The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging orders rejecting a summons application for two witnesses. The Court held that the application failed to establish witness relevancy, so the impugned order could not be faulted.
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)
57-wp-1658-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1658 OF 2023
SUWARNAMALA RAMBHAU SHIVGAN AND ANOTHER VERSUS ASHOK KANHU BANSODE AND OTHERS
… Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the Petitioners.
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATED : 13th FEBRUARY, 2023.
PER COURT:-
(2) 57-wp-1658-2023
rejected on the ground that the Headmasters are not concerned with the elections and the present enquiry is in respect of the change reports.
(3) 57-wp-1658-2023
Upon such an application being filed, the Assistant Charity Commissioner to consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law.
(SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH) JUDGE
Devendra/February-2023
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the rejection of the application for summoning two witnesses claiming they are Headmasters of schools was warranted due to lack of stated relevancy.
SUWARNAMALA RAMBHAU SHIVGAN AND ANOTHER
ASHOK KANHU BANSODE AND OTHERS
SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
