Allowed

Kirloskar Brothers Limited and Others. v. Mather and Platt (I) Ltd. and Another .

Bombay HC5 Nov 2019WP/596/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Criminal Writ Jurisdiction allowed a criminal writ petition under Article 226. The parties had entered into consent terms amicably settling the dispute, and the petitioner defendant company sought quashing of the compounding/rata case based on this settlement.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) to quash RCC No. 148/2000.

Kirloskar Brothers Limited and Others. Vs Mather and Platt… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

wp.596.2000.906.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 596 OF 2000

¶3

Kirloskar Brothers Limited

¶4

A company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at : Udyog Bhavan, Tilak Road, Pune – 411 002

¶5

Sanjay Kirloskar, Age Adult, Occu. Business, Office at : Udyog Bhavan, Tilak Road, Pune – 411 002

¶6

Suhas Palekar, Age Adult, Occu. Service, R/o. Awas, Nirmal Baug, Parvati, Pune.

¶7

...Petitioners

¶8

(Ori. Accused Nos. 1, 2 & 3)

¶9

Versus

¶10

Mather & Platt (India) Ltd. A company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at : Mumbai-Pune Road, Chinchwad, Pune – 411 019 (Through its Deputy General Manager (HRD)

¶11

Jitendra Singh Bami, Age – 53 years, Occu. Service, Office at : Mumbai-Pune Road, Chinchwad, Pune – 411 019

¶12

The State of Maharashtra

¶13

...Respondents Respondent No.1 is Ori. Complainant

1/3

SQ Pathan

wp.596.2000.906.doc

Mr. Nitin Pradhan a/w Ms. S. D. Khot for the Petitioners

¶18

Mr. S. S. Haldikar for the Respondent No. 1

¶19

Ms. P. P. Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent No.2-State

¶20

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. TUESDAY, 5th NOVEMBER 2019

¶21

ORAL ORDER :

¶22

1 Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Haldikar on behalf of respondent No. 2 state that the parties have entered into Consent Terms and have settled the dispute between them amicably. They have tendered the Consent Terms entered into between the parties. The said Consent Terms are taken on record and marked `X’ for identification.

¶23

2 In the said Consent Terms in para 4, it is clearly stated that in view of the amicable settlement, WILO Mather and Platt Pumps Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier known as Mather & Platt (I) Ltd.), does not wish to prosecute or pursue RCC No. 148/2000 and as such consents to quashing of the same.

2/3

SQ Pathan

wp.596.2000.906.doc

3 In view of the Consent Terms dated 30^th September 2019, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b).

¶28

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶29

3/3

¶30

SQ Pathan

Kirloskar Brothers Limited and Others. v. Mather and Platt (I) Ltd. and Another .

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kirloskar Brothers Limited and Others. v. Mather and Platt (I) Ltd. and Another .

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

Prakash Bondre and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vasant Janardhan Aher Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vasant Janardhan Aher Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Apna Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs Sachin Ravindra Koregaonkar and Anr.

Sachin R.Korgoankar Vs Apna Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Vimal Jugal Sonak Vs the State of Maharashtra