In Public Interest Litigation No. 35 of 2010, the Bombay High Court dismissed the petition for want of prosecution as counsel for the petitioner was absent. The matter was concluded without a substantive hearing.
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.
PIL-35-10
skc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 35 OF 2010
Sandip Popatrao Sonwane ..Petitioner versus Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribal Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. ..Respondents None for Petitioner. Mr. P. N. Joshi for Respondent No. 1. Ms. J. S. Pawar – Additional Government Pleader for State – Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. 10 October 2012 P.C. : Counsel for the petitioner absent. Dismissed for want of prosecution. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)
Chandka
1/1
Sandip Popatrao Sonwane
Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribal Development Corporation Ltd.
D. D. Sinha
Smt. V. K. Tahilramani
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
