The Court held that disputed questions of facts cannot be settled via writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and dismissed the petition accordingly.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1229 OF 2004
Gokuldas Ramraya Pai
..Petitioner
Versus
The Additional Collector, Competent Authority (ULC) and Ors.
..Respondents
Ms. Yasmin Tavaria instructed by Mr. D.A. Barot for the petitioner.
Mr. P.M. Mokashi, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. P.K. Samdani instructed by M/s. Shroff & Co. for respondent Nos. 3A and 3B.
CORAM : DALVEER BHANDARI, C.J & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.
DATE: AUGUST 3, 2004.
P.C.
This petition raises disputed questions of facts which cannot be
determined in our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether disputed questions of facts can be determined under the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gokuldas Ramraya Pai
The Additional Collector, Competent Authority (ULC)
DALVEER BHANDARI
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
