Petitioners challenging oral directions restricting their employment in a bar found no merit as the respondent police officer admitted to not issuing such instructions. Petition dismissed.
Rule discharged.
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.
kvm
1
WPL180_12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (LD.)NO. 180 OF 2012
Pratibha Subash Babul & Ors.
..... Petitioners
Vs.
Lakhamchand Mathure & Ors. ..... Respondents
Ms. Veena Thadani, Advocate, i/b. Mr.Vishal Thadani, for the Petitioners
Mr.Shekhar Ingawale, AGP for Respondents - State.
Ms.Sangeeta Thakkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & R.D. DHANUKA, JJ.
DATE : 1 st FEBRUARY, 2012.
P.C. :
Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of parties.
kvm
2
WPL180_12
restaurant not to employ them or any other female employee. The learned A.GP. on instructions from Mr.Lakhamchand Mathure who is present in the court states that he has not given any such instructions or directions to the Petitioner or to the
owner of the said bar. The statement is accepted.
is hereby dismissed. Rule discharged.
Pratibha Subash Babul & Ors.
Lakhamchand Mathure & Ors.
S.A. BOBDE
R.D. DHANUKA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
