SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 783

B. V. NAGARATHNA, N. KOTISWAR SINGH
Kukreja Construction Company – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR Ms. Nivedita Nair, Adv. M/S. Pratap And Co., AOR Mr. Ans Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pallavi Pratap, Adv. Ms. Prachi Pratap, Adv. Dr. Prashant Pratap, Adv. Mr. Pravin K. Samdani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pravin Samdani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Gopal, Adv. Mr. Raghav Gupta, Adv. Mr. Filji Frederick, Adv. Mr. Chiranjivi Sharma, Adv. Ms. Apoorva Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Vasu Gupta, Adv. Mr. Uday Mathur, Adv. Mr. Pranaya Goyal, AOR Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Divyanshu Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Kaustubh Singh, Adv. Ms. Vidisha Swarup, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Shikhil Suri, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Madhu Suri, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Suri, Adv. Ms. Wamika Chadha, Adv. Ms. Ishita Ahuja, Adv. Mr. Vibhor Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Divya Swami, AOR Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Pravin K. Samdani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raghav Gupta, Adv. Mr. Chiranjivi Sharma, Adv. Ms. Apoorva Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Vasu Gupta, Adv. Mr. Uday Mathur, Adv. Mr. Pranaya Goyal, AOR Ms. Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Taly, Adv. Mr. Phiroze Merchant, Adv. Ms. Mamta Singh, Adv. Mr. Navneet R., AOR Ms. Anchala C, Adv. Ms. Mallika Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Bagavathy Vennimalai, Adv. Ms. Alankrita Sinha, Adv. Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR Ms. Nivedita Nair, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

NAGARATHNA, J.

These appeals have been filed against three impugned judgments and orders of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, namely,

    i) Judgment dated 18.12.2018 whereby Writ Petition Nos. 1898/2009, 1823/2012, 839/2015, 2871/2015, 2107/2016, 2170/2016, 384/2017 and 541/2017 were rejected on the ground of delay and laches and the writ petitioners therein/appellants herein have filed an appeal. Writ Petition Nos. 203/2014 and 2262/2010 were allowed and Writ Petition No.1860/2017 was partly allowed.

    As against Writ Petition No.203/2014, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (hereinafter referred as “Mumbai Municipal Corporation”) has filed Civil Appeal No.9708/2024 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13365/2019. However, as against orders in Writ Petition No.2262/2010 and 1860/2017, there are no Special Leave Petitions filed by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation;

    ii) Judgment and Order dated 18.10.2019/08.11.2019 whereby Writ Petition No.2531/2009 was allowed and the Mumbai Municipal Corporation has filed Civil Appeal No.9711/2024 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10430 of 2020;

    iii) Judgment dated 20.10.2022 whereby Writ Petition No.411/2013 w

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
      whatsapp-icon Back to top