Rajesh Laxmichand Udeshi @Bhatia vs Pravin Hiralal Shah on 16 July, 2012
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Mohit S. Shah , N.M. Jamdar
kambli 1 appl ... SUMMARY SUIT NO.673 OF 2010
...
Rajesh Laxmichand Udeshi @Bhatia ...Appellant
v/s.
Pravin Hiralal Shah ...Respondent
...
Mr.Sanjay Jain with Mr.Ramesh Jain
Satalingappa Udeshi vs The Land Tribunal Chikkodi on 18 January, 2012
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J.Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ... AJIT J.GUNJAL
WRIT PETITION NO.3577/2006(LR)
Between:
Sri Satalingappa Udeshi,
S/o Dundappa Udeshi,
Since dead by LRs
1(A) Smt. Suman
State of Maharashtra,
through the Sub-Divisional
Police Officer, Nagpur.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-
Ms Trupti Udeshi, Adv. (appointed) for the Appellant.
Mr.K.L.Dharmadhikari ... incident. Then
report was lodged with the police.
5. Ms Trupti Udeshi, learned advocate for the Appellant
argued that the learned trial Judge failed
invalidated by a Division Bench of the
Bombay High Court in Narendra Udeshi v. Union of India
2003 (156) ELT 819. The Bombay High Court ... Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of
Narendra Udeshi Vs. Union of India [2003
(156) ELT 819] holding that
Bhoyar, A.P.P. for Appellant/State.
Ms T.H.Udeshi, Adv. (appointed) for Respondent.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J.
DATED : 25th June, 2012.
ORAL ... trial Magistrate.
6.
On the other hand, Ms T.H.Udeshi, learned Advocate for the
respondent, in support of the impugned judgment and order, submitted
Aole and Mr. A.N.
Jakhadi i/b Udwadia & Udeshi for Respondents 8 and 11 to 14.
Mr. V.R. Chhatrapati, Senior Advocate with ... precipe of the present advocates for the
Plaintiffs, Messrs Udwadia and Udeshi, seeking reconstruction of the
records and proceedings. The clerk stated that the suit
ipsa loquitur
was explained by the Supreme Court in Pushpabai Purshottam
Udeshi & Ors. v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing ... accident happened, would shift on the
defendant. In Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi & Ors. (supra) the
Supreme Court observed:-
"6. The normal rule is that
writ petition was held to be
not maintainable.
28. In Pushpabhai Purshottam Udeshi & Others v. M/s. Ranjit Ginning
& Pressing
have not chosen to file any protest complaint.
13. In Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi and others v. M/s.
Ranjit Ginning and Pressing ... applying the maxim 'res ipsa loquitur'.
16. In Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi's case (supra) the
Apex Court was dealing with a case
ipsa loquitur was explained by the
Supreme Court in Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi & Ors. v. Ranjit
Ginning & Pressing ... accident happened, would shift on
the defendant. In Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi & Ors. (supra) the
Supreme Court observed:-
"6. The normal rule is that
