Dismiss petition, demands councel

MUMBAI, MARCH 9: The on-going Girish Vyas case' today took an interesting turn when one of the counsels for the respondents claimed that...

MUMBAI, MARCH 9: The on-going Girish Vyas case8217; today took an interesting turn when one of the counsels for the respondents claimed that the petition should be dismissed because Sriram Karandikar, in whose name the commencement certificate for the Vyas Constructions8217; project was issued, has not been made a respondent. However, the petitioners contended that since Karandikar had only the power of attorney for the owner of the land, Laxmikant Murudkar, he was not the main beneficiary of the project.

A division bench of Justice B N Srikrishna and Justice S S Parkar were dictating the judgement on the case where the former chief minister Manohar Joshi has been accused of misusing power to accommodate his son-in-law Girish Vyas8217; building complex on a land reserved for a primary school in Pune.

The twist in the case came immediately after the lunch break when the court began at 3 pm. One of the counsels for the petitioners pointed out that the respondents had not denied the allegation that Karandikar, who heldthe power of attorney on behalf of Murudkar, was related to Joshi.

To this, counsel for Girish Vyas said there was no need to deny the allegations because Karandikar was not made party to the case as his name had been deleted by the petitioners themselves. Since Karandikar8217;s name was deleted, nothing survived therein and hence it should be dismissed.

Not satisfied with the arguments, Justice Srikrishna read through the agreement for development between Murudkar and Girish Vyas, who was also given a power of attorney. In this, the developer, Vyas was made sole beneficiary from the project. 8220;This is not a petition about ownership, but development rights which have been solely and exclusively given to the developer,8221; he ruled.

Counsels for the petitioners contended that since Karandikar in no way was benefitting from the project, he could not be made a party and had submitted an affidavit to the effect. For that matter, even Murudkar was not made a respondent. They also submitted that the entire matterhad been argued in court as if Vyas was representing the owner himself. Justice Srikrishna however ruled that this does not make the petition infructuous and refused to take cognisance of the contention.

In another development, Kosmos Bank, one of the financers of the project made an appearance in the court. Justice Srikrishna ruled that the bank would be heard in full if the court felt that the building had to be demolished in the interests of justice.