The Court allowed the state's application for leave to appeal against respondents 4 and 5 but dismissed it as against respondents 1 to 3. The appeal was tagged with a confirmation case.
Leave to appeal granted against respondents 4 and 5; appeal admitted against respondents 1 to 3.
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 criapln301710
jdk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRI.APPLICATION NO. 3017 OF 2010
(LEAVE TO APPEAL)
IN
APPEAL NO. OF 2010
The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant
Vs.
Santosh Manohar Chavan and Ors. ..Respondents
Ms. P.H.Kantharia APP for State
Mr. Santosh Raje for Respondent no.5
CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 05, 2010
P.C. :
1 Ms. Kantharia, learned APP states that the State is not
pressing this appeal as against respondents 4 and 5. Leave granted as against respondents 1 to 3. Appeal admitted.
2 This appeal be tagged with Confirmation Case No. 3 of 2009.
[SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.]
[ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]
The State of Maharashtra
Santosh Manohar Chavan
Ors.
Ranjana Desai
V.K. Tahilramani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
