Writ petition challenging impugned orders; counsel did not press prayer clauses (a) and (b), leave to amend granted, respondents permitted to file response, matter adjourned to a later date.
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.
TAUSEEF LAIQUEE FAROOQUI
Digitally signed by TAUSEEF LAIQUEE FAROOQUI Date: 2024.10.09 17:22:13 +0530
Tauseef 37-WP.210.2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.210 OF 2024
Apex Iron (India) Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra, through the Office of Government Pleader & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Abhishek A. Rastogi (through V.C.) a/w. Mr. Meenal Songire and Mr. Aarya More for Petitioner.
Ms. S. D. Vyas, Addl. G. P. a/w. Ms. P. N. Diwan, AGP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Karan Adik a/w. Mr. Ram Ochani for Respondent No.3.
CORAM : M. S. SONAK & JITENDRA JAIN, J.J. DATED : 8th OCTOBER 2024
P.C. :
would not be pressing for any relief in terms of prayer clauses (a) and
(b) of this petition. However, he will argue only on prayer clause (c).
elaborate upon the grounds of challenge to the impugned orders.
and amended copy of the petition would be served upon the learned counsel for the Respondents.
1 of 2
Tauseef 37-WP.210.2024.doc
2 of 2
Apex Iron (India) Pvt. Ltd.
State of Maharashtra
M. S. Sonak
Jitendra Jain
As recorded by the court registry
8 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
