Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S. Sagar Lookouts vs Maharashtra Housing And Area ... on 3 February, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari, Hrishikesh Roy
1
ITEM NO.27 COURT NO.6 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 2092/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18-01-2023
in WPL No. 30316/2022 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Bombay)
M/S. SAGAR LOOKOUTS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.18156/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ) Date : 03-02-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Amol Chitale, Adv.
Mr. Shreeyash Uday Lalit, Adv. Mr. Udai Khanna, Adv.
Mrs. Raveena Lalit, Adv.
Mr. Visesh Vinod Srivastva, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Dilip Waje, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Runjhun Garg, Adv.
Mr. Krishnagopal Abhay, Adv. Mr. Ishaan George, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjay Jain, A.S.G. Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Mr. Shailendra P Singh, Adv.
Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pravartak Pathak, Adv. Mr. Sachin Dhakephalkar, Adv. Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, AOR Signature Not Verified UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following Digitally signed by Neetu Khajuria Date: 2023.02.04 13:48:34 IST Reason: O R D E R We have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned 2 Additional Solicitor General for respondent Nos. 1 and
2 and Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.4 in caveat.
Issue notice.
Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, learned counsel, accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, learned counsel, accepts notice for respondent No.4.
Notice be issued to the unrepresented respondents, returnable in three weeks.
Dasti service, in addition to ordinary process, is permitted.
Taking note of the totality of circumstances and the fact that interim order operated during the pendency of the petition in the High Court and the High Court has continued the same for further period of two weeks, we deem it appropriate and hence provide that the interim order so passed by the High Court shall continue to remain in operation until further orders of this Court.
The parties may complete their pleadings before the matter is taken up next.
(NEETU KHAJURIA) (RANJANA SHAILEY) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER