Premraj Chhaganlal Padiyar And ... vs The Municipal Corporation Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11263 Bom

                                                                           ao.377-21.doc

                 PMB
                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
         Digitally

                                  APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.377 OF 2021
         signed by
         PRADNYA
PRADNYA  MAKARAND

                                               WITH
MAKARAND BHOGALE
BHOGALE  Date:
         2022.10.21

                                INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3151 OF 2021
         18:04:31
         +0530




                       Premraj Chhaganlal Padiyar and ors.  ..Appellants
                            vs.
                       The Municipal Corporation of Greater
                       Mumbai and ors.                      ..Respondents
                                               ------------
                       Mr. A. R. Singh i/b. R. K. Singh and Associates for
                       appellants.

                       Mr. Nikhil Patil i/b. Mr. P. M. Jadhav for respondent no.13.
                                                    ------------

                                              CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

                                              DATE    : OCTOBER 21, 2022.

                       P.C. :

                       1.     Not on board. Taken on board.

2. A praecipe is moved for speaking to the minutes of the

judgment dated 13.10.2022. In the appearance, the

appearance is wrongly recorded as "Mr. P. M. Hardas". The

correct name should be "Mr. R. M. Haridas". In the body of

the judgment wherever reference is made to the name of

the counsel, it be corrected as "Mr. R. M. Haridas".

ao.377-21.doc

3. The word "VJIT" in paragraph 2 (line 6) and paragraph

3 (line 1) is wrongly mentioned, it be read as "VJTI".

4. Further, there is typographical error in paragraph 16.

Instead of the words "four weeks", the same be read as

"eight weeks".

5. The judgment stands corrected accordingly.

6. This order be treated as part of the judgment dated

13.10.2022.

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)