The High Court of Bombay disposed of the writ petition as infructuous because the impugned order had merged into a subsequent order that was already under challenge in another writ petition.
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 AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3658 OF 2009
N. Geetanjali Parag Parelkar ..Petitioner
V/s.
Parag Subhash Parelkar ..Respondent
Mr.Rahul R. Shah i/b.Mr.P.R.Arjunwadkar, Advocate,
for the petitioner
Mr.Utangale i/b.M/s.Utangale & Co., Advocate, for
the respondent
CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J.
DATE :10TH JULY, 2009
P.C.
.Mr.Rahul Shah, the learned counsel for the
petitioner states that the order impugned in the
above Writ Petition has merged in the further order
that has been passed by the learned District Judge,
Thane. The further order has been impugned by the
petitioner by way of Writ Petition No.4439 of 2009.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore,
fairly submits that on account of the said fact the
above Writ Petition has become infructuous.
2
Mr.Uttangale, the learned counsel for the
respondent, does not dispute the said position.
The above Writ Petition is, therefore, disposed of
as infructuous in view of the subsequent
developments.
( R.M.SAVANT. J.)
N. Geetanjali Parag Parelkar
Parag Subhash Parelkar
R.M.SAVANT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court