The petitioner's counsel stated the petition was infructuous as the fruit market had already shifted. The court discharged the rule and disposed of the writ petition.
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.115 OF 1997
Prakash V.Jhaveri .. Petitioner
V/s
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr.V.Jabra i/by Mr.I.V.Rao for the Petitioner.
Mr.Prashant Naik for Resp.Nos.2 & 3.
Mr.Milind More, AGP for the State.
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN&
SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ.
DATE : 16th November, 2006.
P.C.:
. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The
learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that inspite
of repeated attempts there are no instructions from the
Petitioner. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner
however states that as of today the Petition has become
infructuous as the fruit market has already been shifted
to Vashi. Under these circumstances, Rule stands
discharged. Petition stands disposed of.
(SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
Prakash V. Jhaveri
State of Maharashtra
S.R. Radhakrishnan
V.K. Tahilramani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court