Disposed

M/S. Wytewater Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Hikal Limited and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Mar 2011WP/542/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition No. 542 of 2011, the Bombay High Court absolved itself from issuing notice to the respondent State. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the Sessions Court to expedite and decide a pending revision application by April 2011, staying further criminal proceedings pending there.

What did the court decide?

Directed Sessions Court to expedite and dispose of pending revision application by April 2011; stayed further criminal proceedings.

M/S. Wytewater Technologies Pvt. Ltd… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 WP-542-11.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Mhi

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 542 OF 2011

¶5

M/s. Wytewater Technologies Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. Vs.

¶6

.. Petitioners

¶7

M/s. Hikal Limited & Anr. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Anurag Jain,Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.D.R.More, APP, for the respondent - State.

¶9

CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 8th March, 2011.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, who are the original accused. Respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with an application for condonation of delay of 54 days. That application was allowed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the accused. That order condoning the delay was challenged by the accused/petitioners before the Sessions Court, Mumbai by filing Revision Application No.424/2010. It is pending since April, 2010.

¶12

The grievance of the learned counsel or the petitioner is that neither

¶13

2 WP-542-11.sxw

¶14

the Sessions Court had granted any stay nor the Revision Application was taken up for final hearing and disposal. While the Revision Application is pending,the Metropolitan Magistrate is insisting for proceeding with the matter. Therefore, the limited prayer made by him is only to direct the Sessions Court to expedite and dispose of the Revision Application as early as possible.

¶15

Taking into consideration the limited prayer, I do not find it necessary

¶16

to issue notice to the respondent No.1. The petition stands disposed of with the following directions :-

¶17

The Sessions Court, Mumbai, shall expedite the hearing and dispose of the Criminal Revision Application No.424/2010 as early as possible, and in any case, by the end of April, 2011. Till then, further proceedings in C.C.No. 8/SS/2009 pending before the 28th Court,Esplanade, Mumbai, shall remain stayed.

¶18

The petitioner shall produce an authenticated copy of this order before the Sessions Court within eight days.

M/S. Wytewater Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Hikal Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Wytewater Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Hikal Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.K. Ice Vs Malgave Milk and Milk Products and Anr.

Dilip Gulabrai Badlani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Munir Ahmed Mohdali Nisargi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sudha Manubhai Kapadia and Anr. Vs Genius Printers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

D. S. Girish Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deelipmanohar Kulthe Alias Sonar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.