The Writ Petition challenging an order rejecting an application for a handwriting expert report in charitable society proceedings was dismissed. The court held no intervention was warranted as the burden of proof lay with the respondents.
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.
WP4040-13.sxw
JP CHAVAN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4040 OF 2013
Keshav Nanu Kanse ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents
Shri Tejpal S. Ingale for the petitioner
CORAM : N. M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 20 JUNE 2013
P.C.
1/2
WP4040-13.sxw
the respondents to prove the fact that they have not written the document in question. Thus, since the onus is shifted on the respondents, interest of the petitioner is adequately protected. No interference in the writ jurisdiction of the court is warranted. Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. No costs.
(N. M. JAMDAR, J.)
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order rejecting the petitioner's application for handwriting expertise in a charitable society reorganisation proceeding.
Keshav Nanu Kanse
State of Maharashtra
N. M. JAMDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
