In a continuous writ petition, the court observed that the petitioner has an alternate remedy under the SFARS Act, 2002, and disposed of the writ petition without engaging in substantive adjudication.
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.
wp6425.12
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6425 OF 2012
(Shamkant Mitharam Bhavsar vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.)
OfficeNotes,Office Court’s or Judge’s Orders
MemorandaofCoram,
appearances,Court’s
orders or directions and
Registrar’s orders.
Shri.D.B. Thoke Advocate for Petitioner.
Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for
Respondents.
....
CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.
DATE : 21ST AUGUST, 2012.
1. Heard.
2. In the facts of the case, the
Petitioner has alternate remedy under the
provisionsofSecuritisationand
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002. The Petitioner may avail of the
same. All issues are kept open. With
wp6425.12
2
OfficeNotes,Office Court’s or Judge’s Orders
MemorandaofCoram,
appearances,Court’s
orders or directions and
Registrar’s orders.
these observations, the Writ Petition is
disposed of.
[A.B. CHAUDHARI,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.]
asb/AUG12
Shamkant Mitharam Bhavsar
State of Maharashtra
NARESH H. PATIL
A.B. CHAUDHARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court