The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, on a civil application, held that no interference was warranted in an impugned order. The application was consequently rejected.
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.
2718.11caw.sxw
1/1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2718 OF 2011
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 5448 OF 2008
Union of India and others. ... Applicants. V/s. Shri Gajanan Jayaram Gothaskar. ... Respondent.
None for the applicants.
None for the respondent.
CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.
DATED : 13th June 2014.
P.C. :
None appears for the applicants.
(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
(NARESH H. PATIL, J.)
Sanjay Nanoskar, P.S..
Union of India and others
Shri Gajanan Jayaram Gothaskar
NARESH H. PATIL
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
