The Court quashed an order directing attachment of the petitioner's property. The petitioner established that the dispute between the respondents was settled in a Lok Adalat, making the attachment order unnecessary.
The impugned order dated 5th March, 2012, directing attachment of property was quashed and set aside.
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.
W.P. No.2609/2012
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2609 OF 2012
Shankar Madam Meshram
..PETITIONER
VERSUS
Malti Madan Meshram & anr.
..RESPONDENTS
Mr M.R. Sonawane, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr Sandeep G. Kulkarni, Advocate for holding Mr S.D. Dhongade for respondent no.1
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. DATE : 19th December, 2013
PER COURT:
(2) W.P. No.2609/2012
between respondent nos.1 and 2, the impugned order directed the attaching of the property of the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that since the very dispute between respondent nos.1 and 2 has been settled, the impugned order needs to be quashed and set aside as a natural consequence. He, therefore, further prays that the petition be allowed to that extent.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE), JUDGE
amj/wp2609.12
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order directing attachment of the petitioner's property can be quashed following the amicable settlement of the dispute between the respondents.
Shankar Madam Meshram
Malti Madan Meshram
Ravindra V. Ghuge
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
