The writ petition was dismissed on default due to the absence of the petitioner and his advocate on the fixed date of hearing, despite the petition being scheduled for dismissal.
The petition was dismissed for default.
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.
Rane
Tuesday, 14.2.2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 79 OF 2016
M. Venkatesh Murthy
…..Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and anr.
…..Respondents
None for the petitioner.
Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for respondent, State.
CORAM :- SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED :- 14th FEBRUARY, 2017.
P.C. :-
1). Though the petition is shown on the board for dismissal, the petitioner and advocate are absent. The petition is dismissed for default.
(SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J)
M. Venkatesh Murthy
The State of Maharashtra
R.P. Sondurbaldota
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
