Writ petitions attempting to serve as a continuation sheet for office notes were dismissed. The court held that requests were too general and vague, causing no prejudice, and refused to entertain them as they amounted to a novel attempt at using writ jurisdiction improperly for procedural filings.
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
wp627.11
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 627 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITON NO. 628 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 633 OF 2011
_____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders |
Mr. V.P. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner in all Petition.
(B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE.
27.01.2011 gas/wp627.11
Petitioner
Respondent
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
