Shewalkar Developers Ltd. Through Its Managing Director Shri Ashutosh Ram Shewalkar vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. Etc. Etc
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
After Week/Month/Vacation
Before:
Hon'ble Hrishikesh Roy
Stage:
DIRECTION MATTERS
Listed On:
22 Jul 2020
In:
Chamber
Category:
UNKNOWN
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
ITEM NO.1 Court 7 (Video Conferencing) SECTION III
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 10654-10655/2018
M/S SHEWALKAR DEVELOPERS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRI ASHUTOSH RAM SHEWALKAR Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Respondent $(s)$
(Only SLP Nos. 9038-39/2019 are to be listed )
WITH
SLP(C) No. 9038-9039/2019 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.38000/2019-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.38003/2019-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.38004/2019-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.38002/2019-PERMISSION TO FILE PETITION (SLP/TP/WP/..) and IA No.38001/2019-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING AS PER SUBM. NOTE DTD. 25/26.03.2019)
Date: 22-07-2020 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY [IN CHAMBER]
| For Appellant(s) | Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR | |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv. | ||
| Mr. Arshiya Ghosh, Adv. | ||
| Mr. Divyanshi Tiwari, Adv. |
Mr. Sachin Pujari, Adv. Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. S. R. Setia, AOR
Mr. Anand Landge, Adv. Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv. Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR
Mr. Somanatha Padhan, AOR
M/S. Lambat And Associates, AOR
Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
Mr. Sachin Pujari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Co-op Society submits that unserved respondent nos. 5 to 9 are proforma respondents and are not the contesting respondents. These respondents have separately filed Special Leave Petition against impugned judgment of the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. Accordingly, Mr. Pujari prays for the liberty to serve notice on the respondent nos. 5 to 9, through their advocate on record, who have filed the SLPs. Such prayer made by the counsel is allowed.
The other respondents are granted four weeks' time to file their counter affidavits.
The petitioner to also serve the copy of the SLP on the Standing Counsel on the State of Maharashtra.
(JATINDER KAUR) (DIPTI KHURANA) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)
2