Dismissed

Ashish Jhunjhunwala and Anr. v. M/S. Tramter India Private Limited and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Apr 2013WP/1461/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed a criminal writ petition seeking permanent exemption from personal appearance. The Court upheld the Trial Court's refusal, noting that past abuse of the exemption mechanism justified the decision and that further exemption would prejudice the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Writ Petition dismissed. No permanent exemption granted.

Ashish Jhunjhunwala and Anr. Vs M/S. Tramter India… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

wp.1461.13.910

kps

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1461 OF 2013

¶6

Ashish Jhunjhunwala and another. ..Petitioners - Versus - Ms/ Tramter India Pvt. Ltd. and another. ..Respondents

¶7

Mr.Ronak Shah i/by Ronak Shah & Company, for the Petitioners. Mr.A.R.Patil, APP, for the Respondent/State.

¶8

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶9

DATE :- 18^th April, 2013.

¶10

PC:

¶11

1 The Petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court refusing to grant them permanent exemption from appearance in Criminal Case being SCC No.182/2010 which is pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shirur, Pune.

¶12

2 The Application filed by the Petitioners on 31.01.2013 has been rejected and the learned Judge has observed that already more than 20 applications for personal exemption have been granted. The accused persons have hardly appeared before the Court. They appeared once and applied for bail and thereafter, have not been appearing. The Court has already relieved them from appearance considering difficulties faced by them. However, the order, if passed, granting permanent exemption in the facts of this case will cause serious prejudice to the Complainant Company. In such circumstances the impugned order does not require any interference in my writ jurisdiction and particularly when the

¶13

wp.1461.13.910

¶14

¶15

discretionary exercise is not vitiated by arbitrariness or capriciousness leave alone any error of law apparent on the face of record or perversity. 3 Needless to state that if such applications are made and considering the fact that the Petitioners are residents of Kolkata, the Trial Court shall consider expeditious disposal and sympathetic consideration of such applications. Since the Complaint is pending from 2010, the Trial Court is well advised to dispose of it finally and expeditiously as early as possible before 31^st August, 2014.

¶16

4 The Criminal Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶17

( S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. )

Ashish Jhunjhunwala and Anr. v. M/S. Tramter India Private Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Jhunjhunwala and Anr. v. M/S. Tramter India Private Limited 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

K. Ravindra Shetty Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Karim Mohamed Maredia and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sem Mon (Nini) Ling Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bbasaheb Nathaji Mhaske Vs Sankalpa Shri Nagari Sahakari Co. Op Soceity Ltd. and Anr.

Ghanshyam Yesu Koli Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Santosh Sukhram Chaurasiya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.