Bombay High Court
MCA/460/2003 of SHRI A.V. DHARWADKAR Vs M/S ELECTRO ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES and ORS., on 4 December 2003
COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 460 OF 2003 SHRI A.V. DHARWADKAR ....Applicants Versus M/S ELECTRO ENGINEERING ....Respondents ENTERPRISES & ORS., MR.B.V.SAKPAL WITH,MR.M.S.SONAK,R.1 Coram:- V. G. PALSHIKAR, J. Date:- 4th December, 2003 Hearing of this application was
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 460 OF 2003
SHRI A.V. DHARWADKAR
....Applicants
Versus
M/S ELECTRO ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES & ORS.,
....Respondents
MR.B.V.SAKPAL WITH,MR.M.S.SONAK,R.1
-Coram:V. G. PALSHIKAR, J.-Date:4th December, 2003
Hearing of this application wasadjourned on 16th October, 2003,although none had appeared for theapplicant. That indulgence was shown asa last chance. The matter thereafterappeared on 7th November, 2003, whenthe advocate for the applicant wasabsent and the party appeared in person.As the applicant is already representedthrough an advocate, the question ofhearing the party in person did notarise and once again by way ofindulgence the matter was adjourned.Today, when the application is calledout for hearing, Shri V.R.Tamba, made arequest on behalf of Shri Sakpal toadjourn the hearing of this application,on the ground that Shri Sakpal is inpersonal difficulty. This request isopposed by Shri Sonak, pointing out that the matter has been adjourned in the past on several dates on one count orthe other, at the instance of theapplicant, i.e. 22nd August, 2003, 29thAugust, 2003, 11th September, 2003, 25thSeptember, 2003, 9th October, 2003, 16thOctober, 2003 and lastly on 7thNovember, 2003.In this view of the matter the requestmade on behalf of the applicant foradjournment is rejected. Shri Tambasubmits that he has no instructions toproceed with the hearing of theapplication.In the circumstances this application isdismissed for non-prosecution.
V. G. PALSHIKAR, J.