The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, disposed of a civil application seeking direction to a respondent to decide a claim. The court ordered the writ petition listed for future hearing instead.
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
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CIVIL APPLICATION (CAW) NO. 153 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 398 OF 2002
KAWALDAS GYANIRAM TEMBHEKAR VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THRU. SECY., EDUCATION DEPTT., MUMBAI AND OTHERS
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders
Court's or Judge's orders
Mr. S. P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner Mr. D. B. Yengal, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2 Mr. G.G. Mishra, Advocate for respondent no.3
CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR AND P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : 2nd FEBRUARY, 2012.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner.
In our view, the prayer made in this civil application cannot be considered at this stage calling upon respondent no.3 to decide the claim of the petitioner. In our view, therefore, it will be in the fitness of things that the writ petition itself is decided.
Considering the prayer made in the civil application, the writ petition is ordered to be placed in the week beginning from 12.03.2012.
Subject to said order, the civil application is disposed of.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Diwale
KAWALDAS GYANIRAM TEMBHEKAR
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THRU. SECY., EDUCATION DEPTT., MUMBAI AND OTHERS
P.B. MAJMUDAR
P.B. VARALE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
