Sachin Narsingrao Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Case brief
What is this about?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY…
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.
wp1115.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD (1) WRIT PETITION NO.11 OF 2015
Sachin Narsingrao Jadhav
Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others
Respondents
Mr.Yogesh B. Bolkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 8. Mr.A.K.Tiwari, advocate holding for Mr.V.D.Kadam, advocate for Respondents No.9 & 10. Mr.A.S.Bajaj, advocate for Respondent No.11.
WITH
Sau. Nayna w/o Baban Deshmukh Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents
Mr.S.P.Brahme, advocate holding for Mr.M.S.Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 4. Mr.A.K.Tiwari, advocate holding for Mr.V.D.Kadam, advocate for Respondents No.5 & 6. Mr.A.S.Bajaj, advocate for Respondent No.7.
WITH
Anand Apparao Gaikwad Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents
Mr.Satyajit R. Vakil, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1, 2 & 4. Mr.A.K.Tiwari, advocate holding for Mr.V.D.Kadam, advocate for
wp1115.odt
Respondent No.3. Mr.A.S.Bajaj, advocate for Respondent No.5.
WITH
Balasaheb Indrajeet Hazare
Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others
Respondents
Mr.Satyajit R. Vakil, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1, 2 & 4. Mr.A.K.Tiwari, advocate holding for Mr.V.D.Kadam, advocate for Respondent No.3.
Mr.A.S.Bajaj, advocate for Respondent No.5.
WITH
Jagdish Arun Pansare Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others
Respondents
Mr.Satyajit R. Vakil, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1, 2 & 4. Mr.A.K.Tiwari, advocate holding for Mr.V.D.Kadam, advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr.A.S.Bajaj, advocate for Respondent No.5.
WITH
Dhanraj Abaji Latpate Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others
Respondents
Mr.Satyajit R. Vakil, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1, 2 & 4.
wp1115.odt
Mr.A.K.Tiwari, advocate holding for Mr.V.D.Kadam, advocate for Respondent No.3.
Mr.A.S.Bajaj, advocate for Respondent No.5.
WITH
Narayan Rangnath Kulkarni Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others
Respondents
Mr.Satyajit R. Vakil, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1, 2 & 4. Mr.A.K.Tiwari, advocate holding for Mr.V.D.Kadam, advocate for Respondent No.3.
Mr.A.S.Bajaj, advocate for Respondent No.5.
WITH
Yogesh Govindrao Vitkhede Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents
Mr.Satyajit R. Vakil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.P.More, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1, 2 & 4.
Mr.A.K.Tiwari, advocate holding for Mr.V.D.Kadam, advocate for Respondent No.3.
Mr.A.S.Bajaj, advocate for Respondent No.5.
WITH
Nandkishor s/o Ramrao Nandedkar Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others
Respondents
Mr.S.S.Thombre, advocate for the petitioner.
{4}
wp1115.odt
Mrs.V.A.Shinde, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 & 2. 8. Mr.A.K.Tiwari, advocate holding for Mr.V.D.Kadam, advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr.A.S.Bajaj, advocate for Respondent No.4
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
P.R.BORA, JJ. DATE : 21st January, 2015
PER COURT:
In view of the decision rendered by this Court yesterday i.e. 20.01.2015 in group of Writ Petitions bearing No.11361 of 2014 and connected matters, nothing survives for considerations in the instant petitions.
Writ Petitions stand disposed of.
P.R.BORA JUDGE
R.M.BORDE
JUDGE
adb/wp1115
Sachin Narsingrao Jadhav
Sau. Nayna w/o Baban Deshmukh
Anand Apparao Gaikwad
Balasaheb Indrajeet Hazare
Jagdish Arun Pansare
Dhanraj Abaji Latpate
R.M. Borde
P.R. Bora
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court