CHANCHAL CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2009-9-167
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on
September 15,2009
CHANCHAL CHOUDHARY
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
UMA SHANKAR SITANI VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,DELHI [REFERRED TO]STATE OF HARYANA VS. BHAJAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
S P CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU VS. JAGANNATH [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY SHEKHAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BHAURAO DAGDU PARALKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SURYALAKSHMI COTTON MILLS LTD VS. RAJVIR INDUSTRIES LTD [REFERRED TO]
R KALYANI VS. JANAK C MEHTA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
SHRINIWAS RAMDAS SIWERWAT VS. SHANTARAM PANDURANG DEOTALE [LAWS(BOM)-2011-7-160] [REFERRED TO]DILIP VIRUMAL AHUJA VS. REKHA VITHAL PATIL [LAWS(BOM)-2022-7-26] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Bilal Nazki, J. -
(1.)These Writ Petitions have been filed in year 2006. On September 21, 2006, Rule was issued, and interim relief was granted. As a result, the trial has not started in the matters for the last three years.
(2.)When the petitions came up before the Court, the learned advocate for the petitioner sought an adjournment. They were adjourned to 6th May, 2009. Again, adjournment was sought. Adjournment was granted, but the stay was vacated, and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 43rd Court at Borivali, Mumbai, was directed to expedite the trial.
(3.)Now, the petitions have again come up for hearing, and we have heard the matters.
(2.)When the petitions came up before the Court, the learned advocate for the petitioner sought an adjournment. They were adjourned to 6th May, 2009. Again, adjournment was sought. Adjournment was granted, but the stay was vacated, and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 43rd Court at Borivali, Mumbai, was directed to expedite the trial.
(3.)Now, the petitions have again come up for hearing, and we have heard the matters.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.