Tag: Land Acquisition/Requisition(Central/State) Requisition

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.552 OF 2013 M/s.Neha Enterprises .. Appellants Versus Smt.Marubai Narayan Thakur and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.V.A.Thorat, Senior Advocate i/b. R.A.Thorat, Senior Advocate with Mr.Himanshu Kode i/b. Mr.S.A.Sawant for the appellants Mr.P.S.Dani i/b. Mr.Amol Patil for respondent Nos. 10A and 10B CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. 13rd June 2013. P.C.: 1] When this appeal from order was listed for admission pursuant to the order of the learned Vacation Judge on private notice the contesting respondents 10A and 10B have appeared and Mr.Dani, learned Counsel states that Mr.Amol Patil, Advocate has instructions to appear for them and a caveat has also been filed on their behalf. He further states that he would file vakalatnama on their behalf within a week. 2] At the request of the caveators' Advocate and in order to enable him to file vakalatnama and take instructions, S.O. 26th June 2013. Ad-interim order to continue till 1st July 2013. (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J)

Order - Status 9: mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APEAL FROM ORDER NO. 552 OF 2013 M/s. Neha Enterprises Appellants Vs. Mrs. Marubai Narayan Thakur & Ors. Respondents Mr. V.A. Thorat, Sr. Advocate a/w. R.A. Thorat and S.A. Sawant for Appellants Mr. Ajay Patil for Respondent No.6 Mr. Rohit Sachdeo for Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 Mr. P.S. Dani i/b. A.B. Patil and D.D. Ausarkar for Respondent Nos. 10A and 10B CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 1ST JULY, 2013 P.C. : The impugned order of the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Panvel dated 14th May, 2013 shows the setting out of the facts and arguments of the Advocates of the parties with regard to the main issue No. 1 in paragraphs 1 to 36 of the order. The issue which has been answered in paragraph 37 does not show the reasons for acceptance of the arguments of one party or rejection of arguments of the other. Both Counsel agree that the order cannot be sustained for want of reasons. Based upon the same facts and arguments the learned Judge would require to give his reasons for coming to the conclusion that he does. However both parties would be entitled to reargue the application under Exhibit42 on a single specified date of hearing upon which the learned Judge shall pass an order with reasons. The learned Judge shall fix a clear date in the month of July, 2013 for the aforesaid purpose. Consequently the impugned order is set aside. The interim order passed in this Appeal from Order shall continue until the disposal of Exhibit42 application by the learned Judge and two weeks thereafter. The Appeal from Order is disposed of accordingly. The civil application is also disposed of accordingly. (MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)