Single judge bench dismissed the writ petition, holding that interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction is not warranted regarding the discretionary order passed by the lower court in the present fact situation.
The writ petition was dismissed.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2990 OF 2009
Chandrakant D. Mahamuni. ..Petitioner.
V/s.
Kaushalya Rajaram Galange & ors. ..Respondents.
Mr.H.S.Venegaonkar for Petitioner.
Mr.Mohan Dhamal for Respondent Nos. 1a(i) to (iii),
b,c & d.
CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J
DATE : MARCH 23, 2009.
P.C. :
1. Heard Counsel for the parties.
2. No interference in exercise of writ
jurisdiction is warranted in respect of the
discretionary order passed by the Court below in the
fact situation of the present case. Hence dismissed.
(A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised to interfere with the discretionary order of the court below in the given fact situation.
Chandrakant D. Mahamuni
Kaushalya Rajaram Galange
A.M.KHANWILKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court