← Library
Bombay High CourtAPL/1045/2014others disposed off

Birla Cotsyn (India) Pvt Ltd v. M/S. Wazir Financial Services Pvt Ltd And ANR

2016-11-23Hon'Ble Justice Revati Mohite Dere3 pages

Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1045 OF 2014 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1046 OF 2014 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1047 OF 2014 Birla Cotsyn (India) Pvt. Ltd.

.Applicant Vs.

M/s. Wazir Financial Services Pvt..Respondents Ltd. & anr.

Ms Sonal More i/b. Vidhi Partners, Advocate, for the Applicant Mr.S.R.Murarka, Advocate, for the Respondent No.1 Mr.V.V.Gangurde, APP, for the Respondent No.2 - State CORAM :

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

DATE : 23.11.2016 P.C.

.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

At the outset, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 states that in identical matters between the same parties, this Court vide order dated 02.02.2015 was pleased to dismiss the

connected Applications i.e. Cri. Appln.No.1044 of 2014 and Cri. Appln.No.811 of 2014. He submits that the issues raised in the present Applications are identical with the issues raised in those Applications, which were dismissed by this Court (CORAM : M.L.TAHALIYANI, J.) vide order dated 02.02.2015. He further submits that SLPs were filed by the Applicant herein (Birla Cotsyn (India) Pvt. Ltd.) in the Apex Court and that the said SLPs have been dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 07.08.2015.

3.

The aforesaid facts are not disputed by the learned counsel for the Applicant. She also does not dispute the fact, that the issues raised in the aforesaid Applications are identical to the issues raised in Cri.

Appln.No.1044 of 2014 and Cri. Appln.No.811 of 2014 which were dismissed by this Court. She also does not dispute the fact, that SLPs

against the said order have also been dismissed by the Apex Court.

4.

Perused the order dated 02.02.2015 passed by this Court. The issues raised in the aforesaid Applications are squarely covered by the order dated 02.02.2015 and hence, no interference is warranted in the orders impugned in the present Applications.

5.

Accordingly, the Applications are dismissed.

(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)