Dismissed

Harnam Tarasingh Gurmukhani and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC29 Oct 2012WP/2586/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition dismissed as withdrawn by consent of parties. Petitioners' contentions on merits kept open. Deposited amount ordered to be transferred to Family Court. Ad interim relief extended.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn; deposited amount to be transferred to Family Court; ad interim relief extended by two weeks.

Harnam Tarasingh Gurmukhani and Ors. Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp2586-11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2586 OF 2011

¶4

Harnam Tarasingh Gurukukhani and others … Petitioners Versus

¶5

State of Maharashtra and others

¶6

...Respondents

¶7

Ms. Mallika Ingale for the petitioners Mrs. A. S. Pai, APP for the Respondent-State Shri V. M. Talreja, for the Respondent No.2

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA &

¶9

SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 29th October, 2012.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that

¶12

now it is not possible for the parties to arrive at settlement. She therefore seeks permission to withdraw this petition. She prays that all the contentions on merits raised by the petitioners may be kept open. She pointed out the relevant terms and condition incorporated in the consent terms filed before the Family Court and in particular, Clause No.8 thereof. She pointed out that a sum of Rs.9 lakhs was kept in escrow with the advocate representing the second respondent and the said amount has been deposited in this Court. She, therefore, seeks permission to withdraw the

said amount.

j p chavan 1/3

wp2586-11

The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent opposes the prayer for the withdrawal of the petition and for granting of permission to withdraw the said amount.

¶17

As far as the unconditional withdrawal of the petition is concerned, the second respondent cannot object to it. In terms of the consent terms filed before the Family Court, a sum of Rs.9 lakhs was deposited by the petitioners with the advocate representing the second respondent, which was kept in escrow with the said advocate. The said amount has been deposited by the learned advocate in this court along with interest accrued thereon. A sum of Rs.9,18,177.82/- has been accordingly deposited in this Court. As the amount was paid to the advocate in terms of the consent terms filed before the Family Court, the said amount will have to be transferred to the Family Court and it is for the petitioners to make appropriate application before the Family Court for seeking permission to withdraw the amount.

¶18

The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶19

All contentions raised by the petitioners on merits are expressly kept open, which can be agitated at an appropriate stage.

¶20

j p chavan 2/3

¶21

wp2586-11

¶22

The sum of Rs.9,18,177.82 deposited by the Advocate for the second respondent in this Court together with interest accrued, if any, thereon shall be transferred to the concerned Family Court. It is for the Family Court to pass appropriate order of withdrawal or disbursement of the said amount in accordance with law on the application made by the parties.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks continuation of ad interim relief granted on 13^th September, 2011 in favour of the second, third and fourth petitioners, for a period two weeks from today to enable the petitioners to come back to India and to file appropriate application before appropriate court. In view of this prayer, we extend the ad interim relief granted on 13^th September, 2011 by a period of two weeks from today.

¶24

( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J ) ( A.S. OKA, J )

¶25

j p chavan 3/3

Harnam Tarasingh Gurmukhani and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harnam Tarasingh Gurmukhani and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

The Divisional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Leenata Sadanand Sane and Ors.

K. v. Jagannatha Rao and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prakash Pandurang Shewale Vs the Principal Secretary and Anr.

Vishal Waman Mhatre Vs the Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Chhaya Machhindra Pansare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

S. K. Kedia Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.