The High Court declined to direct a deposit of Rs.9 lakhs in Criminal Application No.94 of 2008. It instead ordered the revision application to be kept for hearing on a future date.
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.
vrd 1 APPR94/08
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.94 OF 2008
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.459 OF 2004
Mr Ambanna R. Mahanta
...Applicant
v/s
Madhukar D. Vallas and others ...Respondents
None for Applicant.
Mr A.R. Patil, APP for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL J.
DATED : 12TH AUGUST 2013.
P.C.:-
1.By criminal application No.94 of 2008, the
applicant has urged to direct the respondent No.1
to deposit Rs.9,00,000/- before this Court
immediately and thereafter to allow to withdraw the
same. The learned counsel got the matter adjourned
on earlier occasion. I do not see any reason to
issue such direction as expected in criminal
application No.94 of 2008.
vrd 2 APPR94/08 2. Keep the revision application for hearing on 17th September 2013.
( K.U. CHANDIWAL J.)
Mr Ambanna R. Mahanta
Madhukar D. Vallas
K.U. CHANDIWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court