The court disposed of the writ petition in terms of consent terms tendered by the petitioner and respondent no. 2, who had amicably resolved their disputes.
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.
Digitally signed by MUGDHA MUGDHA MANOJ MANOJ PARANJAPE PARANJAPE Date: 2024.12.04 10:31:22 +0530
1 22-WP 3530-24.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3530 OF 2024
Paul Mathew D’souza … Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents
Mr. Sai Rajendra Kadam a/w Kedar S. Mayekar for the Petitioner. Mr. A. R. Metkari, APP for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. S. S. Redekar a/w Nitin Bhoir & Yogesh Rawool for Respondent No.2. Mr. P. M. D’souza, Petitioner is present in Court.
Mr. Violet I. D’Crasta, Respondent No.2 is present in Court.
CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATE : 03RD DECEMBER 2024
P.C. :
1. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits
that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes and differences.
have today tendered the consent terms. The said consent terms are duly verified by their respective advocates. Hence, the same are taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification.
Mugdha
1 of 2
2 22-WP 3530-24.doc
(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)
Mugdha
2 of 2
Paul Mathew D’souza
State of Maharashtra
Respondent No.2
ARIF S. DOCTOR
As recorded by the court registry
11 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
