The High Court rejected the Criminal Application for leave to appeal as the applicant's counsel consistently failed to appear for hearings, indicating loss of interest in prosecuting the matter.
Application rejected for want of prosecution.
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.
(46)APPLNNo.3372007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.337 OF 2007 (For Leave to Appeal – Private)
M/s.Parle Sales Services Pvt. Ltd. ... Applicant V/s.
Harish Datta & Anr.
... Respondents
None for the Applicant.
Mrs.M.R.Tidke, APP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : A.M.BADAR J.
DATED : 22nd OCTOBER 2018.
P.C. :
1 Today also none appeared for the applicant in this old matter. On last occasions, i.e. on 26/09/2018 and 08/10/2018 nobody represented the applicant when the application was called out for hearing.
2 It appears that the applicant has lost interest in prosecuting the instant application.
3 Hence, the application is rejected for want of prosecution.
1/1
Gaikwad RD
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal application requires to be dismissed for want of prosecution due to absence of counsel.
M/s. Parle Sales Services Pvt. Ltd.
Harish Datta & Anr.
A.M. BADAR J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
