Writ petition seeking salary payment for a period. Dismissed on grounds that writ does not lie against private management and because disputed facts exist unfitting for writ jurisdiction.
None granted. Petition is dismissed.
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.
1 wp 8971.13.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8971 of 2013
Smt. Mahadevi Kavachale …...Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and ors. …...Respondents
Mr. V. K. Bodhare, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Rupali Shinde, AGP for the State.
Mr. Prashant Dingrani i/b. Ms. Aarti Bhide, advocate for the respondent No.3.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT.ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. DATE : 2nd APRIL, 2018.
P. C. :
Heard learned counsel and learned AGP appearing for the respective parties.
Shubhada S Kadam 1/2
1 wp 8971.13.doc
[SMT.ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]
Shubhada S Kadam 2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked against private management for payment of salary.
Whether the High Court can adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact regarding a dispute on salary and appointment approval.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Mahadevi Kavachale
State of Maharashtra
Ranjit More
Anuja PrabhuDESSAI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
