Considered a writ petition challenging a vendor's refusal to act on an agreement. Held the petition was not maintainable as it involved a civil dispute, and was rejected, leaving parties to their remedies.
Petition rejected with parties left to their remedies.
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 wp8700-09.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8700 OF 2009
Natwarsinh Ramsinh Chauhan ..Petitioner Vs The Mamlatdar and another ..Respondents
Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b.M/s.Ashok Purohit & Co, for petitioner. Mr.G.S.Kulkarni i/b.Mr.S.S.Deshmukh, for respondent nos.1 and 2.
CORAM : V.C.DAGA & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 12th JANUARY, 2011
P.C:
Considering the fact that the petition involves civil dispute as the vendor refused to act on agreement, the petition is not maintainable. Petition is rejected. Parties are left to their remedies.
[R.G.KETKAR, J.]
[V.C.DAGA, J.]
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition is maintainable when the dispute involves a vendor refusing to act on an agreement.
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ in civil disputes.
What the appropriate remedy is for vendors refusing to act on agreements.
Natwarsinh Ramsinh Chauhan
The Mamlatdar
Another
V.C.Daga
R.G.Ketkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court