Sureshchandra S/O. Badrinarayan ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5810 Bom

                                                                   813.19crwp etc
                                      (1)

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

             907 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.813 OF 2019

       SOMNATH S/O. CHUNNILAL KALANTRI AND OTHERS
                         VERSUS
          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                             WITH WP/832/2019
                                      ...
                 Mr R. M. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioners;
                Mr R. V. Dasalkar, A.P.P. for respondents/State;
                Mr P. S. Gaikwad, Advocate for respondent No.3

                              WITH
             926 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.814 OF 2019

       SOMNATH S/O. CHUNNILAL KALANTRI AND OTHERS
                         VERSUS
          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

               WITH WP/363/2019 WITH WP/830/2019
                                   ...
            Mr R. M. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioners;
           Mr R. V. Dasalkar, A.P.P. for respondents/State;
           Mr P. S. Gaikwad, Advocate for respondent No.3;
 Mr V. P. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.2 in Cri.W.P. No.363/2019

                                  CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
                                                AND
                                          B. U. DEBADWAR, JJ.

DATE : 31st March, 2021

PER COURT:

1. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 -

Bank, submits that the Judgment dated 13/02/2013 being cited by the

learned Advocate for the petitioners, delivered in Criminal Writ

Petition No.569 of 2009 and a group of petitions, would not apply to

813.19crwp etc

the case of the petitioners as these petitioners are the Directors. He

further adds that he would speak to a responsible officer of the Bank to

assess as to whether the said Judgment delivered by this Court which

was sustained by the Honourable Apex Court, would apply to all these

petitioners and whether all these petitioners stand on the same footing

as like the petitioners in the said judgment. He seeks two week's time

to make a statement.

2. Stand over to 16/04/2021 for passing orders, after considering

the statement of the learned Advocate for the Bank.

3. We make it clear that, if a statement is made that the Judgment

delivered earlier in 2013 applies to the case of the petitioners, we

would accordingly make the said Judgment applicable to these

petitioners. However, if the Bank is of the view that the cases of these

petitioners are distinguishable, we would list the matters for final

hearing after the virtual Court hearing is replaced by physical Court

hearing.

(B. U. DEBADWAR, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

sjk