Covering procedure: The High Court, on being informed that the petitioner had expired, allowed the argument that the pending criminal writ petition had abated and disposed of the subsequent criminal application as there was no substance left for consideration.
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.
wp1581.06.sxw
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1581 of 2006
Mr. Vijay Kirtilal Mehta ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr. ....Respondents
WITH Criminal Application No. 65 of 2010 IN
Writ Petition No. 1581 of 2006
Kishor K. Mehta v/s.
....Applicant
Narendra K. Mehta & ors. ....Respondents
Mr. Sanjeev Kadam, Mr.Kunal Vajani, Mr. Pranaya Goyal i/b. M/s. Wadia Ghandy & co. for petitioner.
CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND U.D. SALVI, JJ
DATED:- SEPTEMBER 15, 2010
P.C.
We are informed that Petitioner has since expired. Accordingly, we
accept the argument of the Petitioner’s Advocate that Petition is abated. Papers
wp1581.06.sxw
2
be consigned to the record.
In view of order passed in Writ Petition, nothing survives for
consideration in this Application. The same is disposed of.
(U.D. SALVI, J)
(A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)
Kishor K. Mehta
The State of Maharashtra
A.M. Khanwilkar
U.D. Salvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
