This writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution because the petitioner was absent and failed to provide instructions to his advocate, Mr. Bindra, who was not given a proper opportunity to act for him.
The writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution.
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.
Dixit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2578 OF 2014
Raj Jitendra Patel .… Petitioner V/s. Union of India, Through the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, Ministry of Civil Aviation, New Delhi & Ors. …. Respondents
Ms. Almas Sati, i/by Mr. Rajesh D. Bindra, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Mohamedali M. Chunawala, a/w. Mr. Parag Vyas, for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Rakesh Singh, i/by M/s. M.V. Kini & Co., for Respondent Nos.2 to 4.
CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &
DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.J.
DATE : 10TH AUGUST, 2016.
P.C. :
lodged on 21st August 2014 and filed on 29th October 2014. Since that
date, the Petition has appeared on several occasions and Mr. Bindra has appeared for the petitioner. We do not approve of this statement and
1/2
WP-2578-14.doc
made belatedly that the papers are taken away from Mr. Bindra. Mr. Bindra should have obtained discharge in accordance with the rule.
[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.]
2/2
WP-2578-14.doc
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the petitioner's absence and failure to provide instructions to counsel.
Raj Jitendra Patel
Union of India
Bureau of Civil Aviation Security
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI
DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
