Disposed¶23

Mohd Sohail Salim Shaikh and Anr. v. Samreen Mohd Sohail Salim Shaikh @ Samreen Maqsood Ahmed Nalwar and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Jul 2025WP/3514/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court; Writ Petition No.3514 of 2025; Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction; Madhav J. Jamdar, J.; decided 4th November 2025; consent terms; settlement between parties; withdrawal and disposal of writ petition; undertakings to the Court; D.V. proceedings; ad-interim order vacated; petitioners Mohd./Mohammed Sohail Salim Shaikh and Mrs. Naseema Mohammed Muzaffaruddin Shaikh; respondent Samreem/Samreen Mohd. Sohail Salim Shaikh @ Samreem Maqsood Ahmed Nalwar; advocates Sana Raees Khan and Irfan A.A. Ansari; APP Shilpa Gajre.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the Writ Petition pursuant to settlement; Consent Terms taken on record and marked 'X' with statements therein accepted as undertakings to the Court; ad-interim Order vacated forthwith. ¶23

Mohd Sohail Salim Shaikh and Anr. vs Samreen Mohd Sohail Salim Shaikh @ Samreen Maqsood Ahmed Nalwar and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the Writ Petition, filed under the Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, could be permitted to be withdrawn and disposed of on the basis of Consent Terms executed pursuant to settlement between the parties.

¶22

Court's answer

In view of the settlement recorded in the Consent Terms, the Writ Petition was allowed to be withdrawn on the instructions of the Petitioners and was disposed of as such.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The Consent Terms signed by the Petitioners and Respondent No.1 were taken on record, marked 'X' for identification, and the various statements made therein were accepted as undertakings given to the Court.

¶21

Key takeaways

As a consequence of the disposal of the Writ Petition, the ad-interim Order stood vacated forthwith.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Madhav J. Jamdar, J.), Writ Petition No.3514 of 2025 (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), decided 4th November 2025. On a joint statement by counsel that the dispute between the Petitioners and Respondent No.1 stood settled, Consent Terms signed by Petitioner No.1 (Mohammed Sohail Salim Shaikh), Petitioner No.2 (Mrs. Naseema Mohammed Muzaffaruddin Shaikh) and Respondent No.1 (Samreem Mohd Sohail Salim Shaikh @ Samreem Maqsood Ahmed Nalwar), who were personally present and whose signatures were identified by their advocates, were taken on record and marked 'X'; the three further signatories (Shabana Firoz Shaikh, Naziya Shaukat Shaikh and Shamina Shirodkar) are not parties to the Petition but are parties to the D.V. proceedings. The statements in the Consent Terms were accepted as undertakings given to the Court. Counsel for the Petitioners, on instructions, sought withdrawal of the Writ Petition, which was allowed to be withdrawn and disposed of as such; the ad-interim Order stood vacated forthwith.

¶1

909 WP 3514.25.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3514 OF 2025

¶5

Mohd. Sohail Salim Shaikh & Anr. …Petitioners Versus Samreem Mohd Sohail Salim Shaikh @ …Respondent Samreem Maqsood Ahmed Nalwar

¶6

Ms. Sana Raees Khan a/w Ms. Neha Balani, Mr. Harsh Shah, Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Irfan A.A. Ansari i/by Mr. Rohit Sawant, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.

¶8

Ms. Shilpa Gajre, APP for State

¶9

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 4^th November 2025

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

Ms. Sana Khan, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner

¶12

and Mr. Irfan Ansari, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 state that the parties have settled the dispute and tenders the

¶13

Consent Terms.

¶14

Petitioner No.1-Mohammed Sohail Salim Shaikh, Petitioner

¶15

No.2-Mrs. Naseema Mohammed Muzaffaruddin Shaikh and Respondent No.1- Samreen Mohd. Sohail Salim Shaikh are personally present in the Court. The Consent Terms are signed by them. All of them state that the dispute between them is settled in

Page 1 of 3

Dusane

909 WP 3514.25.DOC

terms of the Consent Terms. All of them state that they have signed the Consent Terms. Consent Terms are also signed by the respective Advocates. Respective Advocates identify signatures of the Petitioners and the Respondent No.1 on the Consent Terms.

¶20

The Consent Terms are also singed by Shabana Firoz Shaikh, Naziya Shaukat Shaikh and Shamina Shirodkar, however, they are not parties to the present Petition. Both the learned Counsel state that they are parties to the D.V. proceedings and therefore they have signed the Consent Terms.

¶21

Accordingly the Consent Terms are taken on record and marked “X” for identification. Various statements made in the Consent Terms are accepted as undertakings given to this Court.

¶22

In view of the Consent Terms, Ms. Sana Khan, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, on instructions of the Petitioners, seeks withdrawal of the Writ Petition.

¶23