Bombay High Court
CA/215/2016 of Sanjay suganchand Kasliwal Vs Tapdia Constructions Ltd. on 31 December 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION STAMP NO. 38328 OF 2015 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2015 (Sanjay Suganchand Kasliwal Vs. Tapadia Constructions Limited and another) Mr. Shrikant V. Adwant, Advocate for the applicant Mr.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION STAMP NO. 38328 OF 2015
IN
ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2015
(Sanjay Suganchand Kasliwal Vs. Tapadia ConstructionsLimited and another)
----
Mr. Shrikant V. Adwant, Advocate for the applicantMr. R.F. Totla, Advocate for the respondents
----
CORAM : M.T. JOSHI
(VACATION JUDGE)
DATE : 31/12/2015
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.
ORAL ORDER:
1. Not on board. Mentioned. Production allowed.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Though general instructions are issued that the proceedings in which Mr. R.F. Totla, Advocate appearsshould not be placed before this Court, in view of thefact that this court is operating during vacation, thehearing in the present matter is taken.
4. Considering the fact that the Special Leave Petition (S.L.P.) is already filed by the presentapplicant in the Supreme Court of India and the learned counsel for the respondents has filed on record,alongwith reply-affidavit, case-status report of thesaid S.L.P. (Exh-R1), which would show that in fact, theSpecial Leave Petition could not be registered for thedefects and the copy of the circular dated 18[th] December,2015 (Exh-R2) which shows that the urgent matters arebeing taken up for hearing during vacation before theVacation Bench of the Supreme Court of India, theprotection granted earlier to the present applicant,which was extended earlier, cannot now be extendedfurther.
.In the circumstances, the present civil application is dismissed.
[M.T. JOSHI] VACATION JUDGE
npj/cast38328-2015