Vaibhav Arun Harnaskar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Honorable Minister State Excise Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Jan 2025WP/3655/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court writ petitions withdrawn with liberty; impugned notice under Section 54 Maharashtra Prohibition Act; contentions kept open; two-week withholding of effect of any adverse order; express disclaimer of merits; disposed of, no costs; bench G. S. Kulkarni & Advait M. Sethna; petitioners Somnath Pandurang Kate and Vaibhav Arun Harnaskar v. State of Maharashtra.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw all three writ petitions with liberty as prayed, contentions remaining open for the Section 54 Maharashtra Prohibition Act proceedings; limited protection that any adverse order shall not be given effect for two weeks to enable recourse to appropriate remedies; disposed of with no costs. ¶¶29

Vaibhav Arun Harnaskar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Honorable Minister State Excise Dept and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw the writ petitions, keeping open all their contentions to be urged in the proceedings initiated under Section 54 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act pursuant to the impugned notice. +1 more

¶¶26

Court's answer

Leave granted: the petitioners were permitted to withdraw all the writ petitions with liberty as prayed for, keeping their contentions open to be urged in the Section 54 Maharashtra Prohibition Act proceedings.

¶¶27

Ratio / Principle

Limited protection granted at counsel's request: if an adverse order is passed against the petitioners, the same shall not be given effect for a period of two weeks, to enable them to take recourse to the appropriate remedy available under law.

¶¶28

Key takeaways

The court expressly recorded that the limited two-week protection shall in no manner be construed as an expression on the merits of the matter.ratio¶¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (G. S. Kulkarni & Advait M. Sethna, JJ.), 21 January 2025 — Writ Petition Nos. 3537, 3655 and 3538 of 2024 (Somnath Pandurang Kate and Vaibhav Arun Harnaskar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.), disposed of by a short order after the petitions, though not on board, were taken up on a praecipe following their being heard the previous day. Counsel for the petitioners sought leave to withdraw all the petitions, keeping open all contentions to be urged in proceedings initiated under Section 54 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act by way of an impugned notice. The Court permitted withdrawal with liberty as prayed, and accepted counsel's further request that if an adverse order is passed it shall not be given effect for two weeks, to enable recourse to appropriate remedies, expressly clarifying that this limited protection is not an expression on the merits. No costs.

¶1

Digitally PRASHANTVILASRANE signed byPRASHANTVILAS RANEDate:2025.01.27 13:27:17 +0530

¶2

502wp3537-24.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3537 OF 2024

¶6

Somnath Pandurang Kate ..Petitioner VS The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents

¶7

WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 3655 OF 2024

¶9

Vaibhav Arun Harnaskar ..Petitioner VS The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents

¶10

WITH

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO. 3538 OF 2024

¶12

Somnath Pandurang Kate ..Petitioner VS The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents

¶13

Mr. S. R. Nargolkar with Mr. Santosh L. Patil and Ms. Shraddha Kadam, for the Petitioners.

¶14

Mr. B. V. Samant, Addl. Govt. Pleader with Ms. Tejas Kapre, AGP for the State in WP 3537/24 & WP 2538/24.

¶15

Ms. Poratibha J. Gavhane, AGP for the State in WP 3655/24.

¶16

CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.

¶17

DATE : 21 JANUARY 2025

¶18

P.C.:

¶19

Not on board. Taken on board upon mentioning on a praecipe as

¶20

moved on behalf of the petitioners.

¶21

Two of the aforesaid petitions being Writ Petition Nos.3538 of

P. V. Rane

Page 1 of 2

502wp3537-24.odt

2024 and Writ Petition No.3655 of 2024 were heard yesterday and kept for orders to be passed.

¶26

However today learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks leave to withdraw all these petitions keeping open all contentions of the petitioners to be urged in the proceedings initiated under Section 54 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act under the impugned notice.

¶27

We accordingly permit the petitioners to withdraw these petition with liberty as prayed for.

¶28

At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that in the event an order adverse to the petitioners is passed, the same be not given effect for some time. We accept such request. If an order adverse to the petitioners is passed, the same shall not be given effect for a period of two weeks, to enable the petitioners to take recourse to the appropriate remedy available under law. This limited protection in no manner shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the matter.

¶29

Disposed of. No costs.

¶30

[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]

¶31

[G. S. KULKARNI, J.]

¶32

Page 2 of 2

¶33

P. V. Rane

Vaibhav Arun Harnaskar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Honorable Minister State Excise Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaibhav Arun Harnaskar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Honorable Minister State Excise Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prashant Khandu Narawade S/O. Late Khandu Goving Narawade vs Snehal Prashant Narawade @ Snehal Shirish Suryavanshi

Mrs. Reshita Sandip Chakrabarty vs Dr. Sandip Mrinmoy Chakrabarty

Joseph Albert Fernandes and Ors. vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S. Civiltech India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs the Nashik Ind. Co-Op. Estate Ltd. through Its Chairman and or S

Microvision Technologies through Its Proprietor vs the Registrar /Prothonotary and Senior Master High Court ( Original Side) and Ors.

Constrokraft Properties LLP Throu. Its Partner Ahmed Hafeez Ahmed Inamdar and Anr. vs the Poona Dicocesan Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.