Bombay High Court
Shivkrupa Sahkari Patpedi Ltd thgough Laxman Mansingh FadtareversusThe State of Maharashtra Through Public Procedure
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision applications filed by Shivkrupa Sahkari Patpedi Ltd., finding no merit in the challenges.
Summary
Shivkrupa Sahkari Patpedi Ltd., through its counsel, filed a series of criminal revision applications (Nos. 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99 and 135 of 2026) challenging orders passed by lower courts in a criminal matter against the State of Maharashtra. The applications were heard by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court presided over by Justice Shivkumar Dige. After considering the submissions of the applicant and the State, the Court recorded reasons separately and concluded that the revisions were not maintainable. Consequently, all the revision applications were dismissed. The decision leaves the original orders of the lower court undisturbed.
Issues considered
- Whether the orders impugned in the criminal revision applications are liable to be set aside on the grounds raised by the applicant
Subjects
- criminal revision
- High Court of Bombay
- appeal dismissed
- state prosecution
- procedural law
Judgment
901-Revn 94 of 2026 and ors..doc
Tikam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.94 OF 2026
VAISHALI WITH
ANIL CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 99 OF 2026
TIKAM WITH
Digitally signed
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 98 OF 2026
by VAISHALI WITH
ANIL TIKAM
Date: 2026.09.01 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 97 OF 2026
13:13:49 +0530
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.96 OF 2026
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 95 OF 2026
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 135 OF 2026
Shivkrupa Sahkari Patpedi Ltd.
through Laxman Mansingh Fadtare ...Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
thr. Public Procedure and Anr. ...Respondents
________________________________________________________________
Mr. Sumedh Modak a/w. Shekar Mane a/w Mr. Rahul Vijaymane a/w.
Rutik Kashid i/by Mr. Sujeet Surywanshi, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Balraj Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State. (in Revn 94, 96 and 99 of
2026).
Mr. Sagar Agarkar, APP for Respondent -State. (in Revn 98 of 2026).
Mr. Makrand Patil, APP for Respondent-State. (in Revn 98 of 2026).
Mr. Swapnil Pednekar, APP for Respondent-State.(in Revn No 95 of 2026)
Mrs. R.D. Humane, APP for Respondnet-State.(in Revn. No. 96 of 2026)
Mr. Sameer Mangaonkar, APP for Respondent-State.(in Revn 97 and 135
of 2026)
Mr. Amogh Singh i/by Shyam Birje, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Sameer Mangaonkar, APP for Respondent-State.
API V.D. Jadhav, EOW -3 Navi Mumbai.
_________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 2
901-Revn 94 of 2026 and ors..doc
Tikam
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 28th AUGUST, 2026.
P.C. :
1. For the reasons separately recorded, Revision Applications are
rejected.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…