Writ petition filed by Tanmay Rajpurohit was dismissed as non-productive in the High Court of Bombay Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction due to persistent absence of the petitioner.
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.
wp438-13.doc
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.438 OF 2013
Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions & Registrar’s orders.
Court’s or Judge’s orders.
None for petitioner. Mr.K.V.Saste, APP the Respondent. Mr.Parvez Rusdtomkhan with Ms.Lara Jesani and Ms.Pramila Alwe i/b. Mulla & Associates for respondent No.3.
CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI & GAUTAM S. PATEL, JJ. DATED: 26th August 2013
P.C.:-
1]The petitioner, Mr.Tanmay Rajpurohit, who appears in person, has filed this petition in February 2013 and the same is still pending. On the last occasion, he had engaged an Advocate and the learned Advocate who had sought time on the
wp438-13.doc
last occasion to file vakalatnama is also absent to-
day. Therefore, we would keep this matter in the afternoon session and to be called out accordingly.
AT 3.00 P.M.
2]In the morning session since nobody appeared, we kept the matter back and called out in the afternoon session. Since, now also nobody appears for petitioner nor the petitioner is present, we do
not have any alternative but to dismiss the petition for non prosecution. It is accordingly dismissed.
(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)
(GAUTAM S. PATEL, J)
TANMAY RAJPUROHIT
RESPONDENT 3
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI
GAUTAM S. PATEL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
