In a writ petition, the Court observed that the petitioner had instructed counsel that the petition would not be pursued against Respondent No.8 due to an arrived settlement. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of as not pressed.
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.
hcs
1/1
4.w5466.18.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5466 OF 2018
Smt.Shamshad Nadim Sayyed … Petitioner V/s. Union of India & Ors. … Respondents
Mr.Nitin S. Satpute for the Petitioner.
Dr.K.R. KulKarni AGP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN AND MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ.
DATE : 17TH JULY, 2021 (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)
P.C:-
[MADHAV JAMDAR, J.]
[UJJAL BHUYAN, J.]
Smt. Shamshad Nadim Sayyed
Union of India
Ujjal Bhuyan
Madhav J. Jamdar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
