Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Tukaram Nivruti Vinode

Bombay HC20 Mar 2018CAO/95/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court allowed multiple Civil Applications seeking condonation of delay for filing review petitions. However, after examining the record regarding the dropping of names of Writ Petitioners as accused in an underlying FIR case, the Court held there was no error on the face of the record warranting review interference. Consequently, the review petitions were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Civil Applications for condonation of delay allowed; Review Petitions dismissed.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Tukaram… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

924-cao-86-2018.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.86 OF 2018 IN

¶4

REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.6122 OF 2018

¶5

The State of Maharashtra and Others vs.

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

Maruti Baban Vinode and Another ...Respondents

¶8

WITH

¶9

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.87 OF 2018

¶10

¶11

REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.6140 OF 2018

¶12

The State of Maharashtra ...Petitioner

¶13

vs. Rekha Gulab Vinode and Another ...Respondents

¶14

WITH

¶15

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.88 OF 2018 IN

¶16

REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.6148 OF 2018

¶17

The State of Maharashtra ...Petitioner

¶18

vs. Suhas Sahebrao Vinode and Another ...Respondents

¶19

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.89 OF 2018

¶20

¶21

REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.6236 OF 2018

¶22

The State of Maharashtra ...Petitioner vs. Shantaram Tabaji Vinode and Another ...Respondents

1/4

Vishal Parekar

924-cao-86-2018.doc

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.90 OF 2018

¶28

¶29

REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.6255 OF 2018

¶30

The State of Maharashtra ...Petitioner

¶31

vs.

¶32

Shankar Tukaram Wakadkar and Another ...Respondents

¶33

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.91 OF 2018 IN REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.5918 OF 2018

¶34

The State of Maharashtra ...Petitioner

¶35

vs.

¶36

Gulab Sopan Vinode and Another ...Respondents

¶37

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.92 OF 2018 IN

¶38

REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.5864 OF 2018

¶39

The State of Maharashtra ...Petitioner vs.

¶40

Kunda Tukaram Vinode and Another ...Respondents

¶41

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.93 OF 2018 IN

¶42

REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.5868 OF 2018

¶43

The State of Maharashtra ...Petitioner

¶44

vs.

¶45

Jalindar Bhausaheb Alhat and Another ...Respondents

¶46

WITH

¶47

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.94 OF 2018 IN REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.5855 OF 2018

2/4

Vishal Parekar

924-cao-86-2018.doc

The State of Maharashtra

¶52

...Petitioner

¶53

vs.

¶54

Ananda Ganpat Vinode and Another ...Respondents

¶55

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.95 OF 2018 IN

¶56

REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.5913 OF 2018

¶57

The State of Maharashtra ...Petitioner

¶58

vs.

¶59

Tukaram Nivrutti Vinode and Another ...Respondents

¶60

Mr. A.I. Patel, AGP for the Petitioners/State.

¶61

Mr. Y.S. Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. S.M. Sabrad, for the Respondents.

¶62

CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & MAKARAND KARNIK, JJ.

¶63

DATE : MARCH 20, 2018

¶64

P.C.:

¶65

. Heard the learned AGP for the Applicants/State.

¶66

For the reasons stated in the Civil Applications seeking

¶67

condonation of delay, we find that sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay. Accordingly the Civil Applications are allowed. 3. By filing these Review Petitions, the Petitioners-State is seeking review of the order dated 14^th September, 2016 passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 4022 of 2016, 4823 of 2016, 8509 of 2016, 4830 of 2016, 4027 of 2016, 4824 of 2016, 4821 of 2016, 4825 of 2016, 4820 of 2016 and 4517 of 2016 respectively.

3/4

Vishal Parekar

924-cao-86-2018.doc

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned order, more particularly para 5 of the order, in which on the basis of the affidavits we have recorded that the Writ Petitioners' names have been dropped as accused and when it is not disputed that the Petitioners' names were not in the list of the accused persons, we find that there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference in review jurisdiction, which is extremely limited. No case has made out to review.

¶72

The Review Petitions are therefore, dismissed.

¶73

(MAKARAND KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)

¶74

4/4

¶75

Vishal Parekar

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Tukaram Nivruti Vinode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Tukaram Nivruti Vinode

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

Bombay Bus Owners Association a Registered Association Vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and Anr.

Samata Nagar Co-Operative Housing Societies Union Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Smt. Babita Gopal Pawar Alias Smt. Bebi Maruti Gadekar Vs the Education Officer (Sec.), Zilla Parishad, Solapur and Ors.

Hasmukh Maneklal Panchal and 3 Others Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 32 Ors.

Tarsem Lal Ex-Cpo (Topass) Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Tukaram Nivruti Vinode