High Court at Aurangabad rejected a writ petition where petitioners had previously undertaken to vacate premises within a six-month period, rendering the prayer devoid of substance.
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.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1522 OF 2016
(Santosh s/o Shivlingappa Mene & ors. Vs. The Administrator, City & Industrial Development Corporation & anr.)
Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders Registrar's orders
Shri K.C. Sant, Advocate for petitioners Shri S.B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for State
CORAM : R.M. BORDE AND A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ. DATED : 11th February, 2016.
fmp/wp1522.16
1 issue framed by the court
Whether petitioners, having given an undertaking to vacate premises, are entitled to claim relief against eviction.
Santosh s/o Shivlingappa Mene & ors.
The Administrator, City & Industrial Development Corporation and anr.
R.M. BORDE
A.I.S. CHEEMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
