Petitioners challenged an interim order; counsel sought only expeditious disposal of the pending revision. The court, without notice to respondents 1 and 3, disposed of the petition directing respondent No.5 to decide the revision within six weeks.
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.
905-WP-7514-2024.doc
VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL
Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2024.07.24 18:58:45 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7514 OF 2024
Khanderao Bapuso Jagtap And Anr. ...Petitioners Versus Sambhaji Alias Banda Salunkhe And Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Bhooshan R. Mandlik, for the Petitioners. Ms. V. S. Nimbalkar, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.5 to 7 – State. Mr. Pawankumar Tiwari, with Mr. Shantanu Kalekar, with Mr. Yogesh Morbale, for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J. DATE : 24th JULY, 2024
P.C.:
since the petition arises out of the interim order passed by the respondent no.5 which was pending before him, he would be satisfied if the revision is directed to be decided expeditiously, for which learned AGP for respondent Nos.5 to 7 and Mr. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have no objection. Considering the nature of claim, there is no necessity to issue notice to respondent Nos.1 and 3.
1 of 2
VAI
905-WP-7514-2024.doc
(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
2 of 2
VAI
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the pending revision before respondent no.5 should be directed to be decided expeditiously.
Khanderao Bapuso Jagtap And Anr.
Sambhaji Alias Banda Salunkhe And Ors.
AVINASH G. GHAROTE
As recorded by the court registry
5 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
