Bombay High CourtMCA/171/2016dispossed offdismiss for default

Ksl And Industries Limited, Through Its Leagal Officer, Ms. Sandhya Dwivedi v. The City Of Nagpur Corporation, Through The Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur And 2 Others

2016-02-24Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.S. Chandurkar2 pages

MCA171-16 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.171/2016 IN W.P. NO. 3442/2014 (D) (KSL AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED, NAGPUR VERSUS THE CITY OF NAGPUR CORPORATION & ORS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.M. Gordey, Senior Counsel with Shri N.H. Shams, counsel for the petitioner.

Shri C.S. Kaptan, Senior Counsel with Shri A.M. Quazi, counsel for the R-1 & 2.

Shri C.J. Dhumane, counsel for the R-3.

CORAM : SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK AND A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

DATE : FEBRUARY 24 , 2016.

By this review application, the applicant seeks a review of the order dated 19.08.2014 in Writ Petition No.3442 of 2014.

It is stated that the respondents did not have jurisdiction to hold that the petitioner was a consumer in NR2 (Commercial-2) category as the petitioner was required to be considered as a consumer in NR1 (Commercial-1) category. Shri Kaptan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2, states on instructions that the respondent nos.1 and 2 are ready to consider the objection of the petitioner without insisting on payment of any dues and penalty at this stage. It is stated that the objection of the petitioner would be considered and decided within a period of three weeks. Shri Gordey, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, states that the proposal of the respondent nos.1 and 2 is acceptable to the petitioner and the objection of the petitioner could be decided after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

MCA171-16 In view of the statements recorded hereinabove, we dispose of the review application by accepting the statement made on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2 that the petitioner's objection would be decided within a period of three weeks, after hearing the petitioner. It is needless to mention that the petitioner should cooperate with the respondent nos.1 and 2 and produce the records, if desired by the respondent nos.1 and 2. Order accordingly. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE APTE