Disposed

Urmila Vasant Mewadi v. Bhaskar Mahadev Mhatre and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Apr 2012WP/2045/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court disposed of the petition by consent between parties. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 80,000 as the security for filing an appeal against conviction in a cheque bounce case and ordered the Sessions Court to expedite the appeal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 80,000 before Sessions Court for appeal; Sessions Court directed to expedite appeal disposal by 20.7.2012.

Urmila Vasant Mewadi Vs Bhaskar Mahadev Mhatre and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2012)

2044.2045

Rng

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2045 OF 2011

¶7

Ms.Urmila Vasant Mewadi

¶8

 .. Petitioner

¶9

vs

¶10

1.Mr.Bhaskar Mahadev Mhatre .. Respt/Orig.Complt
2.The State of Maharashtra.. Respt no.2

¶11

Mr.Satyajeet Mirajkar i.b. Mr.J.V.Thakkar and
Mr.K.K.Rajani for Petitioner
Mr.Santosh Patil for Respondent no.1
Ms.R.M.Gadhavi APP for Respondent-State

¶12

 CORAM: A.M.THIPSAY, J

¶13

 DATE: April 19, 2012

¶14

P.C.

¶15

1. The Petitioner was an accused in Summary

¶16

Criminal Case No.3193 of 2006. The said case was in
respect of an offence punishable under section 138
of the Negotiable Instrument Act, and arose on a
complaint filed by the Respondent No.1 herein. After

¶17

trial, the Petitioner was convicted and was

¶18

sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.4,00,000/-.

¶19

2. The Petitioner preferred an Appeal against
the Judgment and order of conviction, to the Court
of Sessions,Thane which came to be numbered as

¶20

2 - 2044.2045

¶21

Criminal Appeal No.130 of 2010. The Sessions Court

¶22

admitted the Appeal on the condition that the
Petitioner (Appellant before the Sessions Court)
should deposit 50% of the fine amount. The
Petitioner thereafter, made an Application to the
Court of Sessions seeking that the amount required
to be deposited be reduced by modifying the original
Order. Since the Court of Sessions declined to do
so, by the present Petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks to
set aside that order.

¶23

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties and after perusing the record, by consent of
the parties and their counsel, the Petition is
disposed of as follows :

¶24

(i) The Petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.
80,000/- before the Court of Sessions,Thane on
or before 15.6.2012. Any amount, if already
deposited by the Petitioner in the Sessions
Court, shall be adjusted towards this amount.

¶25

(ii) The Sessions Court,Thane shall expedite
the hearing of the Appeal and dispose it of on
or before 20.7.2012.

¶26

4.The Sessions Court,Thane to report compliance

¶27

3 - 2044.2045

¶28

of these directions.

¶29

5. The learned counsel for the parties agree
before me that no adjournment will be sought for
before the Appellate Court.

¶30

6.Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
No order as to costs.

Urmila Vasant Mewadi v. Bhaskar Mahadev Mhatre and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urmila Vasant Mewadi v. Bhaskar Mahadev Mhatre 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

Bhahmadev Rama Metkari and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepak Prabhu Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Asif Balechand Mulla Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Dayal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ankush Dattatry Dhore Vs the State of Maharashtra

Urmila Vasant Mewadi Vs Bhaskar Mahadev Mhatre and Anr.