Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J
Cyril Sequeira – Appellant
Versus
Victor Joao Baptista Sequiera – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim of mundkarship given personal history. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments for the legality of mundkarship despite the appointed date. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. respondent's counterarguments refuting mundkarship claim. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. rejoinder highlighting the petitioner's perspective on induction. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 5. analysis of the legislative history and implications on the case. (Para 20 , 21 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. legal interpretation of the appointed date's significance. (Para 68 , 69 , 70) |
| 7. final court observations on the legitimacy of the mundkarship claim. (Para 84) |
JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.
2. The petitioner is hereby challenging the judgment and order dated 18/10/2019 passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal in Mundkar Revision Application No.17/2018 wherein the learned Tribunal rejected revision and confirmed the impugned judgment passed by the authorities below.
3. An interesting question cropped up in the present petition which reads thus:
“Whether a person who was lawfully inducted in the house
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
