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 0]

Bombay High Court

Shri.Amol Vijay Joshi vs Smt. Moushumi Shailesh Vaidya ... on 7 June, 2023

Author: N. J. Jamadar

Bench: N. J. Jamadar

2023:BHC-AS:15244

                                                                     7-RPA-2-23+.DOC


                                                                           Sayali Upasani


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                  REVIEW PETITION NO. 2 OF 2023
                                               IN
                               APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 100 OF 2021

             Shri. Amol Vijay Joshi                                     ...Petitioner

                               Vs.
             Moushmi Shailesh Vaidya and Others                    ...Respondents



             Mr. Shankar P. Thorat, for Petitioner.
             Mr. Mohan V. Kanade, for Respondent No. 1.
             Adv. Faiza Shaikh a/w Adv. Payal Upadhyay i/b ANP
             Chambers for Respondent No. 7.


                                                   CORAM:- N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATED:- 7th JUNE, 2023 PC:-

1) Mr. Kanade, the learned Counsel states that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the respondent No. 1, in the Review Petition.
2) Heard Mr. Thorat, the learned Counsel for the review petitioner.
3) Perused the grounds in the Review Petition. 1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2023 07:22:56 :::

7-RPA-2-23+.DOC

4) Mr. Thorat submits that it has transpired that Mr. Yadunath Ganesh Vaidya, who had answered the interrogatories was not given power of attorney on behalf of the plaintiff.

5) Copies of the documents are sought to be annexed to the Review Petition in support of the said contention.

6) There is no error apparent on the face on record. Nor there is any other sufficient cause to review the order passed by this Court on 15th March, 2023.

7) The petitioner-defendant is, however, at liberty to agitate the ground that Mr. Yadunath was not the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff.

8) Subject to the aforesaid liberty, the Petition stands disposed.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 2/2 ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2023 07:22:56 :::