An application for intervention in Criminal Appeal No. 363 of 2017 was disposed of as infructuous because the underlying appeal was already disposed of on the same day, having been heard by the same counsel. No substantive legal issue was addressed.
The application was disposed of as infructuous.
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.
Urmila Ingale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 665 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 363 OF 2017
Jitendra Kumar Murlidhar Gautam .. Applicant
In the matter of
Ramakabal Ramkrupal Dube and ors. .. Appellants Vs. the State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
Mr.P. S.Gautam, for Applicant. Mr.Sandeep Mishra, for the Appellants. Mrs.G.P. Mulekar, APP for State.
CORAM : SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI &
M.S.KARNIK, JJ. 28th APRIL, 2017
P.C. :
. This application has been preferred for intervention
in the Criminal Appeal No. 363 of 2017. The Appeal has been disposed of by the order dated 28/04/2017. As the learned Counsel for the intervenor has been heard in the Appeal, this Application is disposed as infructuous.
( M.S.KARNIK, J.) (SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.)
1/1
Jitendra Kumar Murlidhar Gautam
V.K.Tahilramani
M.S.Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
