In a consent order disposing of two writ petitions, the Bombay High Court accepted consent terms tendered by counsel for both parties without any substantive judicial reasoning or discussion.
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:
sachin.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7287 of 2002
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 503 OF 2004.
Malubai K. Madvi. ..Petitioner.
Versus.
KHandu Dharma Pawar. ..Respondent.
---
A. P. Rege for the petitioner.
R. D. Soni i/b Ram & Co., for the respondent no.1.
CORAM: S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.
DATE: JANUARY 18, 2007.
P.C.
1. Heard. Constituted Attorneys of both the
parties are present in Court. Parties have tendered
consent terms signed by them and their respective
advocates. Consent terms are taken on record and
marked "X" for identification.
2. Both the petitions are disposed of in terms
of the consent terms.
Malubai K. Madvi
KHandu Dharma Pawar
S.J. VAZIFDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court