The High Court at Bombay dismissed an applicant's request for reconstructing the criminal revision application record, noting that the underlying application had already been dismissed due to non-removal of objections.
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.
pdp
appln-451-03
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 451 OF 2003
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 217 OF 2001
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.
Court’s or Judge’s orders
Mr. Sachindra Shetye for applicant. Mrs. S. D. Shinde, APP for State.
CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND G. S. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE : NOVEMBER 26, 2014.
P.C.:
Mr. Sachin Shetye, learned counsel for the applicant, states before us that Criminal Application No. 451 of 2003 has already been dismissed on account of non removal of office objections. Learned counsel further points out to us that the applicant has not responded to the request of the learned counsel for the applicant and therefore, record could not be reconstructed. However, since Criminal Application No. 451 of 2003 has already been dismissed, no further orders are necessary.
1 of 1
Mr. Sachindra Shetye / Mr. Sachin Shetye
State
P. V. Hardas
G. S. Kulkarni
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
