Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 4]

Bombay High Court

St. Michael'S Church,A Public ... vs Our Lady Of Mailankanni And Perpetual ... on 6 February, 2019

Author: G.S. Patel

Bench: G.S. Patel

                                                                 903-AO531-17.DOC




 Arun


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 531 OF 2017
                                        IN
                 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 957 OF 2011
                                        IN
                           S.C. SUIT NO. 875 OF 2011


 St Michael's Church & Anr                                         ...Appellants
       Versus
 Our Lady of Vailankanni & Perpetual Succour                     ...Respondents

Cooperative Housing Society & Ors Mr Sean Wassoodew, i/b CR Naidu & Company, for the Appellant. Mr GS Godbole, i/b AV Jain, for Respondent No.1. Mr Navin Parikh, with Mr Aditya Shiralkar & Ms Prachi Mhatre, i/b M/s Shiralkar & Company, for Respondent No.2.

                               CORAM:     G.S. PATEL, J
                               DATED:     6th February 2019
 PC:-


1. The application is for speaking to the minutes of my order of 3rd July 2017. In that order, while issuing certain directions regarding the final disposal of the suit, I made some observations in paragraphs 5 and 6. Those are indeed prima facie observations limited for the purposes of that Appeal. The trial Judge is to adjudicate on the issues cast (or recast) in the suit and to decide the Page 1 of 2 6th February 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2019 01:47:51 ::: 903-AO531-17.DOC suit on its merits uninfluenced by any of these observations. None of the parties are bound by these observations. All are at liberty to lead such evidence as is permissible in law. Specifically, those observations are not to be read as a final or conclusive finding that any of the occupants of the remaining five buildings (so described in paragraph 5) are indeed affected by the suit or even that those five buildings are the subject matter of a redevelopment proposal.

2. All contentions are expressly kept open.

(G. S. PATEL, J) Page 2 of 2 6th February 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2019 01:47:51 :::