In WPMB No. 81 of 2023, the Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition in default because none of the petitioners appeared despite being advised earlier. No arguments were placed on behalf of the petitioners.
Petition dismissed in default.
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.
| SL. No Date |
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|
| 07.06.2023 | WPMB No. 81 of 2023 Sri Vipin Sanghi, C.J. Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. None appears for the petitioners. |
|
| 2. Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State- respondent nos.1 to 4. |
||
| 3. Mr. Arhar Baig,_proxy_counsel for Ms. Nishat Intezar, learned counsel for respondent nos.5 and 6. |
||
| 4. When the matter was called out yesterday, adjournment was sought on the ground that learned Senior Counsel engaged was not available. The matter was directed to be listed today. Despite pass over, none has appeared for the petitioners. |
||
| 5. In the light of the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed in-default. |
||
| (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) (Vipin Sanghi, C.J.) 07.06.2023 07.06.2023 NISHANT |
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Unnamed Petitioners
State of Maharashtra
Nishat Intezar
Vipin Sanghi
Rakesh Thapliyal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
