This review petition challenged an order holding that title disputes are outside writ jurisdiction. The court found no error apparent on the record and dismissed the petition without merit.
Review petition dismissed without merit.
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
O. O. C. J.
REVIEW PETITION NO.14 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2576 OF 2006
P. Ponraj. Petitioner.
Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents.
.... Mr. J. B. Mishra for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent.
CORAM :DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J . April 11, 2007.
P.C .:
This Court has held in the Judgment and Order dated
18th December 2006 that a disputed question of title cannot appropriately be considered in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has not been able to displace the finding by showing that it suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record. There is no merit in the Review Petition which is accordingly dismissed.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a review petition challenging the earlier finding that title disputes are not cognizable in writ jurisdiction succeeds in demonstrating error apparent on the face of the record?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P. Ponraj
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
D.Y. Chandrachud
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
