Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 47629 (BOM)

STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES (CHARLES COUTTO) COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. NAGPUR AND ANOTHER v. DHARAMRAJ S/O SITARAM MOHADIKAR

CAO/407/2025 · 2025-09-12

Shri M W Chandwani, Smt M S Jawalkar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 1-CAO No.407.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO. 407 OF 2025 (for Delay) IN MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (ST.) NO. 5835 OF 2025 (Review) IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2076 OF 2024 (D) The State Bank of India Employees (Charles Cuotto), Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Nagpur through its Liquidator Mr. Dinesh Chandel ..VS.. Mr. Dharamraj S/o Sitaram Mohadikr and others -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- None for Applicant. Mr. A. A. Choube, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. Bhushan Mohata, Advocate for Respondent No.6. CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, AND M. W. CHANDWANI, JJ. DATED : 12 th SEPTEMBER, 2025 1. Applicant is absent. 2. Heard learned Counsel for Respondents. 3. The present application is filed for condonation of delay of 50 days in filing review application. 4. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. Delay of 50 days is condoned and review application is taken up. 2025:BHC-NAG:9034-DB 2 1-CAO No.407.2025 MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (ST.) NO. 5835 OF 2025 (Review) 5. The learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that already amount is released in favour of the original Petitioner. Considering the prayer in the review application, nothing survive in the review application. 6. As such, the Review Application stands dismissed. (M. W. CHANDWANI, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) Kirtak