The High Court of Bombay disposed of an appeal filed in a writ petition concerning the Security Officer, Mumbai, as infructuous by accepting the appellants' counsel's submission without further deliberation.
No costs.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J.
APPEAL NO.825 OF 1997 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.437 OF 1996 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2901 OF 1989
Sarjerao Ramchandra Jagdale & anr. .. Appellants
v/s.
Security Officer, ‘E’ Ward Municipal Office Compound & ors.
.. Respondents
Mr.Prakash Mahadik for the appellants.
CORAM : R.M.LODHA AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.
DATED : 13th January, 2006
P.C.
Mr.Prakash Mahadik, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that by passage of time,
the appeal has become infructuous and nothing
remains to be decided by us in the appeal.
appeal accordingly. No costs.
(R.M. LODHA, J.)
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
Sarjerao Ramchandra Jagdale & anr.
Security Officer, 'E' Ward Municipal Office Compound & ors.
R.M. LODHA
ANOOP V. MOHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
