Allowed

The State of Mahrashtra v. Shivprasad Gulabchand Surana

Bombay HC10 Aug 2010APPLN/2245/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, allowed an application by the State for condonation of a 28-day delay in filing a criminal appeal. The Court found the delay satisfactory, non-wilful, and not inordinate, allowing the application in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

Condoned the delay of 28 days and allowed the application seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal.

The State of Mahrashtra Vs Shivprasad Gulabchand… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

Office Notes,Office Memoranda of coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders

¶3

Court's or Judge's orders

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2245/2010 IN
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2244/2010

¶5

CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.
DATE 10TH AUGUST, 2010.

¶6

1.Heard Mr.S.D. Kaldate learned

¶7

APP for the applicant and Mr. Sayyed
advocate for respondent.

¶8

2.Mr.G.R.Sayyedadvocate,

¶9

states that he has got instructions to
appear on behalf of respondent and
undertook to file vakalatnama in the
registry within the period of one
week. Said statement is accepted and
taken on record.

¶10

3.Thisisanapplication

¶11

preferred by the applicant-state, for
condonation of 28 days delay caused in
filingaccompanyingcriminal

¶12

application, seeking leave to file
appeal against the judgment and order
of acquittal dated 15.2.2010.

¶13

3.Learned Counsel for the respondent
opposed present application vehemently
and submitted that it bears no

¶14

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶15

Office Notes,Office Memoranda of coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders

¶16

Court's or Judge's orders

¶17

substance, same is devoid of any
merits and therefore same be rejected.
4.For the reasons stated in the
application, it appears that applicant
has explained delay satisfactorily.
Moreover, it also appears that, said
delay is not wilful, deliberate and
intentional and certainly it is not
inordinate. Hence same deserves to be
condoned in the interest of justice.

¶18

5.In the result, present application
is allowed in terms of prayer clause
‘B’ there of and delay of 28 days
caused in filing accompanying criminal
application seeking leave to file
appeal stands condoned and present
applicationstandsdisposedof
accordingly.

¶19

Dt : 10.8.2010
aaa/2245.10

¶20

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶21

Office Notes,Office Memoranda of coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders

¶22

Court's or Judge's orders

¶23

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2244/2010

¶24

CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.
DATE 10TH AUGUST, 2010.

¶25

1.Heard Mr.S.D. Kaldate learned

¶26

APP for the applicant and Mr. Sayyed
advocate for respondent.

¶27

2.Mr.G.R.Sayyedadvocate,

¶28

states that he has got instructions to

¶29

appear on behalf of respondent and
undertook to file vakalatnama in the
registry within the period of one
week. Said statement is accepted and
taken on record.

¶30

3.At the request of learned
counsel for respondent and by consent
stand over to 14.9.2010.

¶31

4.Reminder be sent to call R & P
from the concerned court till the said
date.

¶32

Dt : 10.8.2010

¶33

aaa/2245.10

¶34

...

The State of Mahrashtra v. Shivprasad Gulabchand Surana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Mahrashtra v. Shivprasad Gulabchand Surana

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

Nimbhora Station Phal Bagayatdar Sahakari Phal Vikri So Ltd. Vs Ashok Devchand Patil

Jyoti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Marayadit Kopargaon Vs Mujwar Mubarak Ganibhai

State of Maharashtra Vs Ganesh Ramchandra Sontakke and Ors.

Pundlik Lachanna Indrale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Mah Vs Rajesh Shankar Raccha

Sanip Devidas Thorat Vs the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Hearing )