Disposed

State of Maharashtra v. Uday Shardaprasad Pathak and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Jun 2024IA/2258/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State sought condonation of 24-day delay in filing a revision application against an order dated 19/08/2023. The court condoned the delay, directed registration of the revision, and kept it for hearing after allowing the respondent time to file a reply.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 24 days in filing the revision application condoned; revision to be registered.

State of Maharashtra vs Uday Shardaprasad Pathak… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

IA 2258 of 2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2258 OF 2024 IN

¶4

REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO. 23597 OF 2023

¶5

The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant

¶6

vs.

¶7

Uday Shardaprasad Pathak and Ors. ...Respondents

¶8

¶9

Mr. H.J. Dedhia	APP for the Applicant-State
Adv. Prashant Pandey a/w Ashok	Advocate for the Respondent
Dhanuka, Dinesh Jadhwani, Irfan
Unwala i/byW3Legal LLP
UdayPathak	Respondent No. 1present in-person

¶10

¶11

CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.

¶12

DATE : 18^th JUNE 2024

¶13

P. C. :-

¶14

Heard learned APP and learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1.

¶15

The impugned order came to be passed on 19/08/2023. There is

¶16

delay of 24 days. It is opposed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1.

¶17

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned.

¶18

Let revision be registered.

¶19

Digitally signed by SEEMA SEEMA KSHITIJ KSHITIJ YELKAR YELKAR Date: 2024.06.20 14:01:57 +0530

¶20

1/2

¶21

Seema

¶22

IA 2258 of 2024.doc

¶23

There is also submission that co-accused have been joined as Respondent Nos. 2 to 14. Whereas submission was made on 05/03/2024 by learned APP that the Order came to be passed on an application moved by Respondent No. 1 only. That is why notice was issued to Respondent No. 1 only.

¶24

Interim Application No. 2258 of 2024 is disposed of.

¶25

REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO. 23597 OF 2023

¶26

Respondent No. 1 seeks time to file a reply. He can do so. Copy

¶27

be served on learned APP. During hearing if this Court finds that other

¶28

Respondent needs to be heard then Court will issue notice to them.

¶29

Matter be kept 02^nd July 2024 .

¶30

2/2

¶31

Seema

State of Maharashtra v. Uday Shardaprasad Pathak and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Maharashtra v. Uday Shardaprasad Pathak and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shri. Santosh Shivlal Belgaonkar (Nanore) vs Sou. Rupali Santosh Belgaonkar (Nanore)

Aparna Jignesh Dangarwala vs State of Maharashtra

Prabhakar Manjunath Bhandari vs State of Maharashtra

Vishwanath Shankar Patil vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors.

Nikhil Arun Koli vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shivaji Mahadev Adak vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.