Mr. Tapan Kumar & Ors. v. Dr. (Maj) Shaikh Mahfooz (2010) 13 SCC 517, the present writ appeal
Case at a glance
- Bench
- S MURALIDHAR
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Leaving it open to the Appellants to seek other appropriate remedies as may be available to the Appellants in accordance with law, the present writ appeal is not entertained and is dismissed as such. Chief Justice (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Judge S. Behera (G. Satapathy)
Judgment
Mr. Tapan Kumar Mandal, Advocate -versus- Ranjit @ Ramanjit Pradhan and others …. Respondents None CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 27.04.2023
The impugned order has been passed in CMP No.1294 of 2022 which was in turn directed against an order passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Balliguda in an RFA. Admittedly, the learned Single Judge was exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Mahammed Saud v. Dr. (Maj) Shaikh Mahfooz 2008(II) OLR (FB) 725 which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Mahammed Saud v. Dr. (Maj) Shaikh Mahfooz (2010) 13 SCC 517, the present writ appeal is not maintainable.
Leaving it open to the Appellants to seek other appropriate remedies as may be available to the Appellants in accordance with law, the present writ appeal is not entertained and is dismissed as such. Chief Justice (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Judge S. Behera (G. Satapathy)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.