The High Court of Bombay at Goa, relying on submission, corrected an earlier order dated 17/7/2015 to record that an ad interim order was operative in the trial court from 4/3/2014.
The order dated 17/7/2015 was appropriately corrected to record the existence of an ad interim 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 458 OF 2015
IN
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 81 OF 2015
SHRI ANANT VINAYAK LOTLIKAR. ... Applicant Versus STATE OF GOA, THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents
Mr. Kakodkar Shambhu Satchidanand, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. K. Noorani, Advocate for Respondent no. 4.
Coram:C. V. BHADANG, J.
Date:23rd July, 2015
P.C.:
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
MCA/458/2015
2
trial Court is not correct.
C. V. BHADANG, J.
ap/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order dated 17/7/2015 in CA no. 81/2014 required correction regarding the existence of an interim order.
SHRI ANANT VINAYAK LOTLIKAR
STATE OF GOA
C. V. BHADANG
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
