Petitioner informed court the complaint was disposed of; challenge did not survive. Writ petition rejected, rule discharged. No costs.
Writ petition rejected; rule discharged; no costs.
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.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT F JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURNAGABAD Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS appearances, Court’s orders or directios and Registrar’s Orders.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3042OF 1992
M/s Kinetic Engineering Ltd. VERSUS Mr. Alabhaksha Hanifsaheb Tasalagi
CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. Dated : 3rd May, 2012.
PER COURT :
( R.M. BORDE, J.)
dyb
M/s Kinetic Engineering Ltd.
Mr. Alabhaksha Hanifsaheb Tasalagi
R.M. Borde
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
