Allowed

Sangeeta Rajkishor Kunwar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Aug 2011APPLN/1981/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application to restore a previously dismissed criminal writ petition. The dismissal was due to default caused by the non-appearance of the applicant and advocate on a hearing date. The court found the absence was not wilful or deliberate and restored the petition to its original stage.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Writ Petition No. 304/2010 restored to file at original stage; order dated 18-4-2011 set aside.

Sangeeta Rajkishor Kunwar Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

(1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

Criminal Application No. 1981 of 2011 (In Criminal Writ Petition No. 304 of 2010)

¶4

Sangeeta w/o. Rajkishor Kunwar, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Plot No. 26/27, Near Water Tank, Pundliknagar, N-4, CIDCO, Aurangabad.

¶5

.. Applicant

¶6

(Original petitioner)

¶7

versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra, Through P.S.I. Mukundwadi Police Station, Aurangabad.

¶9

The Assistant Police Commissioner, CIDCO Division, Aurangabad.

¶10

The Director General, .. Respondents Central Bureau of Investigation, (Original respondents) Mumbai.

¶11

Mr. R.R. Chandanse, Advocate, for the applicant.

¶12

Mr. V.D. Rakh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent nos.1 to 3.

¶13

(2)

¶14

CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.

¶15

DATE : 11TH AUGUST 2011

¶16

COURT'S ORDER :

¶17

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶18

This is an application preferred by the applicant (original petitioner) for restoration of Criminal Writ Petition No. 304/2010, by setting aside the order dated 18-4-2011 passed by this Court, dismissing the said petition in default.

¶19

For the reasons stated in the application, it appears that the applicant has pleaded and proved sufficient ground for not causing appearance of the Advocate engaged by him, on 18-4-2011, due to which Criminal Writ Petition No. 304/2010 came to be dismissed in default on the said date. It also appears that the absence of applicant and his Advocate on the said date was not wilful and deliberate. Hence, the present application deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice.

¶20

In the result, present Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause "B" thereof, and Criminal Writ Petition No. 304/2010 stands restored to file at its original stage, by

¶21

(3)

¶22

setting aside order dated 18-4-2011, and present Criminal Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶23

( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE

¶24

bgp/ka1981

Sangeeta Rajkishor Kunwar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeta Rajkishor Kunwar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Rajendra Marga Gaikwad Vs Kail Limited

Sajed Pathan Wajed Pathan Vs Shaikh Rubab Shaikh Chand and Anr.

Mohd. Muddaar Ansari Afsar Ansari Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Thr. Bm Prasad Joshi Vs Manojkumar Motilal Bangad

Bhaurao Kisan Nagtlik and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gokul Trimbak Darade and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.