The High Court disposed of a civil application wherein the petitioner withdrew prayer clause (a). The matter was listed for final hearing on 27 January 2015. No costs were awarded. The court did not decide the merits of the underlying writ petition.
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.
1
69 CAW 2517-14 in WP 4641-06.doc
Sequeira
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2517 OF 2014 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4641 OF 2006
Satyawan Singh S/o. Lakhmi Chand .. Applicant / Petitioner Vs Union of India Through its Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs & ors. .. Respondents
Mr.S.Malik, for Petitioner. Mr.D.A.Dube, for Union of India-Respondents.
CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA & N.M.JAMDAR, JJ. Tuesday 2 December, 2014.
P.C.:
The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner on instruction is not pressing prayer clause (a). We are accepting the same at the risk and consequences of Petitioner. As far as early hearing is concerned, as the matter is pertaining to the year 2006, the matter be placed for 'Final hearing' year-wise after eight weeks i.e. on 27 January 2015. Application is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.
N.M.JAMDAR, J.
Satyawan Singh S/o. Lakhmi Chand
Union of India Through its Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs
Anoop V. Motta
N.M. Jamdar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
