Writ petition dismissed for want of prosecution as there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner; earlier counsel had given no objection for engaging another counsel about two years back.
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.
ppn 1 18.wp-655.17.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONPRACHI PRACHI PRANESH PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR NANDIWADEKAR Date: 2024.04.17WRIT PETITION NO.655 OF 201713:56:41 +0530
Bharat Minerals Company
.. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
.. Respondents
Mr.Sagar A. Mane for the petitioner.
Mr.N.C.Walimbe, Addl. GP a/w Smt.Priyanka B.Chavan, AGP for the
respondent nos.1 & 2.
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 15 th April 2024
P.C.:-
.The learned counsel who was initially appearing for the
petitioner submits that his no objection was given to the said petitioner
to enable them to engage another counsel. This was done about two
years back. There is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner.
2.In view of aforesaid, the writ petition stands dismissed for
want of prosecution.
JITENDRA JAIN, J.A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
Bharat Minerals Company
The State of Maharashtra
A.S. Chandurkar
Jitendra Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court