The writ petitioner failed to appear on the scheduled date of hearing after the court had warned of dismissal for default; the petition was dismissed in default.
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.
953
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3132 OF 1999
DATTATRAYA SADASHIV PUPULWAD
VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
AGP for Respondents: Mr. V. H. Dighe Advocate for respondent No.2: Mr. K. D. Bade Patil
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & V. K. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 21st November, 2014
PER COURT :
The Division Bench of this Court, on 12th June, 2014, had observed that despite the petitioner being served with the Court notice, the petitioner is absent. It was further observed that in case the petitioner fails to
appear on the next date, the petition will be dismissed in default. Today, when the matter is called out, none appears for the petitioner. In the light of that, the writ petition is dismissed in default.
(V. K. JADHAV, J.) ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. )
JPC
1/1
DATTATRAYA SADASHIV PUPULWAD
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
V. K. JADHAV
S. V. GANGAPURWALA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
