Greenlife Chem - Synthesis Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

* 1/2 * 9-APEAL-208-2017.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.208 OF 2017 Greenlife Chem - Synthesis Pvt.

Ltd.

......Appellant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

.......Respondents Mr. Y.P.Deshmukh i/by Mr. Sachin K. Hande , Advocates for Appellant.

Mrs. G.P.Mulekar , APP for Respondent-State.

CORAM :

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, & SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE :

DATE :

12th th June, 2017.

June, 2017.

Oral Judgment: (Per Smt. V.K.Tahilramani, J.) Oral Judgment: (Per Smt. V.K.Tahilramani, J.) Heard.

Heard.

This Appeal is in relation to the property at This Appeal is in relation to the property at Sr.No.2 of the Annexure 'A' of the Notification dated Sr.No.2 of the Annexure 'A' of the Notification dated 4.5.2016. The property is premises situated at 14A, Chand 4.5.2016. The property is premises situated at 14A, Chand Terrace, Bandra (West), Mumbai. This Appeal pertains to Terrace, Bandra (West), Mumbai. This Appeal pertains to the order dated 16.2.2017 passed by the Special Judge, the order dated 16.2.2017 passed by the Special Judge, MPID in Special Case No.12 of 2005. The grievance of the MPID in Special Case No.12 of 2005. The grievance of the Appellant is that his objection in relation to the property at Appellant is that his objection in relation to the property at Shivgan

* 2/2 * 9-APEAL-208-2017.doc Sr.No.2 was not considered before passing the order dated Sr.No.2 was not considered before passing the order dated 16.2.2017. The order dated 16.2.2017 also shows that the 16.2.2017. The order dated 16.2.2017 also shows that the objection was not considered. Further, the trial Court has objection was not considered. Further, the trial Court has observed that that there is no provision of review of its own observed that that there is no provision of review of its own order and as such, he should prefer an appeal before the order and as such, he should prefer an appeal before the High Court.

High Court.

It is an admitted fact that the objection of the It is an admitted fact that the objection of the Appellant was not taken into consideration. In this view of Appellant was not taken into consideration. In this view of the matter, in the interest of justice, the order dated the matter, in the interest of justice, the order dated 16.2.2017 in relation to the property at Sr.No.2 is set aside. 16.2.2017 in relation to the property at Sr.No.2 is set aside. The Appellant shall prefer properly verified application The Appellant shall prefer properly verified application before the trial Court by 3.7.2017 wherein objection in before the trial Court by 3.7.2017 wherein objection in relation to the property at Sr.No.2 shall be raised. The trial relation to the property at Sr.No.2 shall be raised. The trial Court shall take the said objection into consideration and Court shall take the said objection into consideration and thereafter pass appropriate orders in relation to the thereafter pass appropriate orders in relation to the property at Sr.No.2.

property at Sr.No.2.

The Appeal is allowed in the above terms.

The Appeal is allowed in the above terms.

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) Shivgan