The High Court dismissed a writ petition held to be maintainable alternatively under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. All questions were kept open.
Writ petition dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3811/2019
(Sau.Rekha @ Surekha w/o Surchand Sukhdeve vs. Shri Surchand s/o Pandurang Sukhdeve and others )
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders
Shri D.C.Chahande, Advocates for petitioners Smt. M.R. Chandurkar, Adv. for respondents 2 and 3
CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE & VINAY JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 10th June, 2019.
The petitioner has an alternate remedy to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
The Writ Petition is dismissed on that sole ground. All questions raised in the petition are kept open.
JUDGE
JUDGE
sahare
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petitioner had an alternate remedy under the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal instead of filing the writ petition.
Sau Rekha @ Surekha w/o Surchand Sukhdeve
Shri Surchand s/o Pandurang Sukhdeve
R.K. DESHPANDE
VINAY JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
