The High Court of Bombay dismissed two chamber summons filed by a petitioner involved in a pending criminal prosecution. The court rejected the prayers, noting the applicants have independent remedies to claim damages, and listed the associated writ petition.
Both Chamber Summons No.32 of 2010 and No.62 of 2010 were dismissed.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORIGINAL SIDE CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.32 OF 2010
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2337 OF 2009
Nabisaheb S. Patil.... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra
& Ors..... Respondents
And
Shahab Ahmed Abdul Sattar.... Applicant/
Intervener
AND
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.62 OF 2010
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2337 OF 2009
Nabisaheb S. Patil.... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra
& Ors..... Respondents
And
M/s. Star Enterprises .... Applicant
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2337 OF 2009
Nabisaheb S. Patil.... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra
& Ors..... Respondents
2
S/Shri A.S. Khandeparkar i/b R.B. Jaiswal
for the Petitioner.
Shri N.P. Pandit, AGP, for Respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
Shri V.A. Thorat, Senior Advocate with
Ms Shakuntala Mudbidri & Shri Aziz
Khan i/b Divya Shah & Associates
for Respondent No.3.
S/Shri R.M. Thakkar i/b A.S. Tungare
for Respondent No.4.
Ms Mamta Sadh i/b Shri Joseph Fernandes
for Respondent No.5.
Shri Y.R. Shah for the Applicant in
C/S-No.32/2010.
Shri V.T. Dubey for the Applicant in
C/S-No.62/2010.
CORAM: J.N. PATEL AND
A.P. BHANGALE, JJ.
DATED: APRIL 16, 2010
P.C:
Heard the learned counsel appearing
for the respective parties. The prayers in the
chambers summons are strongly objected to on
the ground that the petitioner is claiming
through the applicants in the chamber summons
and it is alleged that they are hand-in-glove
with each other. Our attention is also drawn
to the fact that the petitioner is prosecuted
by the applicant and the criminal trial is
pending. After considering the affidavit in
3
reply, we do not find any merit in the prayers
as the applicants in the chamber summons have
independent remedy to claim damages against the
petitioner. Hence both the chamber summons are
dismissed.
The writ petition to be listed on
20-4-2010.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, who is claiming through applicants prosecuted by him, is eligible to seek interim relief against them via chamber summons.
Nabisaheb S. Patil
State of Maharashtra
J.N. PATEL
A.P. BHANGALE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court