The Court dismissed the criminal writ petition for non-deposit of cost and lack of showing a case for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1918 OF 2009
Rajubhai Chotalal Thakkar .. Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.
Mr. Satish Mishra i/by A.M. Saraogi for the Petitioner. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the Respondent-State.
--CORAM : J. N. PATEL AND A. A. SAYED, JJ.
DATED : 16TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. :
In view of the fact that the petitioner has failed to deposit the cost and even otherwise no case is made out to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court, we dismiss the petition. The cost imposed by this court to be recovered from the petitioner by the Collector, Suburban, Mumbai, as fine by resorting the procedure laid down under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
Rajubhai Chotalal Thakkar
The State of Maharashtra
J. N. PATEL
A. A. SAYED
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
