Disposed
Sunil Arjundas Basrani v. Rekhabai Lalchand Nagdeo and Anr.
Bombay HCWP/249/2006
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
:1:
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL W.P. NO.249 OF 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders.
of Coram, appearance, Court’s
orders or directions and
Registrar’s orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Purwant i/by Mr. A.S.Borkar for
the petitioner.
Ms.M.M. Mhatre, APP. for the State.
CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J.
DATED : FEBRUARY 8, 2006.
P.C.
1. This petition challenges an order
passed by the J.M.F.C. Kolhapur on
30.12.2005 allowing Exh.46 in Regular
Case No. 814/2003. Exh.46 was an
application made in 138 proceeding for
opening sealed postal envelope which
had been exhibited to know the contents
of the notice and including it in the
evidence. The Advocate for the
petitioner states that the court has
erred in allowing the said prayer. He
further states that the notice in
:2:
question will have to be proved in
accorodance with law. He states that
he is satisfied if it is clarified that
the sealed envelope Exh.44 be opened
and the notice will be exhibited if
proved in accordance with law. In the
circumstances, with the clarification
that sealed envelope Exh.44 be opened
and the notice be exhibited if proved
in accorodance with law, petition is
dipsosed off. Needless to say that the
evidence of person who has given notice
will be allowed for the purpose of
proving the notice if necessary.
(R. S. MOHITE, J.)
:3:
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL W.P. NO.249 OF 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders.
of Coram, appearance, Court’s
orders or directions and
Registrar’s orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Purwant i/by Mr. A.S.Borkar for
the petitioner.
Ms.M.M. Mhatre, APP. for the State.
CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J.
DATED : FEBRUARY 8, 2006.
P.C.
1. This petition challenges an order
passed by the J.M.F.C. Kolhapur on
30.12.2005 allowing Exh.46 in Regular
Case No. 814/2003. Exh.46 was an
application made in 138 proceeding for
opening sealed postal envelope which
had been exhibited to know the contents
of the notice and including it in the
:4:
evidence. The Advocate for the
petitioner states that the court has
erred in allowing the said prayer. He
further states that the notice in
question will have to be proved in
accorodance with law. He states that
he is satisfied if it is clarified that
the sealed envelope Exh.44 be opened
and the notice will be exhibited if
proved in accordance with law. In the
circumstances, with the clarification
that sealed envelope Exh.44 be opened
and the notice be exhibited if proved
in accorodance with law, petition is
dipsosed off. Needless to say that the
evidence of person who has given notice
will be allowed for the purpose of
proving the notice if necessary.
(R. S. MOHITE, J.)
:5:
Petitioner
State
R.S. MOHITE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court