The High Court of Judicature at Bombay rejected a writ petition, holding that the petitioner has an alternative remedy in the form of a civil suit and thus refraining from entertaining the petition.
Petition rejected.
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.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO.1904 OF 2009
------------------------------------:----------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court’s or Judge’s orders.
coram, appearances, Court’s orders :
or directions and Registrar’s :
orders. :
------------------------------------:-----------------------------------
Mr.L.S.Gaikwad for the petitioner.
Mr.S.R.Nargolkar AGP for the respondents.
CORAM: S.B.MHASE & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ.
DATED: 25TH FEBRUARY, 2009.
P.C.:
. Heard.
2. The petitioner has alternate remedy
of civil suit, therefore, we refrain to
entertain the petition. The petition is
rejected.
(D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition will be entertained when the petitioner has an alternate remedy of civil suit.
Petitioner
Respondents
S.B.MHASE
D.B.BHOSALE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court