This judgment dismisses a writ petition wherein the petitioner sought writ jurisdiction despite having an available alternate civil remedy. The Court held that the grievances were within the Civil Court's domain and the petition was rejected.
Petition stands 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.
wp 2166.14
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2166 OF 2014
Eknath S/o Guru Nandeo Maharaj VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. V.D. Patnurkar AGP for Respondents: Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr.Alok Sharma
CORAM : R. M. BORDE AND
V. K. JADHAV, JJ.
DATED :24th SEPTEMBER, 2014
P.C. :-
wp 2166.14
-2-
has availed of remedy.
( V. K. JADHAV, J.) ( R. M. BORDE, J. )
vbd/24.9.14
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction when an alternate civil remedy exists and the petitioner has suppressed material facts.
Eknath S/o Guru Nandeo Maharaj
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
R. M. BORDE
V. K. JADHAV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
