Bombay High Court
AARATI COMPANY SOLAPUR THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ON BEHALF OF PARTNERSHIP FIRM NAGPRABHU YENGULversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court held that the proceedings must be transferred to the Sessions Court having jurisdiction.
Summary
The appellant, Aarati Company, failed to appear before the Bombay High Court, and its counsel was also absent. The State of Maharashtra, represented by counsel C. D. Mali, invoked a recent Supreme Court decision (Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320) to argue that the matter should be heard by a Sessions Court with appropriate jurisdiction. The High Court Judge Ashwin D. Bhope ordered the transfer of the proceedings to the competent Sessions Court, directing the registrar to effect the transfer and the Sessions Court to re‑register, issue notices, and expedite the case. The appeal and any interim applications were consequently disposed of. The order emphasizes adherence to jurisdictional rules and aims for speedy disposal in the lower court.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to continue the criminal appeal or it must be transferred to a Sessions Court
- Whether the Supreme Court precedent cited mandates transfer of such proceedings
Subjects
- jurisdiction
- transfer of proceedings
- criminal appeal
- sessions court
- high court
- procedural law
- case management
Judgment
34-APEAL-556-2018 (CR).docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CR. APPEAL NO. 556 OF 2018
Aarati Company Solapur The Power of … Appellant
Attorney Holder On Behalf Of Partnership
Firm Nagprabhu Yengul
Versus
The State of Maharashtra And Anr. … Respondents
——————
None for the Appellant.
Mr. C. D. Mali, APP for the Respondent – State.
——————
Coram : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
Date: 17th September 2026.
PER COURT :
1. When this matter was called out, neither the Appellant nor the
Advocate for the Appellant were present in Court either physically or through
V. C. mode.
2. Mr. C. D. Mali, 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. He therefore submits that these proceedings be transferred to
the Sessions Court having jurisdiction.
Arjun 1
34-APEAL-556-2018 (CR).docx
3. In view of the above, the following order is passed :-
(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. 556 of 2018 is disposed of.
5. Interim Application, if any, is also disposed of.
[ ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. ]
Digitally
signed by
ARJUN
ARJUN KRISHNA
KRISHNA RODGE
RODGE Date:
2026.09.21
11:34:43
+0530
Arjun 2
Checking your session…