The High Court disposed of the writ petition between the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 based on consent terms signed by them, while noting the petition was not pressed against respondents 1 and 2.
Petition disposed of as between petitioner and respondents 3 & 4 in terms of consent terms.
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.
wp1902.12
1
KJ
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1902 OF 2012
Dr.Vyas Rao ....Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ....Respondents ----
Mr.A.A.Khan for the petitioner.
Mr.Anup Khaitan i/by Anup Khaitan & Co. for the respondent no.2. Mr.Ibrahim Merchant i/by K.V.Aiyar & Associates for respondent ---nos.3 & 4.
CORAM : S.J.VAZIFDAR & K.R.SHRIRAM,JJ
DATE : 2nd September , 2013.
P.C. :-
1 The petition is disposed of as between the petitioner and respondent nos.3 & 4 in terms of the consent terms signed by them and their Advocates, taken on record and marked “X” for identification. The petition is not pressed against respondent nos.1 & 2. Needless to add that the consent terms would bind only the parties thereto.
2 Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(K.R.SHRIRAM,J) (S.J.VAZIFDAR,J)
2 wp1902.12
Dr. Vyasa Rao
State of Maharashtra
Respondent no. 2
Respondent nos. 3 & 4
S.J.Vazifdar
K.R.Shirram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
