Disposed

Pravinchandra Ratilal Shah v. Union of India and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Dec 2013APPW/116/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application challenging an interim order regarding a revision application, the court directed that the revision be heard on own merits by Additional Sessions Judge, while partly allowing the application to vacate prior directions.

What did the court decide?

Revision Application No.620 of 2010 directed to be heard on own merits; Criminal Application partly allowed.

Pravinchandra Ratilal Shah Vs Union of India… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

appw-116-13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

rpa

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.116 OF 2013 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3907 OF 2011

¶5

Pravinchandra Ratilal Shah .. Applicant Vs. Union of India & Anr. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. T. Sayed and Mr. Sartaj Shaikh, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. Niti Punde i/b. Mr. N. Natrajan, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶7

Ms. S. V. Gajare, A.P.P. for Respondent No.2 – State.

¶8

CORAM : K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.

¶9

DATED : DECEMBER 2, 2013.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Heard.

¶12

2 By Writ Petition No.3907 of 2011, order in Revision Application No.620 of 2010, recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge were challenged. This Court in paragraph no.3 recorded that no reasons were available in the Court proceeding of said Revision Application No.620 of 2010. It appears letter on the dictation dated 2^nd December, 2011 in said revision was transcribed by the stenographer of Additional Sessions Judge on 22^nd December, 2011, and it was signed by the Additional

¶13

1/2

¶14

appw-116-13

¶15

Sessions Judge on 22^nd December, 2011. Consequently, it cannot be said that the advocate for the applicant or the department – respondent no.1, were at fault before this Court, as on the date of order dated 7^th August, 2012, there was no such reasoned order in the said revision.

¶16

3 Having gone through the reasoned order subsequently placed, both the learned counsel submit that it requires reconsideration and consequently quashed.

¶17

4 Without further adverting to the infirmities in the revision, by consent revision application no. 620 of 2010, is directed to be heard on its own merits including the decision on its maintainability. Parties to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Mumbai on 8^th January, 2014, without further notice. Learned Additional Sessions Judge shall not be influenced by earlier order of this Court dated 7^th August, 2012 or today's order and shall independently decide the pending revision application. Criminal Application is partly allowed as above.

¶18

(K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.)

¶19

2/2

Pravinchandra Ratilal Shah v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravinchandra Ratilal Shah v. Union of India 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

Namdeo Balu Wathore Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rajabhau @ Rajendra Digambar Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rajabhau @ Rajendra Digambar Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anjala Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra

K.M. Shankarnarayan Shetty Vs Sadashiv B, Nigayya Shetty and Anr.

Mahesh Shankarnarayan Shetty and Ors. Vs Sadashiv Bhavangiri Lingayya Shetty and Anr.