High Court disposed of five Criminal Writ Petitions as withdrawn since the petitioner submitted consent terms and expressed a desire not to press the petitions in court.
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.
7-11 WPCR 41-45 OF 2020
Aura
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA Criminal Writ Petitions Nos. 41,42, 43, 44 and 45 of 2020
Sanjay Vithu Barde Petitioner
Versus
Respondents
Mr. G. Teles, Advocate for the Petitioner in all the petitions. Ms. A. Godinho, Advocate for the Respondent no.1. Mr. Gaurish Nagvekar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for Respondent-State
CORAM: MANISH PITALE, J DATED: 15th September, 2021
Oral Order ;
1. The learned counsel appearing for the rival parties submit that the consent terms have been arrived at. A copy of the consent terms is handed over to the Court which is signed by the rival parties as well as their advocates.
2. It is also pointed our that the rival parties are present in Court and have been identified by their counsel.
3. The consent terms include details of the cheques to be handed over by the petitioner for specific amounts.
Page 1 of 2 15th Sept.2021
7-11 WPCR 41-45 OF 2020
4. The consent terms are taken on record in Criminal Writ Petition no.41 of 2020 and marked as “X”.
5. In view of the said consent terms filed before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner in these petitions has instructions to state that the petitioner does not wish to press these petitions.
6. In view of the above, the Writ Petitions are disposed of as not pressed.
MANISH PITALE, J.
Page 2 of 2 15th Sept.2021
Sanjay Vithu Barde
Shailesh Shetty
Manish Pitale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
