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 1, Cited by 2]

Bombay High Court

Shweta Shetty vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its Chief ... on 24 June, 2021

Author: M.S.Karnik

Bench: S.C. Gupte, M.S.Karnik

                                                                                 4.wpl.9374-20.doc

Bhogale


                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                          WRIT PETITION (L) NO.9374 OF 2020

       Ms. Shweta Shetty                                     .. Petitioner
               vs.
       State of Maharashtra and ors.                         .. Respondents
                                      --------------------
       Ms. Neeta Jain I/b. Mr. Manoj Agiwal for the Petitioner.
       Mr. Kedar Dighe, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 6-State.
       Mr. Adithya Iyer for Respondent No.2.
       Ms. Aishwarya Kantawala for Respondent Nos.3 to 5.
                                      --------------------

                                     CORAM : S.C. GUPTE &
                                                 M.S.KARNIK, JJ.
                                     DATE      : 24th JUNE, 2021
                                                (THROUGH V.C.)

       P.C.

This Writ Petition has been moved for urgent circulation at the instance of Respondent No.2, who is a Senior Citizen of about 95 years of age. The Petition concerns the Petitioner's challenge to an eviction order passed under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. During the pendency of this Petition, there has been a stay of that order. The immediate grievance of Respondent No.2 concerns not only this stay, which he would likely to be vacated, but also the fact that the Petitioner has been sending, according to him, unauthorized persons to his fat purportedly for installing CCTV cameras.

1 Of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2021 06:22:32 :::

4.wpl.9374-20.doc

2. Ms. Jain, learned counsel for the Petitioner, states that her client does not propose to install CCTV cameras or send any person to the residence of Respondent No.2 for any installation work. The statement is noted and accepted. Ms. Jain also informs the Court that her client is presently away and is not likely to come to the residence of Respondent No.2 in the next few months. If that is so, there is no reason for this Court to take up this Petition on an emergent basis; it can certainly wait.

3. Place this Petition for 'Admission' on 19.07.2021.

4. In case any of the Respondents proposes to fle reply to the Petition, they must do so and serve a copy on the Petitioner's Advocate latest by 08.07.2021. Rejoinder, if any, by the Petitioner to be served on the Respondents latest by 15.07.2021.

5. Ad-interim stay operating in favour of the Petitioner shall, in the meantime, continue to operate till the next date.

6. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State (Respondent Nos.1 and 6) informs the Court that the State has fled a compilation of orders in support of its stand in the Petition. The same may be kept on record.

 (M.S.KARNIK, J.)                                  (S.C.GUPTE, J.)



                                                                                2 Of 2
::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2021                ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2021 06:22:32 :::