Disposed

Reshma Anwar Motiwala v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC13 Oct 2021WP/1536/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought attachment of property purchased from proceeds of crime. The court accepted an undertaking by Respondent No.3 not to alienate the property during the trial and disposed of the writ petition without entering into controversy regarding ownership wording.

What did the court decide?

Disposed because an undertaking not to alienate the property was accepted by the court.

Reshma Anwar Motiwala Vs the State of Maharashtra — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

5.WP-1536-18.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1536 OF 2018

¶5

Reshma Anwar Motiwala …. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others …. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Rizwan Merchant, Advocate i/b. Rizwan Merchant & Associates, for the Petitioner.

¶7

Ms. A.S. Pai, Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1-State.

¶8

Mr. Saurabh Kshirsagar, Advocate i/b. Hiten S. Venegaokar, for Respondent No.2.

¶9

Mr. Gaurav Lele, Advocate i/b. Sudha Dwivedi, for Respondent No.3.

¶10

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : 13 OCTOBER 2021

¶11

P.C.

¶12

This Petition was filed for the following relief:

¶13

“(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent to attach and seal the immovable property purchased by the Accused Ayub and his wife from the proceeds of crime i.e. Flat No.202, A Wing, (B-1), Hira Residency, Shil Road, Shil Phata, Mumbra, Dist Thane at; until the conclusion of the trial

1 / 3

5.WP-1536-18.odt

in C.C. No.402/PW/2017 pending on the file of Ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 18^th Court, Girgaum, Mumbai”

¶18

The learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn our attention to the order dated 18 August 2021 which reads thus :

¶19

“1. Learned counsel for Respondent No.3 on instructions submits that the Respondent No.3 will file an undertaking that he will not alienate the subject property till the conclusion of trial. Such undertaking to be filed on or before 23^rd August, 2021. In case, such undertaking is presented in the registry, registry to accept the same.

¶20

Needless to observe that before filing an undertaking in the registry, copy of the same shall be served to the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned PP appearing for State. List on 24^th August, 2021.”

¶21

The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the undertaking filed by Respondent No.3, except certain words in the undertaking, the undertaking “not to alienate the property” will suffice the purpose of this Petition. The undertaking is tendered on 20 August 2021 by Respondent No.3.

¶22

The learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 seek to comment on the words “I am the owner” in the undertaking. We are not inclined to enter into that controversy which we would keep open and accept the undertaking.

2 / 3

5.WP-1536-18.odt

In the light of the undertaking, no further orders are required to be passed. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶27

Digitally signed byPRADIPKUMAR PRADIPKUMARPRAKASHRAO PRAKASHRAODESHMANE DESHMANE Date: 2021.10.14 18:04:45 +0530

¶28

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

¶29

Deshmane (PS)

¶30

3 / 3

Reshma Anwar Motiwala v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reshma Anwar Motiwala v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Tabrez Azim Mansoori Vs Swapnil Patil and Ors.

Dhananjay Narendra Sheth S/O. Narendra Sheth and Ors. Vs Nayana Dhananjay Sheth Nee Nayana Vijay Kadam and Anr.

Shradha Sunil Kasurde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Krishnarao Dinkar Shrungare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Altaf Rajekhan Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sandesh Sakharam Salunke and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.