← Library
Bombay High CourtRPW/36/2021disposed off

Walchand Institute Of Technology And ANR v. Abhaykumar Manikrao Kalje

2022-04-01Hon'Ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik4 pages

Urmila Ingale

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

by URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Date:

2022.04.01 17:54:50 +0530 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION URMILA PRAMOD INGALE REVIEW PETITION NO. 35 OF 2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1086 OF 2020 Walchand Institute of Technology and anr.

..Petitioners vs.

Mahesh Yashwant Sathe ..Respondent WITH REVIEW PETITION NO. 36 OF 2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1087 OF 2020 Walchand Institute of Technology and anr.

..Petitioners vs.

Abhaykumar Manikrao Kalje ..Respondent WITH REVIEW PETITION NO. 39 OF 2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1090 OF 2020 Walchand Institute of Technology and anr.

..Petitioners vs.

Vijay Maruti Nakate ..Respondent WITH REVIEW PETITION NO. 37 OF 2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1088 OF 2020 Walchand Institute of Technology and anr.

..Petitioners vs.

Shekhar Apparao Jeurkar ..Respondent

WITH REVIEW PETITION NO. 38 OF 2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1089 OF 2020 Walchand Institute of Technology and anr.

..Petitioners vs.

Surendra Mrugendra Jangam ..Respondent ...........

Mr. Kiran Bapat i/b Mr. S.R. Waghmare, for Petitioners. Mr. S.S. Pakale i/b Mr. S.M. Katkar, for Respondent. Mr.Rajendrakumar Rawal, Assistant Professor representing PetitionerInstitute is present. ...........

CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, JJ.

DATE : 01st APRIL, 2022 P.C.:- 1.

The parties have tendered the minutes of order dated 01/04/2022. It is one of the contention of the learned Counsel for the review petitioners that they were not heard when the petitions were disposed of. The petitions were disposed of after hearing the learned Counsel for the respondents (original petitioners) as the office note indicated that the review petitioners (original respondents) were duly served with the notice. 2.

Be that as it may, learned Counsel for the review petitioners was gracious enough to accept the suggestion of this Court with a view to put an end to this litigation. Learned Counsel for the

respondents did not oppose the suggestion and both parties have fairly proceeded to reach an amicable resolution in terms of the minutes of order. The minutes of order are taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. The minutes of order are duly signed by Mr. Sandip Waghmare, advocate on record for the review petitioners on instructions of Rajendrakumar Raval- Assistant Professor of the petitioner-Institute. On the instructions of Mr. Mahesh Y. Sathe, the respondent and also on the instructions of the respondents in the connected writ petitions, the minutes of order are signed by Mr. Pakale, learned advocate for the respondents. 3.

In this view of the matter, the order dated 11/02/2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 1086 of 2020, Writ Petition No. 1087 of 2020, Writ Petition No. 1090 of 2020, Writ Petition No. 1088 of 2020, Writ Petition No. 1089 of 2020 stands recalled and these writ petitions are restored to file. The review petitions are disposed of. 4.

By consent of the parties, as a consequence, in view of the arrangement accepted by the parties as indicated in the minutes of order, writ petitions stand disposed of in terms of the minutes of order.

4.

It is expressly made clear that as the writ petitions are not decided on merits, but in view of the concession on behalf of the

respective parties who agreed to accept the arrangement in terms of the minutes of order, needless to mention, the questions of law raised in the writ petitions are kept open.

(M.S.KARNIK, J.)