Allowed

Shri. Vasant S/O. Manikrao Mankar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer Police Station Dhantoli Nagpur and Another

Bombay HC16 Dec 2016APL/789/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court Bench considered Criminal Application No.789 of 2016 where a compromise decree was recorded in a regular civil appeal disposing of a related criminal matter. The court allowed the application and made the rule absolute.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute; Criminal Application allowed and disposed of.

Shri. Vasant S/O. Manikrao Mankar and Others… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 apl789.16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.789 OF 2016

¶4

(VASANT MANIKRAO MANKAR & OTHERS..VS..STATE OF MAH. THR. PSO PS DHANTOLI & ANR.)

¶5

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶6

- - - - Shri R.D.Bhuibhar, Advocate for Applicants. Ms Mayuri Deshmukh, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. Shri Bastian, Adv. for Respondent No.2.

¶7

CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

¶8

DATED : DECEMBER 16, 2016.

¶9

Heard Advocate Shri Bhuibhar for the applicants and Advocate Shri Naidu a/w Advocate Shri Bastian for respondent No.2-complainant and learned A.P.P. appears for respondent No.1.

¶10

It is not in dispute that in Regular Civil Appeal No. 230 of 2016 District Judge-11, Nagpur has recorded and passed a Compromise Decree. As per terms and conditions thereof, particularly paragraph 7 therein, R.C.C. No. 3188 of 2011 in the Court of J.M.F.C.-2, Nagpur arising out of Crime No. 3558 of 2011 with Police Station, Dhantoli is disposed of as amicably settled. The compromise is recorded on 15/10/2016. Perusal of order passed below Exh.1 there reveals that there same counsel represented the respective parties before the appellate Court.

¶11

2 apl789.16

¶12

The discharge of obligation cast upon him by applicant No.3 is not in dispute.

¶13

In this situation, we make Rule absolute in terms of prayer (1) of the application.

¶14

Criminal Application (APL) No.789 of 2016 is accordingly allowed and disposed of .

¶15

JUDGE

¶16

JUDGE

¶17

RRaut..

Shri. Vasant S/O. Manikrao Mankar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer Police Station Dhantoli Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Vasant S/O. Manikrao Mankar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer Police Station Dhantoli Nagpur and Another

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

Dr. Firoz Mostafa Zaman S/O. Waheduzzaman Sarkar and Others Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. the Police Station Officer, Panchpaoli Nagpur and Another

The Sikh Education Society, Bezonbagh, Nagpur, through General Secretary Sardar Parshan Singh Kalsi Vs the Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur and Others

Manjusha W/O. Anand Shinde Vs Anand S/O. Waman Shinde and Another

Shri. Mahadev Jagganath Jankar, Ministry for Animal Husbandary Dairy Deve. Dept. Mumbai Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary Home Department Mantralaya Mumbai and Others

Shri. Tarachand S/O. Bisan Sakure, through Its P.O.A. Shri. Pramod Prabhakar Bhandarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Housing and Special Assistance Dept. and Others

Shri. Moh. Sadik @ Raju Moh. Usuf Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Assistant Police Commissioner Sakkardhara Division Nagpur City and Others