Petitioner challenged an order in writ petition 3064 of 2001. The court found the main proceedings were already decided, rendering the petition infructuous, and dismissed it.
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.
WP3064.2001
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3064 OF 2001
Trimbak s/o Rangrao Kulkarni (Sugaonkar)
...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others
….Respondents
Mr M. M. Joshi, Advocate for petitioner Mr S. R. Palnitkar, AGP for respondent/State Mr Dhananjay Mane, Advocate h/f Mr Milind Patil, Advocate for respondent Nos. 12 to 16
CORAM : N. W. SAMBRE, J.
DATED : 18th JULY, 2014.
PER COURT : -
The order impugned in this petition was passed in proceedings No. 2 of 2001, which was pending before the Additional District Judge, Parbhani.
It is informed by Mr M. M. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner that, the main proceedings bearing B.P.T. Appeal No. 2 of 2001, are already decided and as such the petition is rendered infructuous.
The above referred statement of learned Counsel for petitioner is
not objected by respondents.
As such, petition is dismissed as infructuous.
( N. W. SAMBRE, J. )
Punde
Trimbak s/o Rangrao Kulkarni
The State of Maharashtra
N. W. Sambre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
