The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad refused to entertain a writ petition challenging an interim order because an alternate legal remedy was available to the petitioner.
Liberty to avail the alternate remedy permissible under law.
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 BENCH AT AURANGABAD
39 WRIT PETITION NO. 15074 OF 2023
VASUDEV MADHAV PATIL AND ANOTHER VERSUS MURALIDHAR MADHAV PATIL AND OTHERS
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Wagh Ishwar Kalyan
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 11th DECEMBER, 2023
PER COURT :
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ]
Thakur-Chauhan/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging an interim order should be entertained when an alternate remedy is available
Vasudev Madhav Patil and Another
Muralidhar Madhav Patil and Others
Shailesh P. Brahme
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
