In a review application regarding the admission hearing of a second appeal, the High Court at Aurangabad rejected the application for making factually incorrect statements about the circulation note filed by the appellants' advocate.
Review application stands 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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
REVIEW APPLICATION NO.42 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.165 OF 2008
A) Ganesh Eknath Khandre and ors. .. Applicants Versus Kachru s/o Raghunath Khandre and others ..Respondents
Mr.M.A.Manjramkar, Advocate for applicants Mr.V.D.Patnoorkar, Advocate for respondent No.1 in S.A.
CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J.
DATE : 8th July 2010
PER COURT
2
( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. )
(vvr/42.10ra)
Ganesh Eknath Khandre and ors.
Kachru s/o Raghunath Khandre and others
A.V. Nirgude
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
