The Chairman, Shri Shankarrao Shinde Shikshan Mandal, Hadalge and Anr. Vs Shri. Sakharam Mahadeo Mohangekar and Ors.

The only contention as urged on behalf of the Review Petitioners is that the communication dated 17 July 2005 of the petitionersInstitution and the reply dated 7 August 2005 of the respondent – employee were not considered in deciding the Writ Petition in question. It is not

¶18

901rewst32899-14.doc

¶19

PVR 2/2

¶20

disputed on the part of the Review Petitioners that these documents were neither part of the paper book nor were relied upon by the Review Petitioners in the review petition as also no ground in this regard was urged in the petition. Mr.Bandiwadekar, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 submits that even before the Tribunal, this issue was not urged on behalf by the Review Petitioners.

¶21

Having considered the grounds as raised in the Review

¶22

Petition as well as the judgment and order dated 14 July 2014 which is sought to be reviewed, I find that there is no error apparent on the face of record. Even otherwise, there is no ground for review. The Review Petition

¶23

is rejected.

¶24

( G.S.KULKARNI , J .)

The Chairman, Shri Shankarrao Shinde Shikshan Mandal, Hadalge and Anr. v. Shri. Sakharam Mahadeo Mohangekar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Chairman, Shri Shankarrao Shinde Shikshan Mandal, Hadalge and Anr. v. Shri. Sakharam Mahadeo Mohangekar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors. Vs Trimurti Shikshan Sanstha Sanchalit Shriram Madhyamik Vidyalay, Ramnagar

Mr. Rajendra Kumar Mohanty S/O Late Badibandhu Mohanty Vs L and T Finance Limited and Anr.

Adivasi Kalyan Va Sanvardhan Society Maharashtra, through Mr. Dilip Vitthalrao Khamkar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.