Dismissed

Aries Enterprises v. Sonu Packaging Private Limited and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Jul 2013WP/200/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed a criminal writ petition as withdrawn but granted liberty to the petitioner to file a revision application before the court of sessions challenging an order of a JMFC, directing the lower court to entertain the revision without raising limitation issues.

What did the court decide?

Petition withdrawn and dismissed with liberty to approach Sessions Court for revision within one month without limitation questioning.

Aries Enterprises Vs Sonu Packaging Private… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

CWP-200.12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 200 OF 2012

¶6

ARIES ENTERPRISES .. PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

SONU PACKAGING PVT. LTD. & ANR... RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. S. B. Shetye, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Abhijit B. Kulkarni, Advocate for R. No. 1. Mrs. G. P. Mulekar, APP for the State.

¶10

CORAM:-ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 23/07/2013

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Heard Mr. S. B. Shetye, the learned counsel for the

¶13

petitioner and Mrs. G. P. Mulekar, the learned APP for the State.

¶14

2 From what is submitted before this court, it is clear

¶15

that the real grievance of the petitioner is in respect of the order

¶16

dated 27/9/2011 passed by the learned JMFC, Pune, below Exhibit-62 in STC No. 20991/2010 pending before him. The

1/4

CWP-200.12

substance of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the order dated 27/9/2011 came to be passed solely on the basis of the order previously passed by the sessions court on 18/6/2011, though actually the order dated 18/6/2011 did not come in the way of the relief that was sought by the application Exhibit-62, from being granted.

¶21

3 Since, actually there is no challange to the order dated 18/6/2011 passed by the sessions court, and since the challenge is only to the order dated 27/9/2011, passed by the learned JMFC Pune, below Exhibit-62, the petitioner can very well approach the court of sessions by invoking its revisional jurisdiction against the said order. When this view is expressed, in the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in that event he would not press the present writ petition and would approach the court of sessions by filing an application for revision, challenging the said order dated 27/9/2011.

2/4

CWP-200.12

He, however, submits that in that case, appropriate direction be given to the court of session to entertain such revision application on merits without raising the question of limitation.

¶26

4 I have considered the matter.

¶27

5 Since the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has

¶28

raised the issue of propriety of entertaining the writ petition, which has been filed without availing of the remedy of filing a revision application, it would be proper to give necessary directions in the matter.

¶29

6 The petition is allowed to be withdrawn and stands dismissed as such, with liberty to the petition to approach the court of sessions by filing an application for revision of the impugned order.

¶30

7 In the event of such an application being filed within a period of month from today the court of sessions shall entertain the same and decide it on merits and in accordance with law, without raising the question of limitation and by passing a

3/4

CWP-200.12

formal order of condoning the delay, if any.

¶35

(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)

¶36

md.saleem

¶37

4/4

Aries Enterprises v. Sonu Packaging Private Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aries Enterprises v. Sonu Packaging 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vasant Sadashiv Damle Vs Ashilak Gulchand Shinde and Ors.

Asif Rafique Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rohit Kumar Arora Vs the State of Maharashtra

S. v. Packaging Vs Sonu Packaging Private Limited and Anr.

Shriram Chaturbhuj Parik Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anil Bapu Ingawale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.