Disposed

Sunita Kadam v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Feb 2006WP/164/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction for the speedy disposal of a pending discharge application and the overall case, which had been pending since 1996. The Court directed the State to file a reply within three weeks and ordered the discharge application to be decided within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the State to file a reply within 3 weeks; the discharge application to be decided within 8 weeks; the trial to be completed by September 2006.

Sunita Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.164 OF 2006

¶3

 -----------------------------------------------------
 Office Notes, Office
 Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s orders
 appearances, Court’s orders
 or directions and
 Registrar’s orders.

¶4

 -----------------------------------------------------
 Ms.Nisha Valani for the petitioner.
 Mrs.G.P.Mulekar APP for the State.

¶5

Coram : R.S.Mohite,J
 Date : 7.2.2006.
 PC
 1. The Advocate for the petitioner
 states that the only relief she is
 pressing is for a direction to the
 trial Court to decide the discharge
 application which has been filed by
 the applicant in the trial Court on
 19.10.2000 and for further relief
 that the case which is pending since
 the year 1996 i.e. for a period of
 9 years, should be directed to be
 completed in a time bound schedule.
 The grievance is made that though
 the discharge application is made on
 19.10.2000 the State has not even
 bothered to file a reply. After
 hearing the learned APP for the
 State, it is directed that the reply

¶6

 : 2 :

¶7

 should be filed within a period of 3
 weeks by the State and discharge

¶8

 application will be taken up
 forthwith for hearing and decided
 within a period of 8 weeks from

¶9

 today. The hearing of the trial is

¶10

 expedited and if the petitioner is
 not discharged, the same may be
 taken up and decided expeditiously
 and in any case by the end of

¶11

 September-2006. With these

¶12

 directions application stands

¶13

 disposed of.

¶14

(R.S.Mohite,J)

Sunita Kadam v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Kadam v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarvapriya Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jaya Ramu Salat Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Narsinha Gopal Malgi and Anr.

Pandurang Kisan Aher Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramniranjan Kediatourism Services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Birla Global Finance Ltd. and Anr.

Ganesh Bhanudas Babar Vs the State of Maharashtra