Suresh Sawant v. Rabindra B. Satam & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. It was sought to be argued by the appellant person a person, therefore, approach Apex Court against Court, therefore, alternative application before itself. Once evident Court record proceedings initiated appellant concluded dismissal thereof, dismissal confirmed appellate authority Court, appellant desires challange Apex Court. Nothing…
Judgment
favour The appellant and a proper order in that regard was passed on 13th October 1999.
#2. In spite of as above, it appears that appellant number applications, thereafter, applications dismissed 10th November 2003 a speaking order. Even appellant continued applications applications consequently passed 25th November 2003 Misc. Petition No. 35 2001 Section 203 Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act 1971 (hereinafter referred "said Act"), petition learned Advocate granted State, Section 2 Act. Even thereafter appellant continued applications applications, - 3 - impugned passed application. The present appeal sought frivlous questions pursue arise, matter having concluded dismissal appeal . Question of quashing of non- executable decree does not arise at all.
#3. It was sought to be argued by the appellant person a person, therefore, approach Apex Court against Court, therefore, alternative application before itself. Once evident Court record proceedings initiated appellant concluded dismissal thereof, dismissal confirmed appellate authority Court, appellant desires challange Apex Court. Nothing prevents appellant approaching Free Legal Aid Services Committee . Being so, poverty entitle applicant approach - 4 - Court applications applications, having application cannot entertained Court. In fact, conduct applicant results refrain warned similar inconvenience Court Court time. Though time, imposing costs, applicant applicant continues applications applications matter hand, Court alternative including imposition rejected. Appeal consequently stands dismissed. appropriate action, costs. Leave Sd/- [D. G. KARNIK, J.] [R.M.S. G. KARNIK, J.] [R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.] KHANDEPARKAR, J.] [D. [D. G. KARNIK, J.] [R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.] Sd/-
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.