9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could be appropriately resolved in a regular suit. The petitioner thereafter filed a review application which was dismissed and a Special Leave Petition against the said orders passed by the Division Bench. Special Leave Petition was dismissed. Held that- The petitioner has filed a civil suit for recovery of damages before the Bombay High Court. Order dated 5th May, 2006 passed by the Division Bench quoted above in the said suit does not permit and allow the petitioner to start another round of litigation in a writ to claim damages. The representation made and its rejection in the present case, do not furnish a fresh cause of action, independent of the civil suit. - the petitioner has made sweeping and general allegations against the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eave Petition was dismissed. 3. The petitioner has filed a suit for recovery before the High Court of Bombay. It appears that the petitioner has been making number of applications for notice of motion in the said suit and on being unsuccessful and faced with an adverse order had filed appeals. Respondents in the counter affidavit have set out in detail, orders passed by the Bombay High Court. They have also enclosed copy of order dated 6th July, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petitioner's application for interim compensation/damages. 4. In one of the appeals filed before the Bombay High Court by the petitioner, the Division Bench was pleased to observe in Order dated 5th May, 2006: "1. Heard Appellant No. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e failure of the respondent authorities to issue advance licences. As stated above, the question whether writ jurisdiction should be permitted to be invoked is already covered by the decision of the Division Bench dated 25th February, 2002 in LPA No. 127/2002. The petitioner has filed a civil suit for recovery of damages before the Bombay High Court. Order dated 5th May, 2006 passed by the Division Bench quoted above in the said suit does not permit and allow the petitioner to start another round of litigation in a writ to claim damages. The representation made and its rejection in the present case, do not furnish a fresh cause of action, independent of the civil suit. 7. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Applications filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
