This court disposed of Civil Application No.5316/2010 which sought the benefit of an earlier observation regarding compensation allegations in Writ Petition No.437/2009. The court held that the current applicants were not parties to the earlier writ petition.
No costs.
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.
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5316 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.437 OF 2009
Mrs.Sheetal W/o Shriram Naik and others Vs. Manik S/o Ambadasrao Labade and others.
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Court's or Judge's orders
Mr.P.R.Patil, advocate for the applicants Mr.B.V.Virdhe, A.G.P. for the State. Mr.K.K.Kulkarni, advocate for Respondent No.4.
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND K.L.WADANE,JJ. Date : 15.10.2016.
PER COURT :
2
sale deed dated 2.11.1987. As such the petitioner in the Writ Petition did not have any right to claim the compensation amount. 3. Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel appears for Respondent No.4 Municipal Council and submits that in some other proceedings, the present applicant No.1's husband and father of applicant Nos.2 and 3 had claimed that the sale deed in question was executed only by way of security and the same was not acted upon.
(K.L.WADANE,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)
Dt.15.10.2016. asp/office/Ca5316.10
3
Mrs.Sheetal W/o Shriram Naik and others
Manik S/o Ambadasrao Labade and others
S.V.GANGAPURWALA
K.L.WADANE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
