Sandeep Shivram Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Case brief
What is this about?
Two-judge division held that the writ petition lacks territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action arose in Mumbai or Nagpur. Writs were returned to the appropriate Bench with an interim extension of 15 days.
What did the court decide?
Petitioners directed to file writs before the appropriate Bench/Forum at Mumbai or Nagpur.
What the court decided
26 sr.no..odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
26 WRIT PETITION NO.4691 OF 2019
WITH CA/8396/2019 IN WP/4691/2019 WITH WP/4692/2019 WITH WP/4693/2019 WITH WP/4694/2019 WITH WP/4695/2019 WITH WP/4696/2019 WITH WP/4697/2019 WITH WP/4698/2019 WITH WP/4699/2019 WITH WP/4700/2019 WITH WP/4701/2019 WITH WP/4702/2019 WITH WP/4703/2019 WITH WP/4704/2019 WITH WP/4705/2019 WITH WP/4706/2019 WITH WP/4707/2019 WITH WP/4708/2019 WITH WP/4709/2019 WITH WP/4710/2019 WITH WP/4711/2019
SANDEEP SHIVRAM CHAVAN VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Vikrant S Valse with Mr. G.V. Wani AGP for Respondents: Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Additional G.P. Mr. N.N. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.2.
. . .
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & K.K. SONAWAJE, JJ. DATE : 22ND AUGUST, 2019.
PER COURT:
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the high court can entertain the writ petition when the petitioners, impugned orders, and recoveries are located in Mumbai or Nagpur.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Sandeep Shivram Chavan
- respondent
The State of Maharashtra
Coram
S. V. Gangapurwala
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court