In this continuation sheet, the court observed that despite efforts by the applicant, the respondent could not be served. Accordingly, the application was allowed and disposed of in terms of the prayer clause.
Application allowed and disposed of in terms of prayer clause (a).
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
(APPA-1686-12)
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1686 OF 2012 IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST) NO.312 OF 2012 (Smt. Shivani Jagdish Chandatri vs. The State of Maharashtra)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office Notes, Office Memorandum Court’s or Judge’s orders. of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrars orders.
Mr. Waseem Pangarkar i/b MZM Legal for the applicant.
Mrs. V.R. Bhosle, APP for the State.
CORAM: V.M. KANADE, & P.D. KODE, JJ DATE : November 26, 2012
P.C.:
Despite best efforts taken by the applicant, Respondent No.2 could not be served. Hence, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and disposed of.
(P.D. KODE, J)
B.D.Pandit
Smt. Shivani Jagdish Chandatri
The State of Maharashtra
V.M. Kanade
P.D. Kode
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
