Dismissed

Mats Erik Lennart Elfsberg and Ors. v. Kuldeep Mishra and Anr.

Bombay HC29 Jul 2013WP/852/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On maintainingability of CWP due to alternative remedy, the Court withdrew the petition and dismissed it, granting liberty to file a revision application with a stay on execution of bailable warrants.

What did the court decide?

The petition is withdrawn and dismissed. Liberty granted to file an application for revision within six weeks. Execution of bailable warrants stayed for eight weeks.

Mats Erik Lennart Elfsberg and Ors. Vs Kuldeep… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

CWP-852.12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 852 OF 2012

¶6

MATS ERIK LENNART ELFSBERG & ORS.

¶7

.. PETITIONERS

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

KULDEEP MISHRA & ANR.

¶10

.. RESPONDENTS

¶11

Mr. M. G. Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. E. A. Sasi, Advocate for R. No. 1 Mrs. G. P. Mulekar, APP for the State

¶12

CORAM:-ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 29/07/2013

¶13

P.C.

¶14

Heard Mr. M. G. Shukla, learned counsel for the

¶15

petitioners and Mr. E. A. Sasi, learned counsel for respondent No. 1.

¶16

2 The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 raises a preliminary objection, as to the maintainability of the present writ petition, as according to him, the petitioner has an

1/4

CWP-852.12

effective and efficacious statutory remedy, which has not been availed of by him, before approaching this court.

¶21

3 I find that the impugned order is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the court of sessions. Though there is no question of jurisdictional bar, in an aggrieved person directly approaching this court by invoking its constitutional jurisdiction, this court ordinarily would not entertain a writ petition, if such person has an efficacious alternative remedy for the redressal of his grievance, which has not been availed of.

¶22

4 When this aspect of the matter is discussed, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that, he would approach the court of sessions by filing an application for revision, provided sufficient time for enabling him to do so, is given, and provided further that the issue of 'bar of limitation' for entertaining the revision does not crop up before the court of sessions.

2/4

CWP-852.12

5 In view of the fact that, an objection for filing the writ petition without exhausting the remedy of filing a revision application before the court of sessions, has been raised by him, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 agrees that, the delay in filing the revision application before the court of sessions, as is intended to be filed, should be condoned; and that he has no objection, if appropriate directions in that regard are given to the court of sessions.

¶27

6 Some apprehension is expressed by Mr. Shukla, as

¶28

to the difficulty that might arise in effecting service of the revision proceedings, as would be filed in the court of sessions on the respondent No. 1. In this regard, Mr. Sasi, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 states that, service of any such proceedings on him shall be good and proper service on the respondent No. 1 herein and no objection with respect to the validity of such service shall be raised by him, at any time, before the court of sessions, or any other court, on the ground

3/4

CWP-852.12

that the same is not served on the respondent No. 1, personally.

¶33

7 The petition is allowed to be withdrawn and stands dismissed as such, with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application for revision of the impugned order, in the court of sessions.

¶34

8 In the event of such an application being filed within a period of six weeks from today, the court of sessions shall entertain the same without raising the question of limitation and by passing a formal order of condoning the delay.

¶35

9 The execution of the bailable warrants ordered to

¶36

be issued against the petitioners shall be stayed for a period of eight weeks from today.

¶37

10 The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms.

¶38

(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)

¶39

md.saleem

¶40

4/4

Mats Erik Lennart Elfsberg and Ors. v. Kuldeep Mishra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mats Erik Lennart Elfsberg and Ors. v. Kuldeep Mishra 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

Sharad @ Dev S. Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tushar B. Wagh Vs Nandu Madhav Vadhawane and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Deepak Rajan Nigudkar and Ors.

Abigail Stephen Rosa Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahalappa Shankar Poojari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sumeet Ganpat Bacchewar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.