Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ABHAY AHUJA
Ravi Arya – Appellant
Versus
Reserve Bank Of India – Respondent
ORDER :
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
1. The Applicant has filed the above Interim Application seeking to set aside order dated 11th June, 2024 and 19th June, 2024 passed by the Additional Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court of allowing the Third Party Application filed under Rule 268 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 (the “OS Rules”), directing issuance of certified copy of the proceedings in Writ Petition No. 2545 of 2021 (the “Writ Petition”) to the third party Applicant viz. the Respondent herein.
2. Mr. Nankani, learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant has submitted that the order dated 11th June, 2024 is liable to be set aside on the following grounds:-
i) It is ex-facie arbitrary, contrary to law, suffers from vice of non-application of mind and perverse
ii) It is based on findings which are ex-facie erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of law as regards grant of certified copies to a third-party applicant and
iii) That, the learned Additional Prothonotary has erred in holding that the Respondent had established sufficient cause for grant of certified copies of the Writ Petition.
3. The facts are that the Respondent had filed Third Party Application (L) No
The court upheld the discretion of the Prothonotary to grant certified copies to a third party with legitimate interest, emphasizing the necessity of showing sufficient cause under Rule 268.
Quasi-judicial authorities must pronounce reasoned orders in open court with immediate file availability; certified copies require date endorsements for limitation exclusion; detailed procedural dire....
The court established that compliance with procedural rules, specifically Rule 132 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, is mandatory for third parties seeking certified copies of court documents....
The Court cannot grant interim relief after a certificate for appeal has been issued, as it lacks jurisdiction to modify dismissed orders.
The court affirmed the importance of procedural compliance under Rule 89 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, highlighting that failure to adhere to such rules affects litigants' rights ....
The limitation for filing an appeal begins upon the pronouncement of the order and not its publication, making delays uncondonable if not filed timely.
Judicial officers should not be impleaded in writ petitions, and applications under Order XI must be timely and relevant to the case.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
