Bombay High Court

A. DOSHI AND CO.versusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY

Decided: 22 June 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: AMIT BORKAR

Holding

The Court dismissed the interim application as no case for restoration was made out.

Summary

A. Doshi and Co. filed an interim application seeking restoration of their writ petition before the High Court of Bombay. The applicant's counsel, Minal Chandnani, was absent in the morning session, and later her instructed advocate, Rajesh Ranglani, appeared to inform the Court that Chandnani was engaged in another matter. The Court noted that no substantive case for restoration was presented. Consequently, the Court found that the interim application could not be entertained. The application was therefore dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the interim application for restoration of the writ petition should be entertained in the absence of the applicant's counsel and without a substantive case.

Subjects

interim application
restoration of petition
court procedure
advocate absence

Judgment

                                                          15-ia-3674-2026.doc

MPBalekar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3674 OF 2026
                                   IN
                     WRIT PETITION NO. 8868 OF 2018

A. Doshi and Co.                                 … Applicant
           V/s.
Municipal Corporation of
Greater Bombay                                   … Respondent

Mr. Rajesh Ranglani i/by Minal Chandnani for the
applicant.
Mr. Santosh Mali a/w S. Parad for the respondent -
BMC.


                                CORAM      : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                DATED      : JUNE 22, 2026
P.C.:

1.          Today, Minal Chandnani, learned Advocate for the applicant
was not present in the Court in the morning. Now, in the second
session, Rajesh Ranglani, learned Advocate, instructed by Minal
Chandnani, learned Advocate for the applicant, appears and states
that she is engaged in another Court. Hence, no case for
restoration is made out.

2.          The interim application stands dismissed.



                                                    (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                      1

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…