Navneet Jugalkishor Biyani v. State of Maharashtra P.S. Morshi and Anr.
Case brief
What is this about?
HIGH COURT
What did the court decide?
Action under Section 390 CrPC not taken due to presence of counsel.
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.
1
1711appa468.13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 468 OF 2013 IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2014
(Navneet Jugalkishor Biyani vs. State of Maharashtra, P.S. Morshi, Amravati & Anr.)
Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,__________________________________________________________________________ appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.
CORAM : M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. NOVEMBER 17, 2014.
Heard Shri Shingane, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ekre, learned APP for respondent No. 1 and Shri Tote, Advocate holding for Shri Mardikar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Leave to appeal granted.
Criminal Appeal be admitted.
R. & P. be called.
Action under Section 390 of Criminal
Procedure Code is not being taken against the respondents as the learned APP for respondent No. 1 and the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 are present.
JUDGE
*GS.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Navneet Jugalkishor Biyani
State of Maharashtra, P.S. Morshi, Amravati
M.L. Tahaliyani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court