A single Judge bench dismissed a writ petition as it was identical to a similar prayer refused in W.P. No. 82 of 2014, relying on the prior order of December 21, 2015.
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.
44-wp-1189-2015
WRIT PETITION NO.1189 OF 2015
Anil Kumar Poddar ...Petitioner vs. Linkson International Limited and Others ...Respondents
Mr. Anil Kumar Poddar, the Petitioner - party in person. Ms. Chinmayee Ghag i/b. MDP & Partners, for Respondent No. 4
CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & MAKARAND KARNIK, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 25, 2016
P.C.:
. At the outset the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4
has pointed out that the similar prayer has been refused by the Division Bench of this Court on 21st December, 2015 in the Writ Petition No. 82 of 2014 filed by the Petitioner himself.
1/2
Vishal Parekar
44-wp-1189-2015
Frontline Business Solutions Limited and Others in Writ Petition No. 82 of 2014.
(MAKARAND KARNIK, J.)
(SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)
2/2
Vishal Parekar
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Writ Petition No. 82 of 2014Referred¶9
Vishal ParekarReferred¶10
Anil Kumar Poddar vs. Vishal Parekar
Writ Petition No. 82 of 2014Referred¶14
Anil Kumar Poddar
Linkson International Limited
Vishal Parekar
Frontline Business Solutions Limited
Shantanu Kemkar
Makarand Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
