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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 249073

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Milind N. Jadhav, J.
Rajesh Kejriwal v. Quantum Park CHSL


1. Heard Mr. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for Petitioners in Writ Petition No.5057 of 2024 and Writ Petition No.5088 of 2024; Ms. Kapre, learned AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in Writ Petition No.5057 of 2024; Ms. Natekar, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.5088 of 2024; Ms. Gavhane, learned AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in Writ Petition No.5088 of 2024 and Mr. Lohia, learned Advocate for Applicant in Interim Application Nos.10632 of 2024 and 10633 of 2024.

2. At the outset, Mr. Kulkarni would submit that name of Respondent No.2 has been changed. Interim Application No.10632 of 2024 is filed by original Respondent No.2 seeking the aforesaid change. There is no objection to the said Application. Application deserves to be allowed.

3. In view of the submissions made in Application, Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Necessary amendment is permitted to be carried out within a period of one week from today. Re - verification stands dispensed with.

4. Learned Advocates for parties are ad idem and would submit that originally there was a group of 6 Petition out of which 4 were disposed by order dated 21.01.2025. Present two Writ Petition N

























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