Allowed

Shivchandranlal Shivnath Shukla v. Salikram Basant Nai and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Apr 2006WP/163/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a rule application, the High Court accepted an undertaking by a 78-year-old accused to permit trial in his absence via counsel. The court held that mandatory appearance is not an impediment if the accused is ready to appear through an advocate, granting general exemption from personal attendance unless the court summons him later.

What did the court decide?

General exemption granted to the petitioner to appear through advocate; liberty to summon if presence required.

Shivchandranlal Shivnath Shukla Vs Salikram… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

:1:

¶2

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.163 OF 2006

¶4

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Office notes, office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders.
 of Coram, appearance, Court’s
 orders or directions and
 Registrar’s orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mr. V.N. Tayade for the Petitioner.
 Mr. V.V.Purwant for the Respondent
 No.1.
 Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP. for the State.

¶5

CORAM : R.S. MOHITE,J.
DATED : 5/4/2006.

¶6

 P.C.
 1. Heard both sides.
 2. Rule. By consent, rule made
 returnable forthwith.
 3. Reply is filed on behalf of the
 respondent No.1 which is taken on
 record. The petitioner who is aged 70
 years is the accused in Criminal Case
 No.2969/2001 pending in the court of
 J.M.F.C. Ulhasnagar. The case of the
 complainant is that he is the landlord

¶7

:2:

¶8

 of some premises of which the present
 petitioner is a tenant. There was a
 dispute between the landlord and the
 tenant as according to the landlord
 tenant inducted some third party into
 the premises. The accused No.1 is the
 nephew of the respondent No.1.
 Consequently eviction proceedings have
 been filed and both the advocates state

¶9

 that the civil suit filed by the
 landlord has been dismissed. It

¶10

 appears that the present case arises
 out of civil dispute between the
 landlord and the tenant. The
 petitioner is 78 years old and he has
 filed an undertaking on 20.3.2006 which

¶11

 is taken on record stating therein that

¶12

 the trial may proceed in his absence
 and even his 313 statement may be
 recorded through his advocate Shri.
 A.L. Mulchandani. He has prayed for

¶13

 general exemption. In my view if the
 accused is ready and willing to appear

¶14

 in the criminal case through his

¶15

 advocate then there should be no
 impediment in proceeding with the
 criminal case in his absence. The

¶16

:3:

¶17

 trial court would therefore, have

¶18

 liberty to summon him when the court

¶19

 desires his presence. In the

¶20

 circumstances, undertaking is accepted

¶21

 and the petitioner is granted general

¶22

 exemption from appearing in Criminal
 case No.2969/2001 unless his presence

¶23

 is required by the court. If the court
 requires presence of the petitioner at

¶24

 any stage of the trial, it will be at
 liberty to summon the petitioner. It

¶25

 is made clear that general exemption is
 only granted to the petitioner and not
 other accused. Rule is made absolute.

¶26

 Petition stands disposed off.

¶27

(R. S. MOHITE, J.)

Shivchandranlal Shivnath Shukla v. Salikram Basant Nai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivchandranlal Shivnath Shukla v. Salikram Basant Nai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Madhav Phadnis Vs Walchandnagar Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Kinit Jayantilal Amin Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sundeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. .

Rakeshkumar Navnath Shukla Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs M/S Mokashi Aromas Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

M/S. Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd. Vs Mata Shankar R. Tiwari and Ors.