SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 80

ANIL R.DAVE, S.S.NIJJAR
SUNANDA MAHENDRA GAIKWAD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent


ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. A perusal of the order passed by the High Court clearly shows that it is a non-speaking order. The writ petition has been disposed of in a perfunctory manner, without considering either the factual or the legal controversy involved. In our opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. On this short ground alone, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the High Court for consideration of the writ petition on merits.

4. It is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the appellant that he did not have the opportunity to file rejoinder affidavit before the High Court. If that be so, the appellant may be permitted to file rejoinder affidavit before the High Court and thereafter the writ petition be set down for final disposal. Hearing of the writ petition also be expedited.

5. The appeal is disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top