Disposed

Yusuf M. Talwala v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Aug 2017REVN/467/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This short order addresses two issues regarding a criminal revision application. First, it corrects the cause title of a previous order to include both the revision application and a related criminal application. Second, it grants the applicant an extension of one week to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- due to the Sessions Court not having received the writ.

What did the court decide?

Cause title corrected; time to deposit Rs.50,000/- extended by one week.

Yusuf M. Talwala Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

501_appr_9_2017 & revnst 8_17.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.8 OF 2017 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.9 OF 2017 IN

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.8 OF 2017

Yusuf M. Talwala

...Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

Mr. Ashish Satpute with Mr. Piyush Toshniwal i/b. Mr. Chetan S. Damre for the Applicant. Mr. Shahajirao Shinde, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

¶12

DATED : 1^st SEPTEMBER, 2017.

¶13

P.C.:-

¶14

Not on board. Taken on board.

¶15

The learned counsel for the Applicant, under instructions submitted that the Respondent No.2 has refused to accept the costs of Rs.10,000/- since it was not specifically mentioned in the order dated 16^th August, 2017 that the costs are to be paid to the Respondent No.2.

¶16

It is clarified that the costs awarded in clause (i) of the operative part of the order is to be paid to the Respondent No.2. In the

¶17

Megha

¶18

1/2

¶19

501_appr_9_2017 & revnst 8_17.doc

¶20

event the Respondent No.2 refuses to accept the costs, the same shall be paid to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority.

¶21

The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that amount of Rs.50,000/- could not be deposited before the Sessions Court since the Sessions Court had not received the writ. He therefore, seeks extension of time to deposit the said amount. Time to deposit the amount of Rs.50,000/- is extended by a period of one week from the date on which this order is uploaded.

¶22

It is seen that though the revision application was disposed of on merits, the cause title of the order dated 16^th August, 2017 reads as under :-

¶23

“Criminal Application No.9 of 2017

¶24

¶25

Criminal Revision Application (st) No.8 of 2017”.

¶26

The same be corrected to read as under :-

¶27

“Criminal Revision Application (st) No.8 of 2017 with Criminal Application No.9 of 2017 in

¶28

Criminal Revision Application (st) No.8 of 2017”.

¶29

Necessary corrections be made accordingly.

¶30

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

¶31

Megha

¶32

2/2

Yusuf M. Talwala v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yusuf M. Talwala v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Vinod Gajraj Mehta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manda Harishchandra Gosavi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nilesh Ramchandra More Vs the State of Maharashtra

Yusuf M. Talwala Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ranjit Sham Chougule and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ranjit Sham Chougule and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.