The court disposed of a contempt petition following an order by this Court rejecting the petitioner's proposal. The counsel was allowed to challenge the order via appropriate legal remedies.
Contempt petition disposed of. Counsel permitted to challenge decision via appropriate legal remedies.
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.
1 928-CP-564-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CONT. PETITION NO.564 OF 2019 IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 3036 OF 2019
RAHUL KAILASH SHINDE
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...RESPONDENTS
Mr A.J. Patil, Advocate for Petitioner Mr K.N. Lokhande, AGP for Respondent-State
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATE : 14th NOVEMBER, 2019
PER COURT :
[ ANIL S. KILOR ] [ PRASANNA B. VARALE ] JUDGE JUDGE
mta
Rahul Kailash Shinde
The State of Maharashtra
Prasanna B. Varale
Anil S. Kilor
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
