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

SHRIKANT VITTHALRAO MUNDHE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS – Respondent


Advocates:
['MANEY V M', 'COPY SERVED ON GP', '', 'NO CAVEAT']

{1}

wp621020.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.6210 OF 2020

Shrikant s/o Vitthalrao Mundhe

Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & others

Respondents

Mr.V.M.Maney, advocate for the petitioner.

Mrs.G.L.Deshpande, AGP for the Respondents.

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND

SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

DATE : 14th September, 2020.

PC :

1

The petitioner had challenged the order of

suspension before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,

Bench at Aurangabad. The Original Application fled by the

petitioner is disposed of in view of the fact that the petitioner

had not availed alternate remedy.

2

Mr.Maney, learned Counsel for the petitioner, relying

on the following judgments submits that availability of alternate

remedy is not a bar for the Court to exercise its jurisdiction.

(i)

Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade

Marks, Mumbai & others, AIR 1999 SC 22;

{2}

wp621020.odt

(ii)

M.P.

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