In a group of review applications filed by applicants challenging orders in various writ petitions concerning identical facts, this Division Bench rejected the reviews as devoid of substance, advising applicants to pursue alternate appellate remedies.
All review applications stand rejected.
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.
rast24866.14.doc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
REVIEW APPLICATION ST. NO. 29866 OF 2014 IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 7130 OF 2014
Abhijeet Shankarrao Jagtap .. APPLICANT
VERSUS
The Union of India & others. .. RESPONDENTS
Mr. V.D. Sapkal, advocate holding for Mr. A. B. Kale, advocate for applicant. Mr. S.B. Deshpande, Standing Counsel for Union of India. Ms. Anjali Dubey (Bajpai), advocate for respondents 2 and 3.
WITH REVIEW APPLICATION ST. NO. 29871 OF 2014 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7131 OF 2014
Santosh Hanumantrao Upre
.. APPLICANT
VERSUS
The Union of India & others .. RESPONDENTS
Mr. V. D. Sapkal, advocate holding for Mr. A. B. Kale, advocate for applicant. Mr. S. B. Deshpande, Standing Counsel for Union of India. Ms. Anjali Dubey (Bajpai), advocate for respondents 2 and 3.
WITH REVIEW APPLICATION ST. NO. 29863 OF 2014 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.7094 OF 2014
Sandeep Hanumantrao Upre
.. APPLICANT
VERSUS
The Union of India & others .. RESPONDENTS
rast24866.14.doc
2
Mr. V. D. Sapkal, advocate holding for Mr. A. B. Kale, advocate for applicant. Mr. S. B. Deshpande, Standing Counsel for Union of India. Ms. Anjali Dubey (Bajpai), advocate for respondents 2 and 3.
WITH REVIEW APPLICATION ST. NO. 29869 OF 2014 IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 7129 OF 2014
Yuvraj Rajendra Jagtap .. APPLICANT
VERSUS
Union of India & others .. RESPONDENTS
Mr. V. D. Sapkal, advocate holding for Mr. A. B. Kale, advocate for applicant. Mr. S. B. Deshpande, Standing Counsel for Union of India. Ms. Anjali Dubey (Bajpai), advocate for respondents 2 and 3.
=====
CORAM : R.M. BORDE & V.K. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 22nd JANUARY, 2015.
PER COURT :
rast24866.14.doc
3
( V. K. JADHAV ) ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the review applications are maintainable and deserving of acceptance given the existence of alternate appellate remedies.
Whether the division benches at Aurangabad and Nagpur have conflicting views on the identical set of facts in the companion matters.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. V. Kolkata Metropolitan Development AuthorityReferred¶1
Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. V. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority reported in (2013) 10 SCC 95 · Who else cites this
Unreported group of petitions decided by Division Bench at NagpurReferred¶1
Writ Petition No. 2812/2014
Abhijeet Shankarrao Jagtap
Santosh Hanumantrao Upre
Sandeep Hanumantrao Upre
Yuvraj Rajendra Jagtap
The Union of India
R.M. Borde
V.K. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
