Bombay High Court
MUKESH GANPATRAO SARNOBATversusRAJSINHA VISHWASRAO SHINDE AND ANR
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The proceedings are transferred to the Sessions Court having jurisdiction.
Summary
The appellant, Mukesh Ganpatrao Sarnobat, was absent when the matter was called before the Kolhapur Circuit Bench of the Bombay High Court. The respondent, Rajsinha Vishwasrao Shinde, was represented by Advocate Bhushan Jadhav, who, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320), argued that the case should be heard by the Sessions Court having jurisdiction. The Court agreed and ordered the transfer of the proceedings to the appropriate Sessions Court. It directed the Registrar to effect the transfer and instructed the Sessions Court to re‑register the case, issue notices, and expedite the matter. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No. 1082 of 2011 and any interim applications were disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to continue the criminal appeal or should transfer it to the Sessions Court having jurisdiction
- Whether the Supreme Court precedent in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran mandates transfer of such proceedings
Subjects
- jurisdiction
- transfer of proceedings
- criminal appeal
- Sessions Court
- procedural order
Judgment
Digitally signed
by LAXMIKANT
LAXMIKANT GOPAL 3) APEAL-1082.11 (CR).DOCX
GOPAL CHANDAN
CHANDAN Date:
2026.08.27
20:30:20 +0530 lgc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1082 OF 2011
Mukesh Ganpatrao Sarnobat : Appellant
VERSUS
Rajsinha Vishwasrao Shinde and anr. : Respondents.
______________________________________________________
None for the Appellant.
Mr. Bhushan Jadhav i/by Mr. Chetan Patil for Respondent No.1.
Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for Respondent No.2
______________________________________________________
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATED : 27 AUGUST 2026
PC:-
1. When this matter is called out, neither the Appellant nor the
Advocate for the Appellant are present physically or through V. C.
mode.
2. Mr. Bhushan Jadhav, learned Advocate for the Respondent
No.1 and learned APP for the Respondent – State, by referring to
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 1320, submits that these proceedings would now
lay before the Sessions Court having jurisdiction. They therefore
submits that these proceedings be transferred to the Sessions
Court having jurisdiction.
3. In view of the above, the following order is passed :-
1
3) APEAL-1082.11 (CR).DOCX
(i) The present proceedings be transferred to the Sessions
Court, having jurisdiction;
(ii) The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to take appropriate
steps for transferring these proceedings to the Sessions
Court, having jurisdiction;
(iii) The Sessions Court, to which these proceedings would be
transferred or assigned, after re-registration of the same,
shall issue notice to the parties to the said proceedings
and thereafter proceed with the matter on its own merits
and in accordance with law.
(iv) Considering the proceedings which are now being
transferred have been pending for some time, the
Sessions Court to which these proceedings would be
assigned is requested to make an endeavour to expedite
the proceedings. Parties shall cooperate in the early
disposal of the proceedings.
4. Criminal Appeal No. 1082 of 2011 is disposed of.
5. Interim Application, if any, is also disposed of.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
2
Checking your session…