Partly allowed

Ramesh Tukaram Diwate v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 Dec 2024APPLN/3998/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay Bench Aurangabad recalled an order dismissing an application for want of prosecution, citing technical difficulties faced by the applicant's counsel. The original application (6774 of 2017) was restored to the list for the next date.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 13.08.2024 recalled; Criminal Application No.6774/2017 restored to original stage; listed for 14.12.2024.

Ramesh Tukaram Diwate Vs the State of Maharashtra — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

11-CRIAPPLN-3998-24

¶2

2024:BHC-AUG:28315

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

11 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3998 OF 2024

¶6

¶7

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.6774 OF 2017

¶8

Ramesh Tukaram Diwate VERSUS

¶9

The State Of Maharashtra

¶10

Mr. Mohasin Khan, Advocate for Applicant Mr. V.M. Chate, APP for Respondent – State

¶11

[CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.]

¶12

DATE : 02^nd DECEMBER, 2024

¶13

ORDER :

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant served the copy of application to the learned APP for respondent – State.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as the learned APP for respondent – State at length.

¶16

By the present application, the applicant prayed for restoration of the original application, which came to be dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 13.08.2024.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that on 13.08.2024, the counsel for the applicant was present through video conference, but due to technical problem, his voice was not audible to the Court, therefore, the counsel

¶18

1 of 2

¶19

S.P. Rane

¶20

11-CRIAPPLN-3998-24 2

¶21

could not make submissions, and this Court dismissed the application for non-prosecution on the ground that none appeared on behalf of the applicant.

¶22

No doubt, the learned APP for respondent-State resisted the application. However, considering the ratio laid down in Rafiq and another Vs. Munshilal and another AIR 1981 Supreme Court, 1400 , the order dated 13.08.2024 passed by this Court is hereby recalled, and criminal application No.6774/2017 is restored to its original stage on which it was dismissed for default.

¶23

Accordingly, the application for restoration is disposed of.

¶24

It is made clear that if the petitioner would not argue criminal application no.6774/2017 on merit, on the next date, in that event, the appropriate order would be passed.

¶25

With the consent of both the sides, list the criminal application no.6774/2017 on 14.12.2024.

[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE ]

JUDGE

2 of 2

S.P. Rane

Ramesh Tukaram Diwate v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Tukaram Diwate 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogesh Bhausaheb Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Deepali W/O Abhijitrao Bodkhe Vs Abhijit Ashokrao Bodkhe

Bhagwan Giri Gulab Giri Vs the Dy. Executive Engineer, M.S.E.B. (Civil), Osmanabad Thr. Its. Authorized Signatory and Anr.

Gopal Govind Lakade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ambaji Trading Company through Its Partner Chitrasen Yashwantrao Patil and Others Vs Jalgaon District Central Co. Op Bank Ltd. Jalgaon through General Managar Pralahad Bhaulal Sapkale

Ram Ganeshrao Bedre and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another