Criminal petition pending since 2017; no efforts to circulate it and counsel sought adjournment. The High Court dismissed the petition for want of prosecution, holding that petitioners were not interested in pursuing it.
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.
V.A. Tikam 35- WP 557 of 2016.doc
VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date: 2024.02.08 10:34:46 +0530
M/s. Bhayani Brothers and Ors. .. Petitioners
vs.
Inspector of Police and Anr. .. Respondents
Mr. Dnyanesh Bhatkhande i/b. Prakash Shetty for Petitioners. Mr. S.V. Gavand, APP for the State- Respondents
CORAM: A. S. GADKARI AND
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
DATE : 1st FEBRUARY, 2024
P. C.:-
Petitioners and/or the Petitioners did not take any efforts even to circulate the Petition.
proceed with the hearing of the Petition and seeks an adjournment.
It appears that, Petitioners are not interested in pursuing present Petition.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK,J.)
(A. S. GADKARI, J.)
1/1
M/s. Bhayani Brothers and Ors.
Inspector of Police
State of Maharashtra
A. S. Gadkari
Shyam C. Chandak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
