The High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad disposed of a civil application as misconceived. The court noted that the connected writ petition remained against un-served respondents despite an earlier order for dismissal.
Civil application disposed of as misconceived.
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.
4251.21ca
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
904 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4251 OF 2021 IN WP/8485/2020 WITH WP/8485/2020
DNYANESHWAR GANGARAM PADALWAR AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Mr M. K. Bhosale, Advocate h/f Mr A. M. Salok, Advocate for applicants; Mr S. G. Sangle, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND S. G. MEHARE, JJ.
DATE : 27th August, 2021
PER COURT:
4251.21ca
(2)
(S. G. MEHARE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
sjk
DNYANESHWAR GANGARAM PADALWAR AND OTHERS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
RAVINDRA V GHUGE
S G MEHARE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
