AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
14 paragraphs · 198 wordsKURIAN JOSEPH, J.
Leave granted.
The appellants are before us, aggrieved by the order dated 06.04.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition
No.4153/2017. 3. Though the writ petition has been admitted, interim relief was rejected. No reasons whatsoever have been stated for rejecting the
interim relief.
In the factual background of this case, we are of the view that the High Court ought to have made some interim arrangements during the pendency
of the writ petition, having regard to the disputes involved in the matter and since the writ petition is not likely to be heard shortly.
Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, we set aside the impugned order dated 06.04.2018 and remit the matter to
the High Court with a request to the High Court to pass a speaking order with regard to the interim arrangements during the pendency of the writ
petition, as expeditiously as possible.
Both the parties shall appear before the High Court on 23.07.2018.
The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
There shall be no orders as to costs.