The High Court of Bombay dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 holding that the petitioners had an alternate remedy of filing an appeal. The court declared the writ petition and associated chamber summons dismissed.
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.
VAT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION No.839 OF 2013 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS No.86 OF 2013
Smt. V.V. Dabholkar and Ors. ...Petitioners Vs.
Union of India and Ors. ...Respondents
Mrs. Shaila Pathak for Petitioners Ms. Purnima Awasthi for Respondent No.1 Mr.N.V. Gangal for Respondent Nos.2 and 3
CORAM : V. M. KANADE & A.K. MENON, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 24, 2014
P.C.
1/2
VAISHALI TIKAM
(WP 839 of 2013)
[A.K. MENON, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.]
2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the existence of an alternate remedy of filing an appeal.
Whether the Chamber Summons survives.
Smt. V.V. Dabholkar and Ors.
Union of India and Ors.
V. M. KANADE
A.K. MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court