Neelakantan Iyer and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Jul 2025WP/2787/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition No. 2787 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Bombay; Neelakantann Iyer & Ors.; State of Maharashtra; Vakalatnama not filed; advocate appearing without Vakalatnama; adjournment sought for convenience; practice not appreciated; Yash Badkur; Rehaan Shaikh; Rizwan Merchant; Archit Jaykar; stand over to 30 July 2025; A. S. Gadkari; Rajesh S. Patil; 23 July 2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief adjudicated; at the request of Mr. Merchant, learned counsel for the Petitioners, the matter was stood over to 30 July 2025. ¶¶21

Neelakantan Iyer and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

KVM 55 - WP 2787-2025.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by KANCHAN KANCHAN VINOD VINOD MAYEKAR MAYEKAR Date: 2025.07.29 20:24:47 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2787 OF 2025

¶5

Neelakantann Iyer & Ors.

¶6

… Petitioners

¶7

V/s.

¶8

State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

Mr.Rizwan Merchant a/w. Mr.Jatin P. Karia (Shah), Ms.Snehankita M. Muni for Petitioners.

¶11

Smt.Prajakta P. Shinde, A.P.P. for Respondent No. 1 – State.

¶12

Mr.Yash Badkur for Respondent No.2.

¶13

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 23^rd JULY, 2025

¶14

P.C.:-

¶15

On 13^th June, 2025, Advocate Mr.Archit Jaykar had waived notice on behalf of proposed Respondent No.2.

¶16

1.1) Record indicates that however till date, he has not filed his Vakalatnama. Upon query on Advocate Mr. Yash Badkur, he submitted that the Vakalatnama is already filed. When this Court called upon him to give the stamp number or the lodging number of Vakalatnama, he expressed his inability in doing so. It is thus apparent that, Advocate Mr. Yash Badkur is appearing today without Vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent No.2. It be noted here that, yesterday i.e. on 22^nd July, 2025, Advocate Mr. Rehaan

¶17

1/2

¶18

KVM 55 - WP 2787-2025.doc

¶19

Shaikh on behalf of Respondent No.2 mentioned the matter for a suitable and convenient date by raising a specious plea. The said request was reiterated today in the morning by the concerned Advocate, to which learned counsel Mr.Merchant had opposed. It is thus apparent that Advocate Mr.Yash Badkur without having Vakalatnama in his favour, has appeared before this Court and tried to persuade to get an adjournment of a suitable date as per his convenience. The practice adopted by Mr. Yash Badkur and Mr. Rehaan Shaikh is not appreciated.

¶20

At this stage Mr. Merchant, learned counsel appearing for Petitioners requested this Court put a quietus to the said issue.

¶21

2.1) At the request of Mr.Merchant, stand over to 30^th July, 2025.

¶22

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

¶23

2/2

Neelakantan Iyer and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelakantan Iyer and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lalit Vazirani vs Chetna Global

Madhukar Gangadharrao Diwan vs Union of India and Ors.

Satish Baburao Patil and Anr. vs the Senior Inspector of Police and Ors.

Ai-Makkah Co-Op. Housing Society (Prop) through Its Chief Promoter Sudhir T. Chavan vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Corporation

Aditya Birla Capital Limited vs Megas Architectural Services Private limited

Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs Coronation Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.