The High Court dismissed a Writ Petition challenging the rejection of a temporary injunction application in a civil suit regarding property possession, holding no prima facie evidence of allotment.
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.
1
W.P.No.668/14
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.668 OF 2014
Office Notes, Office
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's
orders or directions
andRegistrar's
orders.
Court's or Judge's orders
Mr.R.A.Tambe, advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.G.R.Ingole, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State.
Mr.S.B.Bhosale, advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 9.
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.
Date : 22.01.2014.
PER COURT :
2
W.P.No.668/14
Petitioner and wherein the petitioner has carried out construction and also is issued completion certificate. According to the learned counsel, in view of the fact that it would be a case of deemed permission as the proposal of the Petitioner for all these years was not rejected nor anything adverse was communicated. The Courts have failed to consider the said aspect. The possession of the petitioner needs to be protected, so also the construction that has been carried out.
3
W.P.No.668/14
as possible and preferably within nine (9) months.
(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)
Dt.22.01.2014. asp/office/wp668.14
Petitioner
State
Respondent Nos.2 to 9
S.V.GANGAPURWALA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court