← Library
Bombay High CourtMCA/1203/2019rejected

Shri. Kodaleshwar Sansthan, Amravati Thr. Its Managing Trustee/President Shrikant Balkisan Rathi v. The Additional Commissioner, Amravati And Others

2021-11-18Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.S. Chandurkar2 pages

MCA1203.19.odt 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.1203 OF2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4065/2018 Shri Kodaleshwar Sansthan, a registered Charitable Trust, through its Managing Trustee/President Shri Shrikant Balkisan Rathi, Bhatkuli, Dist. Amravati Vs.

The Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and others. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Shri A. J. Gilda, Advocate for applicant.

CORAM :- A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.

DATED :- NOVEMBER 18, 2021.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the grounds raised in the review application. Also perused the following decisions sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant:

1.

Management of State Bank of Hyderabad vs. Vasudev Anant Bhide etc. (1969) 2 SCC 491.

2.

Uma Ballav Rath(Smt.) vs. Maheshwar Mohanty (Smt) & ors. (1999) 3 SCC 357.

3.

Vinaykumar Kachrulal Abad vs. Honourable Minister, Revenue and Forst Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors. (2002) 1 Mh.L.J. 854.

4.

Union of India and anr. vs. British India Corporation Ltd.& ors. (2003) 9 SCC 505.

5.

Nilesh Vijay Deshmukh and anr. vs. Mathurabai Bhikanrao Deshmukh deceased through LRs. Aruna Vijayrao Deshmukh and ors. (2005) 4 Mh.L.J. 481.

6.

Jagadguru Annandanishwara Maha Swamiji vs. V. C.Allipur and anr. (2009) 4 SCC 625.

MCA1203.19.odt 2 7.

James Joseph vs. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 642. 8.

V. N. Shrikhande (Dr.) Vs. Anita Sena Fernandes (2011) 1 SCC 53.

In my view, there is no error apparent on the face of record and the grounds as raised are such that would require consideration in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. The review application is therefore rejected.

JUDGE Asmita