The High Court refused to interfere by writ, directing parties to avail alternate remedies for trial court decisions in a criminal reference sheet.
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.
wp3975.12
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3975 OF 2012
(Raosaheb Shivram Ghodke & ors. vs. Hanumant alias Chandrasen
Bhujang Ghodke & ors.)
OfficeNotes,Office Court’s or Judge’s Orders
MemorandaofCoram,
appearances,Court’s
orders or directions and
Registrar’s orders.
Shri.H.A.Joshi Advocate for Petitioners.
....
CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.
DATE : 5TH OCTOBER, 2012.
1. Heard.
2. The Petitioners seek direction to
the trial Court to decide the
applications filed at Exhibits 179 and
188 in R.C.S. No.353 of 2009.
3. The Petitioners may resort to
alternate remedies as permissible in law.
No interference is warranted in exercise
of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of
wp3975.12
2
OfficeNotes,Office Court’s or Judge’s Orders
MemorandaofCoram,
appearances,Court’s
orders or directions and
Registrar’s orders.
this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India. The Writ
Petition is disposed of.
[A.B. CHAUDHARI,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.]
asb/OCT12
Raosaheb Shivram Ghodke
Hanumant alias Chandrasen Bhujang Ghodke
NARESH H. PATIL
A.B. CHAUDHARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court