This order allowed amendments to a writ petition regarding names and disposed of the petition based on consent terms filed by the parties.
Amendments to the petition regarding names were allowed and the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the consent terms.
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
I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
jmi
WRIT PETITION NO. 955 OF 2010.
Rajendra Sharma & Anr. v/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
..Petitioners.
..Respondents.
Mr. Y.R. Naik, i/b. Mr. Prashant Naik, for Petitioners. Mr. A.S. Desai, a/w. Mr. R.S. Ghadge, for Respondent Nos. 6 to 14.
CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 8TH JULY 2010.
P.C.
Petitioners are allowed to carry out amendments to the extent of incorporating the name of Narayan Prabhakar Rao as Petitioner no.3 to the Petition and to correct the name of Respondent no.13. Amendments to be carried out in the course of the day. 2. The learned Advocates appearing for the Petitioners as well as Respondent nos. 6 to 14 have tendered the consent terms executed by and between their respective clients. They have submitted that the consent terms be taken on record and the Writ Petition be disposed of in terms of the consent terms.
[ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]
Rajendra Sharma & Anr.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
S.J. Kathawalla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
