Counsel stated the petitioner was not interested in pursuing the writ petition. The High Court of Bombay allowed the withdrawal of the petition.
Withdrawal of the writ petition allowed.
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.1932 OF 2010
Dr.Jaipal Jinnappa Magdum ...Petitioner Versus Shikshan Shulka Samiti & Anr. ...Respondents
...Respondents
Mr.Balwant V.Patole i/b Mr.Manoj A.Patil for Petitioner.
Mrs.S.V.Deshmukh i/b Mr.Rajesh P.Behere for Respondent No.1.
CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATED:- APRIL 28, 2010.
P.C.
not interested in pursuing this Petition. Counsel for the Respondent has
placed before us communication received by the Advocate for the Respondent dated 26th April 2010 which restates this position. The same is taken on record and marked `X’.
(R.M.SAVANT, J.)
(A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)
Dr. Jaipal Jinnappa Magdum
Shikshan Shulka Samiti
Anr.
A.M.Khanwilkar
R.M.Savant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
