This court disposed of the writ petition based on a consent tendered by the parties and ordered the State to return possession of the premises to the third respondent.
Respondents 1 and 2 directed to return possession of the premises to respondent no.3 within one week.
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
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Writ Petition No. 314 of 1992
1. Mahendraa P.Vora
and others ..Petitioners
vs.
1. State of Maharashtra
and others ..Respondents
Mr.Sunil Tilokchandani for petitioner.
Mr.Vinit Naik with Mr.Sharan Jagtiani for
respondent no.3.
CORAM: A.P.SHAH
&S.U.KAMDAR JJ.
9th August,2004
P.C.
1. Heard Advocates. Petitioner No.1 who is
representing other petitioners is personally
present in Court.
2. Consent terms signed by the contesting parties
and their Advocates tendered, taken on record and
marked "X" for identification.
3. Order in terms of the consent terms at X.
4. In view of the consent terms we direct
respondent nos. 1 and 2 to return possession of
the premises to respondent no.3 within a period of
one week from today.
5. Issuance of certified copy expedited.
Mahendraa P.Vora
State of Maharashtra
A.P.SHAH
S.U.KAMDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court