Ravindra Vitthalrao Songire v. M/S Labhshetwar and Sakkarwar Constructions through It S Partners Vijay Ramdas Sakkarwar and Anothe

Bombay HC30 Sept 2016CA/13234/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil application filed under Section 340 CrPC read with Section 195(1)(b) CrPC, the applicant sought action for tendering false evidence. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay held that no case was made out and rejected the application, clarifying that this rejection does not bar other legal remedies.

What did the court decide?

Civil Application stands rejected with a clarification that other remedies remain available to the applicant.

Ravindra Vitthalrao Songire Vs M/S Labhshetwar… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

13234.16CA.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13234 OF 2016 IN

¶5

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.36 OF 2013

¶6

Ravindra s/o. Vithalrao Songire,
Age: 47 years, Occu: Business,
R/o. C/o. Hotel Classic,
Beside Goldi Cinema,
Railway Station Road,
Aurangabad.

¶7

APPLICANT

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Labhshetwar @ Sakkarwar
Constructions

¶10

A registered Partnership Firm
Reg. No. 58/2001
Having its office at Labh Chambers,
Station Road, Aurangabad
Through its Partners:

¶11

1. Vijay s/o.Ramdas Sakkarwar, Age: 39 Years, Occu: Business.

¶12

2. Mahesh s/o.Vitthal Labhshetwar Age: 39 Years, Occu: Business Both R/o. as above. RESPONDENTS

¶13

...

¶14

Mr.Avinash M. Nagarkar, Advocate for the
applicant.

¶15

...

¶16

13234.16CA.odt

¶17

¶18

CORAM : S.S.SHINDE, J.
 DATE : 30.09.2016

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

1.This Civil Application is filed with
prayer to initiate an action as contemplated
under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure read with sub-clause (b) (1) of
Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
and/or any other relevant provisions
operating the field in this behalf in
connection with tendering the false evidence
before the court.

¶21

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing
for the applicant. Perused the averments and

¶22

the grounds taken in the Application, and
also the statement made by the appellant in
Appeal from Order No.36/2013 on the point of
ownership. Upon considering the case in its
entirety, this Court is of the opinion that,
no case is made out to entertain this Civil

¶23

13234.16CA.odt

¶24

¶25

Application. Hence, Application stands
rejected. However, it is made clear that, in
case, the applicant wishes to avail any other
remedy if available in law, rejection of this
application cannot be construed as an

¶26

impediment for availing the said remedy.

¶27

Sd/-
 [S.S.SHINDE]
 JUDGE

¶28

DDC

Ravindra Vitthalrao Songire v. M/S Labhshetwar and Sakkarwar Constructions through It S Partners Vijay Ramdas Sakkarwar and Anothe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Vitthalrao Songire v. M/S Labhshetwar and Sakkarwar Constructions through It S Partners Vijay Ramdas Sakkarwar and Anothe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaurishankar Rukhmeshchandra Mishra Vs Asaram Shankar Jagdale and Ors.

Bansilal Pokhardas Motwani Vs Satish Pralhadrao Bodle and Others

The Generall Manager South Central Railway Secundrabad Ap Vs Sanjay B Jawlekar

Namdeo Mahadeo Mali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

State of Maha Vs Subhansingh Lubhansingh Patil

State of Maha Vs Sharad Dashrath Sawre and Anr.