Bombay High Court
VANDANA NANDKUMAR TASGAONKARversusNANDKUMAR YADAVRAO TASGAONKAR AND 7 ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court allowed the amendment of the writ petition.
Summary
The applicant, Vandana Nandkumar Tasgaonkar, filed an interim application seeking to amend Writ Petition No. 968 of 2026 on the ground that one of the original petitioners, identified as petitioner No.2, had been dropped as an accused in the CBI charge‑sheet. The respondents (Union of India and others) contested the claim, arguing that the CBI investigation was still ongoing and the statement might be inaccurate. The Court examined the submissions and found no impediment to permitting the amendment. It ordered that the amendment be allowed, to be effected within three weeks, and that the respondents may file a consolidated reply and an additional affidavit‑in‑reply. The application was consequently allowed and disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the amendment of the writ petition should be permitted on the basis that a petitioner was dropped as an accused in the CBI charge‑sheet.
- Whether the ongoing status of the CBI investigation precludes amendment of the petition.
Subjects
- amendment
- writ petition
- CBI investigation
- charge-sheet
- interim application
- High Court
Judgment
1/3 06-IA-5632-25-IN-WP-968-26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5632 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.968 OF 2026
Vandana Nandkumar Tasgaonkar .... Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :
Dr. Nandkumar Yadavrao Tasgaonkar & Anr. .... Petitioners
versus
Union of India & Ors. .... Respondents
…....
• Mr. Akshay R. Kapadia a/w Mr. Kishor Lawate, Advocate for
Applicant in IA/5632/2025.
• Mr. S. K. Halwasia, Addl. P. P. a/w S. S. Halwasia, Advocate for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2/Union of India.
• Mr. Aditya Juvekar i/b. Jamshed Ansari, Advocate for
Respondent No.6 in IA/5632/2025.
• Mr. Hafeezur Rahman, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 to 5.
• Mr. Kuldeep Patil a/w Ms. Sanika Joshi, Advocate for
Respondent-CBI.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
DATE : 08th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :
1. This is an application for amendment in the Writ
MANUSHREE
NESARIKAR Petition No.968 of 2026. Learned counsel for the Applicant
Digitally signed by
MANUSHREE
NESARIKAR
Date: 2026.09.11
submitted that during pendency of the Petition, the Applicant
12:14:26 +0530
Nesarikar
2/3 06-IA-5632-25-IN-WP-968-26.odt
i.e. the Petitioner No.2 in the original Petition, was dropped as
an accused in the charge-sheet by the CBI. He therefore
submitted that the this is a relevant factor which needs to be
taken into account while considering the main Writ Petition.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting
Respondent Nos.3 to 5 submitted that the CBI’s investigation is
still going on and therefore that statement may not be accurate.
3. We have considered these submissions. We see no
reason to deny amendment to the Writ Petition. The contesting
Respondents shall have right to file consolidated reply to the
amended Petition and put forth their contention in the
additional affidavit-in-reply.
4. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) The Applicant is permitted to carry out the
amendment in the main Petition as per the
schedule in this application.
3/3 06-IA-5632-25-IN-WP-968-26.odt
(iii) Amendment to be carried out within a period of
three weeks from today. The amended Petition to
be served on all the Respondents.
(iv) The Respondent shall be at liberty to file
additional affidavit-in-reply to the amended
Petition.
(v) The application is disposed of.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.