Single-paragraph order correcting a typographical error in a previous judgment regarding a writ petition, clarifying that prayer clause (b) was allowed instead of (a).
Order to correct typographical error in original judgment and online order.
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.
wp-9438.11
1
pmw
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9438 OF 2011
Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or orders or directions & Judge’s orders. Registrar’s orders.
Mr. Anand Landge i/by Mr. Nagesh Y. Chavan, for the Petitioner. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr. Tejpal Ingale, for Respondent No.5.
CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.S. GADKARI, JJ.
DATE : 22nd DECEMBER, 2014
P.C.
. There is a typographical error in paragraph 17 of the Judgment and Order dated 30th October, 2014. The Petition was allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). However, due to inadvertent error, in the sixth line of the paragraph 17 of the Judgment, prayer clause (a) has been incorporated. Prayer clause (a) shall be replaced by prayer clause (b). Correction shall be carried out to the original order as well as to the order uploaded on the server.
(A.S. GADKARI, J ) (A.S.OKA, J )
1 of 1
A.S. OKA
A.S. GADKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
