unconditional leave for withdrawal of the petition cannot be opposed by Mr. Warjunjikar, learned Counsel appearing in the original petition on behalf of the Petitioners through the power of attorney holder. If there is any dispute regarding cancellation or revocation of the power of attorney, the parties are at liberty to seek appropriate relief before Competent Forum. Leave to withdraw the writ petition is accordingly granted. The writ petition and the civil application are disposed of.
It is expressly made clear that I have not gone into the legality of cancellation or revocation of the power of attorney by the Original Petitioners, as well as merits of the petition.
(R. V. MORE, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Contract Act, 1872 — ss. 202, 203.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 05 Aug 2010. The bench was R V MORE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.