Disposing a writ petition against an interlocutory order rejecting a miscellaneous application. The court kept points open and directed the Tribunal to consider a specific prayer while hearing the original application pending for admission.
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.
45-wp2198.14.sxw
ssm 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2198 OF 2014
Nitin Ashok Chavan ….Petitioner.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
….Respondents.
Mr. Nitesh V. Bhutekar for the Petitioner. Mr. C.P. Yadav, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Sanjay Kshirsagar for Respondent No.4.
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
N.M. JAMDAR, JJ. DATE : 1 DECEMBER 2014.
P.C.:-
Rule, returnable forthwith.
Heard finally, by consent of the parties.
2 The present Writ Petition is against the interlocutory order,
whereby the Miscellaneous Application in question was rejected as the prayers in the main Original Application are same. The statement is made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the Original Application is part-heard and pending for admission.
1/2
ssm 2 45-wp2198.14.sxw
3 Therefore, by keeping all points open, we are inclined to dispose of the present Writ Petition. However, the learned Tribunal to consider the case, basically prayer clause (a) so made in the Miscellaneous Application in accordance with law, while hearing the Original Application.
(N.M. JAMDAR, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
2/2
Nitin Ashok Chavan
The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Anoop V. Mohta
N.M. Jamdar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
