Single judge dismissed this writ petition under Article 226 as it involved disputed questions of fact, noting the court could not entertain it despite exercising jurisdiction.
Petition dismissed as it involved disputed questions of fact not suitable for writ jurisdiction.
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.
Megha 44_wp_2707-2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2707 OF 2017
Rajendra Madhukar Khot …Petitioner
Versus Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd.
...Respondent
Mr. Mohd. Salim Nawab for the Petitioner.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE AND
SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.
DATED: 6th JULY, 2018.
Megha Digitally signedby Megha Shridhar Shridhar Parab Date: 2018.07.09 Parab 16:04:41 +0530
P.C.:-
Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, we find that the petition involves disputed question of fact. We, in exercise of jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot entertain the same. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)
(RANJIT MORE, J.)
Megha
1/1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this court can entertain the writ petition given the existence of disputed questions of fact.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajendra Madhukar Khot
Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd.
RANJIT MORE
SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
