Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
2023 INSC 671
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2023
[D.NO. 33197 OF 2022]
IN
TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) NOs. 333348/2021
Ketan Kantilal Seth …..Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Gujarat and Ors. …..Respondents
WITH
M.A. NO. 1935 OF 2022 IN T.P. (CRL.) NOs. 333348 OF 2021
O R D E R
J. K. Maheshwari, J.
1. In the instant case, I.A. No. 156023/2022 and Miscellaneous
Application No. 1935/2022 have been filed seeking modification/recall of
order dated 09.09.2022 passed by this Court in Transfer Petition (Criminal)
Nos. 333348 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Transfer Petition’), whereby, this
Signature Not Verified
Court allowed the said petition filed by Petitioner/accused Ketan Kantilal
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2023.08.04
17:59:31 IST
Reason:
Seth and directed the transfer of pending matters as prayed by him in the
1
petition to the Court of Principal Judge, Bombay City Civil and
Sessions Court, Fort, Mumbai – 400032, Maharashtra.
2. For ready reference, reliefs as sought in the aforesaid two
applications moved at the instance of intervenor namely
‘Omprakash Bhauraoji Kamdi’ and ‘Respondent No. 12/State of
Maharashtra’ are reproduced as thus –
– Application filed on
I. I.A. No. 156023/2022
29.09.2022 by intervenor for ‘modification/recall’ of
order dated 09.09.2022;
Prayer – a. Recall/modify the order dated 09.09.2022
passed by this Hon’ble Court in Transfer Petition (Crl.)
Nos. 333348 of 2021 and transferring all the Trials
pending against the Petitioner including the trial in
nd
R.C.C. No. 147/2002 pending before Ld. 2 Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur which is already
concluded by the Ld. Trial Court;
b. pass such other order(s) and further
order/direction(s) as is deemed just and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
II. Miscellaneous Application No. 1935/2022 –
Application filed on 26.10.2022 by Respondent No.
2
12/State of Maharashtra seeking ‘modification/recall’
of order dated 09.09.2022.
Prayer – a. Recall/modify the order dated 09.09.2022
passed by this Hon’ble Court in the present Transfer
Petition, transferring all the pending trials against the
Petitioner most of which are already at final stage of
hearing by the Ld. Trial Court;
b. pass any additional order(s) and subsequent
order/direction(s) considered reasonable and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Before adverting to the contentions made in the case, it
would be relevant to mention the brief backdrop of the
proceedings/orders passed by this Court during the pendency of
the Transfer Petition which ultimately led to the filing of the two
applications by the intervenor and Respondent No. 12/State of
Maharashtra respectively. The same is reproduced as thus –
– Accused Ketan Kantilal Seth filed
i. 18.08.2021
Transfer Petition (Criminal) Nos. 333348/2021 before
this Court. In the said petition, alongside State of
Gujarat, State of West Bengal, Government of NCT of
Delhi and respective coaccused persons involved in
3
the trials, State of Maharashtra was also arrayed as
Respondent No. 12.
ii. 09.09.2021 – This Court issued notice in the Transfer
Petition and directed the other coaccused persons
arrayed as respondents to be served.
iii. 05.10.2021 – This Court granted ‘stay’ on further
proceedings in R.C.C. No. 147/2002 (main matter in
question).
iv. 18.10.2021 – One Omprakash Bhauraoji Kamdi (the
intervenor), filed I.A. No. 134476/2021 seeking
intervention in the Transfer Petition primarily on the
ground that he was an agriculturist and was by and
large dependent on the financial aid of Nagpur District
Central Cooperative Bank Limited (hereinafter
referred to as NDCCB Ltd.), which was one of the
banks allegedly defrauded by the accused.
v. 13.05.2022 – Stay granted by this Court vide order
dated 05.10.2021 was modified on the pretext that the
proceedings in R.C.C. No. 147/2002 are at the stage
of final arguments. Considering the same, this Court
4
directed the Trial Court to complete the hearing of
arguments, though, restrained it from
delivering/pronouncing the judgment in the said case.
– With the consent of all the parties, the
vi. 22.07.2022
Transfer Petition was heard finally, and the order was
reserved.
vii. 09.09.2022 – The Transfer Petition of accused Ketan
Kantilal Seth was allowed while dismissing the
intervention application of intervenor and the cases
were accordingly transferred to the Court of Principal
Judge, Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court, Fort,
Mumbai – 400032, Maharashtra.
viii. 29.09.2022 – Intervenor Omprakash Bhauraoji
Kamdi filed I.A. No. 156023/2022 seeking
‘modification/recall’ of the order dated 09.09.2022
with other prayers as mentioned above.
ix. 26.10.2022 – Respondent No. 12/State of
Maharashtra filed Miscellaneous Application No.
1935/2022 seeking ‘modification/recall’ of the order
dated 09.09.2022 with other prayers primarily on the
5
ground that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to
the State on the day of final hearing to oppose the
Transfer Petition.
– Review Petition bearing Diary No.
x. 10.11.2022
36121/2022 was filed on behalf of
Respondent/Accused Nos. 20, 23, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32
and 34 titled as ‘Ghanshyam Lahanuji Mudgal and
others. Vs. Ketan Kantilal Seth and others’ seeking
review of order dated 09.09.2022, which is pending.
4. This Court as mentioned above, allowed the Transfer
Petition (Criminal) Nos. 333348 of 2021 vide final order dated
09.09.2022 and issued following directions in paragraph 13 –
“13. In view of the foregoing discussion, considering the
common nature of allegations raised against the
petitioner in all FIRs and criminal proceedings emanating
therefrom which are yet pending before respective Trial
Courts in four States, I am of the opinion that to meet the
ends of justice and fair trial, the transfer petitions
deserve to be allowed. Therefore, the instant transfer
petitioners are disposedoff with the following directions –
a. The criminal cases, as specified in para 1 [clause (i) to
(xvi)] of this order shall be transferred from the Courts,
6
where those are pending, to the court of Principal Judge,
Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court, Fort, Mumbai –
400032, Maharashtra;
b. the Principal Judge is at liberty to assign the cases to
any of the Court situated in his jurisdiction to try all those
cases. He is also at liberty to assign some of the cases to
any other courts also, if necessary;
c. it is further directed that the transferor Courts shall
immediately transmit the record of concerned cases to the
Principal Judge, Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court,
Fort, Mumbai – 400032, which should reach on or before
31.10.2022;
d. all the accused in the concerned cases shall appear
before the Principal Judge, Bombay City Civil and
Sessions Court, Fort, Mumbai on 14.11.2022;
e. on assignment of those cases to the concerned Court(s),
as directed hereinabove, the said Court(s) shall frame the
charges within a period of two months from the date of
appearance, or on securing presence of the accused
persons, if absent; and thereafter the trial be concluded
as expeditiously as possible, not later than two years. It
is needless to observe that the examination of the
witnesses in all cases will be recorded by the Court(s)
separately, thereby it should not cause any prejudice to
any accused.”
7
5. We now proceed to refer the contentions as raised by
intervenor and State of Maharashtra during hearing.
6. Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of intervenor in I.A. No. 156023/2022 primarily
contested the application on the merits of the Transfer Petition
and stated that the petition was filed by accused Ketan Kantilal
Seth with an ulterior motive to derail and delay the trials which
are pending against him since almost 20 years in different States.
He further contended that, allowing of the Transfer Petition vide
order dated 09.09.2022 has led to denovo trial of R.C.C. No.
147/2002 and in fact, this Court has effectively setaside the
order dated 24.06.2021 passed by Bombay High Court in
Criminal Application No. 628/2021 vide which the Trial Court
was directed to conclude the trial in R.C.C. No. 147/2002 within
specified time, wherein hearing stood concluded, though
judgment was not pronounced by Trial Court in view of the order
dated 13.05.2022 of this Court. While closing the arguments, the
learned senior counsel submitted that such transfer of cases by
this Court has effectually led to an adverse effect on the whole
8
efforts of all the stakeholders involved who have been in pursuit
of justice since more than 20 years.
7. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of State of Maharashtra, contested M.A. No. 1935/2022
and sought recall/modification of the order dated 09.09.2022
predominantly on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was
given to the State on the date when the matter was finally heard
and same amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. It
was further contended that, had there being any opportunity
given to the State, all the development of the proceedings in
respective Courts would have been brought to the notice of this
Court. Learned senior counsel also laid emphasis on the fact that
in view of the directions issued in paragraph 13(e), the trials are
required to be started from the stage of framing of charge. It is
said that, as per order dated 13.05.2022 of this Court,
arguments were heard in R.C.C. No. 147/2002 by 155II,
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur and
only the judgment is to be pronounced. Therefore, it was prayed
that the order dated 09.09.2022 may be modified to the extent by
which denovo trial of that case may be avoided. To fortify his
9
prayer, emphasis was laid on the order of this Court dated
29.11.2022 in the instant applications, by which the transfer of
the R.C.C. No. 147/2002 was kept in abeyance, and it was also
directed that fresh trial shall not commence in the said case.
8. Per contra, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of accused Ketan Kantilal Seth, vociferously
opposed both the applications and submitted that the Transfer
Petition was heard by consent of the parties and the submissions
made before this Court are mere reiterations and purely an
attempt to reopen the case for hearing on merits which is not
permissible as per Order XII Rule 3 of Supreme Court Rules,
2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Supreme Court Rules”). Further,
he contended that the submission of State of Maharashtra with
respect to not granting opportunity of hearing at the time of final
hearing of Transfer Petition is not correct because all the parties
were represented, and appearance has been marked in the order
dated 22.07.2022 of this Court while closing hearing and
reserving the case for order. Learned senior counsel also disputed
the locus of intervenor Omprakash Bhauraoji Kamdi and drew
our attention to the application submitted by intervenor before
10
this Court in contrast to the affidavit filed by intervenor before
Bombay High Court Criminal Application No. 628/2021 to
demonstrate his contradictory stand. Our attention was
specifically drawn to the fact that in affidavit filed by said
intervenor before Bombay High Court, he has claimed to be a
member of NDCCB Ltd. which is in complete contravention to his
stand before this Court. In the order dated 09.09.2022, this
Court made it clear that the applicant does not have any locus to
contest the Transfer Petition and hence, the intervenor at the
very outset has to prove his locus and his claim to be a poor
agriculturist dependent on the NDCCB Ltd. for financial aid is
misplaced. Lastly, it is urged that the Judge in Nagpur who was
trying case R.C.C. No. 147/2002 before whom the arguments
were advanced and hearing took place, has already been
transferred to Pune and hence, the contention of Mr. Tushar
Mehta, learned senior counsel that hearing is already concluded
is of no relevance now.
9. Furthermore, in response to the reply to the stand taken by
accused persons who were arrayed as Respondent Nos. 20, 23,
25, 26, 30, 31, 32 and 34 in the instant matter, it has been
11
submitted that they have already filed Review Petition [as stated
in Para 3 (x) above] seeking review of order dated 09.09.2022.
Therefore, they may take the recourse by pursuing pending
review petition.
10. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the
material available on record. At this juncture, it is apt to produce
relevant provision of Order XII of the Supreme Court Rules,
which reads as thus:
“ 3. Subject to the provisions contained in Order XLVII of
these rules, a judgment pronounced by the Court or by a
majority of the Court or by a dissenting Judge in open
Court shall not afterwards be altered or added to, save
for the purpose of correcting a clerical or arithmetical
mistake or an error arising from any accidental slip or
omission. ”
11. By the aforesaid, it is clear that any alternation or addition
to a judgment pronounced by Court can be made only to correct
a clerical or arithmetical mistake or an error arising out of an
accidental slip or omission. It is well settled that any application
filed on the pretext of ‘clarification/addition’ while evading the
recourse of review, ought not to be entertained and should be
12
discouraged. The time and again, this Court has deprecated
such practice and lately in ‘Supertech Limited Vs. Emerald
Court Owner Resident Welfare Association & Ors.,
(Miscellaneous Application No. 1572 of 2021 in Civil Appeal
while answering the issue on similar
No. 5041 of 2021)’
Miscellaneous Application filed for ‘clarification/modification’,
this Court observed as thus –
“ 8. In successive decisions, this Court has held that the
filing of applications styled as “miscellaneous
applications: or “applications for
clarification/modification” in the guise of a review cannot
1
be countenanced. In Gurdip Singh Uban (supra ) ,
Justice M Jagannadha Rao, speaking for a twoJudge
Bench of this Court observed:
“17 . We next come to applications described as
applications for “clarification”, “modification” or “recall” of
judgments or orders finally passed. We may point out that
under the relevant Rule XL of the Supreme Court Rules,
1966 a review application has first to go before the
learned Judges in circulation and it will be for the Court to
consider whether the application is to be rejected without
giving an oral hearing or whether notice is to be issued.
Order XL Rule 3 states as follows: “3. Unless otherwise
ordered by the Court, an application for review shall be
disposed of by circulation without any oral arguments, but
the petitioner may supplement his petition by additional
written arguments. The Court may either dismiss the
1 (2000) 7 SCC 296
13
petition or direct notice to the opposite party....” In case
notice is issued, the review petition will be listed for
hearing, after notice is served. This procedure is meant to
save the time of the Court and to preclude frivolous review
petitions being filed and heard in open court. However,
with a view to avoid this procedure of “no hearing”, we
find that sometimes applications are filed for
“clarification”, “modification” or “recall” etc. not because
any such clarification, modification is indeed necessary
but because the applicant in reality wants a review and
also wants a hearing, thus avoiding listing of the same in
chambers by way of circulation. Such applications, if they
are in substance review applications, deserve to be
rejected straight away inasmuch as the attempt is
obviously to bypass Order XL Rule 3 relating to circulation
of the application in chambers for consideration without
oral hearing. By describing an application as one for
“clarification” or “modification”, — though it is really one of
review — a party cannot be permitted to circumvent or
bypass the circulation procedure and indirectly obtain a
hearing in the open court. What cannot be done directly
cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. (See in this
connection a detailed order of the then Registrar of this
Court in Sone Lal v. State of U.P. [(1982) 2 SCC 398]
deprecating a similar practice.)
18 . We, therefore, agree with the learned Solicitor General
that the Court should not permit hearing of such an
application for “clarification”, “modification” or “recall” if
the application is in substance one for review. In that
event, the Court could either reject the application straight
away with or without costs or permit withdrawal with
leave to file a review application to be listed initially in
chambers.”
xxx xxx xxx xxx
12. The hallmark of a judicial pronouncement is its
stability and finality. Judicial verdicts are not like sand
14
dunes which are subject to the vagaries of wind and
2
weather . A disturbing trend has emerged in this court
of repeated applications, styled as Miscellaneous
Applications, being filed after a final judgment has been
pronounced. Such a practice has no legal foundation
and must be firmly discouraged. It reduces litigation to a
gambit. Miscellaneous Applications are becoming a
preferred course to those with resources to pursue
strategies to avoid compliance with judicial decisions. A
judicial pronouncement cannot be subject to modification
once the judgment has been pronounced, by filing a
miscellaneous application. Filing of a miscellaneous
application seeking modification/clarification of a
judgment is not envisaged in law. Further, it is a settled
legal principle that one cannot do indirectly what one
cannot do directly [“Quando aliquid prohibetur ex
directo, prohibetur et per obliquum”].
12. As per the said legal position, it is clear that the power of
this Court under the said Rule is limited and can only be
exercised sparingly with due caution while confining itself within
the parameters as described only to correct clerical/arithmetical
mistakes or otherwise to rectify the accidental slip or omission.
2 Meghmala Vs. G Narasimha Reddy, (2010) 8 SCC 383
15
13. On perusal of the order dated 09.09.2022, it is apparent
that the application filed by the intervenor seeking intervention in
the Transfer Petition was dismissed in absence of any grounds in
the application to show that intervenor had any direct or
substantial nexus in the matter or that he was adversely affected
by any question of law. Accordingly, it was observed that the
intervenor does not have any locus to intervene. Further, this
Court was of the view that the cases which were referred to in
clause (i) to (xvi) in paragraph 1 of the said order and were
pending since more than 20 years with no substantial progress
made in trial proceedings, and that allegations made in all the
cases were similar and most of the witnesses were from
Maharashtra. Hence, to avoid any prejudice in other pending
trials and with an intent to consolidate all those cases, directions
as referred above in paragraph 13 were issued to Principal Judge,
Bombay City Civil & Sessions Court to conclude the trial in
transferred cases within the time frame from the date of transfer.
14. During the course of hearing, Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned
senior counsel has narrowed his arguments with particular
reference to paragraph 13(e) of the order dated 09.09.2022, inter
16
alia, contending that in view of the said direction, denovo trial in
the matters in which final hearing is concluded from the stage of
framing of charge is not proper. He further urged that, in R.C.C.
No. 147/2002 pending before 155II, Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur, arguments have been duly heard
and the trial is on the verge of conclusion and only the judgment
is left to be pronounced, therefore, to such extent, clarification of
the order dated 09.09.2022 may be directed. On the other hand,
supplementing the argument of State of Maharashtra, Shri
Mahesh Jethmalani persuaded us to recall the order, however,
Shri Vikas Singh contested the said arguments on the anvil of
Order XII Rule 3 of Supreme Court Rules and submitted that
such recall is not permissible under the said provision.
15. After hearing learned counsels for the parties, in our view
the recall of the entire order as prayed for on the instance of the
intervenor is not justified, in particular looking at the detailed
discussion made in order dated 09.09.2022. Simultaneously, it
cannot be ignored that State of Maharashtra has filed application
asking modification of the order. Therefore, in view of the
aforesaid, we refrain ourselves to recall the order on insistence of
17
the intervenor and deem it appropriate to consider the prayer of
the State of Maharashtra taking note of the submissions made in
this respect.
16. Now, so far as contention of Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned
senior counsel is concerned, it is seen from paragraph 13(e) of
order dated 09.09.2022, a direction was issued to the effect that
on assignment of the transferred cases, the transferee Court(s)
shall frame the charges within two months and thereafter
conclude the trial not later than two years. Considering the fact
that in R.C.C. No. 147/2002, arguments were finally heard, and
hearing was concluded, therefore, clause (e) of paragraph 13 of
order dated 09.09.2022 primafacie may cause prejudice to
complainant if the trial is restarted from the stage of framing of
charges. In our view, it appears to be a mistake in the order by
accidental slip or omission. Although, in the order of the Transfer
Petition, some observations with respect to hearing in the said
trial is there, but it is due to omission and reopening of the
entire case R.C.C. No. 147/2002 would not be in fair
administration of justice. We find force in the argument of Mr.
Tushar Mehta, learned senior counsel to such extent. In our
18
view, due to omission, the said fact requires clarification and
rectification, which took place due to accidental slip in the order.
At this stage, the argument advanced by Shri Vikas Singh that
the Judge who heard the arguments in R.C.C. No. 147/2002, has
already been transferred, assumes not relevance for rectification
of mistake and to issue conclusive directions in the matter.
17. As discussed above, the trial of R.C.C. No. 147/2002
pending in the Court of 155II, Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur was at the stage of final
argument. The Presiding Officer who heard the arguments has
already been transferred prior to pronouncing the judgment in
pursuance of order of this Court. Therefore, now on joining of
new incumbent, the final arguments in the said trial ought to be
heard by the new presiding officer to pronounce the judgment.
Therefore, on modification of order of transfer dated 09.09.2022
of said R.C.C. No. 147/2002 to such extent and giving liberty to
the new incumbent Presiding Officer in the aforesaid Court at
Nagpur to decide the case from the stage of final hearing itself,
the same would not cause any prejudice to the stakeholders and
it shall meet the ends of justice.
19
18. Further, so far as Review Petition preferred by
Respondent/Accused Nos. 20, 23, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32 and 34
bearing Diary No. 36121/2022 and titled as ‘Ghanshyam
Lahaunji Mudgal and others Vs. Ketan Kantilal Seth and others’
is concerned, essentially the grounds on which the prayer has
been made therein by these accused persons is more or less
similar to the submissions made by them in reply filed by them
in support of the I.A. filed by State of Maharashtra. In a nutshell,
the aforesaid accused persons in support of State of Maharashtra
have submitted that all of them are senior citizens aged between
65 to 85 years and they are interalia suffering from various
ailments including high blood pressure, sugar, heart issues etc.
Further, they have submitted that vide order dated 09.09.2022,
the cases pending against them in Amravati [as mentioned in
para 1(xiv)] have also been transferred to the Court of Principal
Judge, Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court, Fort, Mumbai –
400032, and in view of such transfer, they may suffer irreparable
hardships since they are not in a stable physical condition to
travel from Amravati to Mumbai which is approximately 600 kms
far and takes 10 hours one way to cover the distance. It has been
further stated that all the aforesaid accused persons have
20
delicate health conditions and therefore prayed that their cases
may also be stayed from transfer and be continued before the
transferor Court at Amravati itself.
19. We have duly considered the submissions made by the
aforesaid respondents/accused persons and having perused their
medical records, we find reasonable force in the contentions as
raised above. Having said so, we are of the considered opinion
that
in view of this peculiar circumstances of the instant case, it
would be in the interest of justice and all stakeholders to modify
the order dated 09.09.2022 to such extent as prayed herein
above and transfer of the cases from Amravati concerning the
aforesaid accused persons be refrained from being transferred to
the transferee Court. In view of the foregoing discussion, we deem
it appropriate to grant the relief as prayed by the
respondent/accused nos. 20, 23, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32 and 34.
Further, in view of the relief as granted and in order to
circumvent the multiplicity of proceedings, we deem it fit to
21
observe that the aforesaid review petition be now treated as
infructuous and disposedoff in terms of above observation.
20. In addition, some clarification to the directions contained in
13(e) which relates to processing the trial on transfer is also
required to be issued. Thereby, the cases received to the
transferee Court, shall be proceeded without any ambiguity and
the trials of those cases may be concluded within time frame.
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, these applications be
treated as disposedoff modifying the order dated 09.09.2022 to
the extent indicated herein below –
I. The order dated 09.09.2022 passed in Transfer Petition
(Criminal) Nos. 333348/2021 is hereby modified and
maintained subject to –
IA. Criminal proceedings relating to
Respondent/Accused Nos. 20, 23, 25, 26, 30, 31,
32 and 34 pending before transferor Court at
Amravati, if already transferred to transferee Court,
shall be returned to the transferor Court and
22
continue at the transferor Court from the stage as
received;
IB. The review petition filed by
Respondent/Accused Nos. 20, 23, 25, 26, 30, 31,
32 and 34 bearing Diary No. 36121/2022 and titled
as ‘Ghanshyam Lahaunji Mudgal and others Vs.
Ketan Kantilal Seth and others’ is dismissed as
infructuous in view of observations made in
paragraph 19 herein.
II. The transfer of R.C.C. No. 147/2002 by order dated
09.09.2022 passed in Transfer Petition (Criminal) Nos.
333348/2021 is restrained to the transferor Court with a
clarification that the trial shall proceed from the stage of
final arguments by the Presiding Officer uninfluenced by
the directions in para 13(e) of order dated 09.09.2022.
III. Directions issued in para 13(e) in order dated 09.09.2022
be now read as under –
“On receiving the cases as mentioned in para
13(a), the transferee Court shall proceed in those
cases from the stage of the case in which it had
23
received from the transferor Court(s). The cases
in which charges have not been framed, it shall
be framed within two months and the trial shall
start immediately. In cases in which charges
have already been framed and evidence has
been started after submitting the trial program,
those cases shall proceed from that stage of trial.
Meaning thereby, denovo trial in such cases
from stage of framing of charge is not required.
The transferee Court(s) shall conclude all the
trials as expeditiously as possible within a
period of two years.”
Lastly, we make it clear that this Court vide order dated
IV.
09.09.2022 never intended or meant to setaside the order
dated 24.06.2021 passed by Bombay High Court. It is
clarified that the concerned trial Court at Nagpur shall
make all the endeavor to comply with the timeline as given
by Bombay High Court and decide the case in accordance
with law.
24
………………………..J.
(SURYA KANT)
…………….…………J.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 4, 2023.
25