Disposed

Chandrakant B.Garware v. Gill and Co.Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Aug 2008APPLN/1186/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court decided not to exercise wide discretion under Section 482 CrPC to interfere, allowing the applicant to file a revision application under Section 397 CrPC instead. Pending contentions were kept open while ad-interim relief was extended.

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim relief granted on 24.04.2005 extended for four weeks; criminal application dismissed as maintaining the right to approach revisional court.

Chandrakant B.Garware Vs Gill and Co.Ltd. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1186 OF 2005,
CRIMINALAPPLICATION NO.1132 OF 2005,
CRIMINALAPPLICATION NO.1128 OF 2005

¶3

 Chandrakant B. Garware...Applicant

¶4

(in all the applications)

¶5

vs.

¶6

Gill and Co.Ltd. & Anr....Respondents
(in all the applications)

¶7

 Mr.S.V.Marwadi i/b M/s.India Law Alliance for the applicant.
 Mr.Manohar H.Ramsinghani with Mr.Rakeshkumar Saroj i/b
 M/s.Mulla & Mulla for Respondent No.1

¶8

 Mr.Y.S.Shinde A.P.P. for State

¶9

CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. DATE : AUGUST 12,2008

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

 1. The submission of the learned counsel for the first

¶12

 Respondent is that a remedy of filing a revision application
 is available to the petitioner for challenging the order
 issuing process passed on the complaint filed by the first
 Respondent. The learned counsel for the Applicant submits
 that the contentions which are raised in these applications
 cannot be raised before the revisional court and therefore,
 now at this stage the applicant cannot be relegated to the
 remedy of revision.

¶13

 2. Even if a revision application which may be preferred by
 the applicant is not entertained, a remedy of approaching this
 court is always open to the applicant. Hence, the application

¶14

- 2 -

¶15

under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 is
 not entertained on the ground that a remedy of filing a
 revision application under section 397 of the said Code is
 available to the applicant.

¶16

 3. Criminal Application is disposed of by keeping the remedy
 open. If a revision application is filed by the applicant,
 the concerned Sessions court is bound to take a note of the
 fact that this application was filed on 18th February 2005,
 notice was issued by this court on 25th April 2005 and that
 the application remained pending in this court till today.

¶17

 4. To enable the applicant to file the revision application,
 ad-interim relief granted on 24th April 2005 will continue to
 operate for a period of four weeks from today. All
 contentions of the parties on merits are kept open.

¶18

 5. Criminal application Nos.461,462 and 463 of 2008 do not
 survive and the same are disposed of. The contentions raised
 therein are also kept open.

¶19

JUDGE

Chandrakant B.Garware v. Gill and Co.Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant B.Garware v. Gill and Co.Ltd. and Anr.

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

Kamal Singh Sokhi Vs Kirloskar Investment and Finance Limited and Anr.

Shri Subhash Hastimal Lodha . Vs Union of India .

M/S. Incorporated Daub Verhoeven Ltd. and Ors. Vs Abdul Rashid Adam and Anr.

Chandrakant B.Garware Vs Gill and Co.Ltd. and Anr.

Chandrakant B.Gaware and Anr. Vs Gill and Co.Ltd. and Anr.

Anil Krishna Zunzurwad Vs Smita Vijay Shah and Ors.