Applicant sought withdrawal of a criminal revision application; permitted and disposed as withdrawn with all rights kept open.
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.
901-REVN-131-2015.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVISION APPLICATION NO.131 OF 2015
Vinayak Ramchandra Kulkarni (Manglekar) ...Applicant Versus Preeti Vinayak Kulkarni (Manglekar) ...Respondent
Adv. Nitanjan Mundargi a/w Adv. Vikrant Shinde for the Applicant. Adv. Shilpa Gajar, APP for the Respondent State.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Date : April 26, 2024.
P. C. :
1. Learned counsel for the Applicant on instruction seeks permission to withdraw the Revision Application. Revision Application is disposed of as withdrawn.
2. It is made clear that this Court is not gone into the merits of the
matter and all rights and contentions of both parties are expressly kept open.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
1 of 1
Harish
Vinayak Ramchandra Kulkarni (Manglekar)
Preeti Vinayak Kulkarni (Manglekar)
Sharmila U. Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
