NOTICE OF MOTION 579/2011 v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 19 Jan 2012
- Bench
- MRIDULA BHATKAR, S A BOBDE
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION 579/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.582/2008 M/s Devraj R.Pagaria & Ors. Petitioners/Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AND Newlook Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Respondents Applicant/Res.7 Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr.Adv.i/b Mr.A.P.Fanibanda for Applicants/Res.7 Mr.S.B.Pawar i/b M/s S.K.Legal Asso.for petitioner Mr.J.G.Aradwad (Reddy)for res.5 Ms.Vidya Gharpure for BMC Mr.Niranjan Pandit, AGP for Res.1 & 2 CORAM- S.A.BOBDE AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE-19TH JANUARY,2012 P.C. . We find from the prayer clauses in the petition that prayer clause (b)
This Honourable Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned Annexure-II Certificate dated 12/10/2006 issued by the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 and the revised Letter of Intent dated 14/11/2007 issued by the Respondent no.5 in respect of the suit property
is liable to be considered by the High Power Committee in view of paragraph-114 of the Judgment of the Full Bench (Tulsiwadi 2 NM 579/2011 Navnirman Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. & Anr. Vs.State of Maharashtra & Ors.) reported in 2008(1) Bom.C.R.1 . We accordingly permit the petitioner to delete the said prayer clause from this petition and further grant leave to the petitioner to approach the High Power Committee in relation to prayer clause ‘b’. Interim order to continue . Notice of Motion is disposed of accordingly. (Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar,J.) (S.A.Bobde,J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 19 Jan 2012. The bench was MRIDULA BHATKAR, S A BOBDE.
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.