The High Court held a review petition and notice of motion were not maintainable as the underlying order rested on agreed terms between counsel, and disposed of the matters.
The review petition and notice of motion were disposed of as not maintainable.
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 (LODG.) 14 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3064 OF 2006 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.180 OF 2007
Mohd. Islam Abdul Rehman Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and others
..Petitioner.
..Respondents.
Mr. Deepak Pandey with Mr. Ditendra Mishra for the Petitioner.
CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
24th October, 2007.
P.C. :
The order of this Court dated 18th December, 2006
proceeded on the basis of terms which were agreed upon by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Obviously therefore, the
Review Petition would not be maintainable and the Review Petition
and the Notice of Motion are accordingly disposed of.
Mohd. Islam Abdul Rehman
The State of Maharashtra
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
