Sachin Laxman Awad v. the State of Maharashtra
Case brief
What is this about?
The Court set aside an order sealing six rooms due to the lack of a mandatory notice under section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, directing the rooms to be opened.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
9.WP155_2019 .doc
Vidya Amin.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 155 OF 2019
Sachin Laxman Awad … Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra … Respondent
Mr. G.S. Godbole i/b. Mr. Sumit S. Kothari, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for the respondent/State.
CORAM: Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED: 5th April, 2019
P.C. :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, the Writ
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order sealing six rooms without issuing a notice under section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act is valid?
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Sachin Laxman Awad
- respondent
The State of Maharashtra
Coram
MRIDULA BHATKAR
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court