Absence of the applicant counsel was noted in two orders. The first allowed a criminal application in the interest of justice, condoning delay. The second granted time and listed the matter for admission.
Delay condoned in CA No. 261/2010; time granted and matter listed for admission in CA No. 260/2010.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.261 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.260 OF 2010
Dashrath Narayan Dhumal ... APPLICANT VERSUS Kantilal Fulchand Gandhi & ors. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri R.B. Deshpande, Advocate for applicant - absent Shri Y.V. Kakade, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2
CORAM: A.I.S. CHEEMA, J. DATED: 2nd September, 2013.
PER COURT :
(A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.)
fmp/cri261.10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.260 OF 2010
Dashrath Narayan Dhumal ... APPLICANT VERSUS Kantilal Fulchand Gandhi & ors. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri R.B. Deshpande, Advocate for applicant - absent Shri Y.V. Kakade, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2
CORAM: A.I.S. CHEEMA, J. DATED: 2nd September, 2013.
PER COURT :
(A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.)
fmp/cri261.10
Dashrath Narayan Dhumal
Kantilal Fulchand Gandhi
A.I.S. Cheema
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
