Allowed

Parvesh Construction Private Limited through Director Satyan Appa Kesarkar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Dec 2023WP/939/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed three criminal writ petitions regarding proceedings revive, relying on a Supreme Court judgment, and granted liberty to revive proceedings if a pending Supreme Court review is allowed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the respondent Department to revive proceedings in case the supreme court review petition is allowed.

Parvesh Construction Private Limited through… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-AS:36808

¶2

 1/2 14 wp 938.22.docx

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

Criminal Writ Petition No. 938 of 2022

¶5

M/s. Armstrong Infrastructure Private Limited & ors.

¶6

v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors.

... Petitioners

… Respondents

With

Criminal Writ Petition No. 939 of 2022 With

¶11

Criminal Writ Petition No. 1342 of 2022

¶12

Parvesh Constructions Private Limited Through Director Satyan Appa Kesarkar & Ors.

¶13

... Petitioners

¶14

v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. … Respondents

¶15

With

¶16

Criminal Writ Petition No. 1341 of 2022

¶17

M/s. Devisha Constructions Private Limited Through Sameer Magan Bhujbal & Ors.

¶18

& Ors. ... Petitioners v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. … Respondents

¶19

Mr Abad Ponda, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr Naresh Jain a/w. Sejal Yadav, Mr Sudharsan Khawase a/w. Ms Neha Anchlia, Advocates for the petitioners.

¶20

Mr Anil Kumar Singh i/b. Mr D P Singh a/w. Mr Ashish Chavan for respondent Nos. 2 & 3. Mrs P N Dabholkar, APP for the State.

¶21

 2/2 14 wp 938.22.docx

¶22

CORAM : R.N.LADDHA, J.

¶23

DATE : 8 December 2023

¶24

P.C. :

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶26

The issue raised in these petitions is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Union of India & anr. v/s. Ganpati Delcom Pvt. Ltd.¹ . In view of this, these petitions stand allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) & (c) of the respective petitions.

¶27

As prayed, liberty is granted to the respondent Department to revive the proceedings in case the review petition, pending before the Supreme Court is allowed.

¶28

R.N. LADDHA, J.

¶29

Lata Panjwani, P.S.

¶30

1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1064

Parvesh Construction Private Limited through Director Satyan Appa Kesarkar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parvesh Construction Private Limited through Director Satyan Appa Kesarkar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aniket Ashok Tapase Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Aniket Ashol Tapase Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Axis Bank Limited and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S Armstrong Infrastructure Private Limited through Sameer Magan Bhujbal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. Devisha Infrastructure Private Limited through Sameer Magan Bhujbal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Parvesh Construction Private Limited through Director Satyan Appa Kesarkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.