Dipak S/O Shravan Shendare v. State Of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O. Dhantoly, Nagpur And Another

1 apl165.16.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.165 OF 2016 [Dipak s/o Shravan Shendare .vs. State of Maharashtra and one] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri T.A. Mirza, APP for non-applicant no.1, Shri N.A. Gaikwad, Advocate for non-applicant no.2. ..........

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

DATED : FEBRUARY 22, 2017.

It appears that the applicant is trying to play hide and seek with the court. On one hand, the assurances are given by the applicant that the payment to non-applicant no.2 would be paid and on the other hand, he is avoiding to make the payment.

When the matter was listed on 14.2.2017, a specific statement was made by the applicant that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- could be paid by demand draft within a period of ten days.

Learned counsel for non-applicant no.2, on instructions from non-applicant no.2, who is personally present in the court, states that no such amount is paid. In this situation, we find that the applicant is not entitled to equitable relief. The Criminal Application is, therefore, rejected.

JUDGE JUDGE Gulande