Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SURESH GERILALJI KOTHARIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Dismissed

Holding

The petition is dismissed for want of instructions.

Summary

The petitioner, Suresh Gerilalji Kothari, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. His counsel, Ms. Ritu G. Gehlot, informed the Court that the petitioner had not communicated with her for many years and had failed to provide further instructions. Consequently, the advocate on record was unable to continue representing the petitioner. The Court observed that the petitioner appeared disinterested in pursuing the petition and had not given the necessary directions. In view of the lack of instructions, the Court dismissed the petition for want of instructions.

Issues considered

  • The petition can be dismissed for want of instructions from the petitioner.

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • dismissal
  • want of instructions
  • criminal appellate jurisdiction
  • advocate's inability to proceed

Judgment

            ssm                                                    12-wp195.2014.doc

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 195 OF 2014

       Suresh Gerilalji Kothari                              …..Petitioner
             Vs.
       The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.                       …..Respondents

                               ____________________________________

       Adv. Ritu G. Gehlot i/by S.M. Jain & Associates for the Petitioner.
       Mr. Vinod Chate APP, for the Respondent-State.
                        ____________________________________

                                           CORAM :    A. S. GADKARI AND
                                                      R.M. JOSHI, JJ.
                                             DATE :   12th FEBRUARY, 2026.
       P.C.:-

       1)             Advocate Ms. Gehlot, appearing for the Petitioner submitted

       that, the Petitioner did not contact the Advocate on record in last many

       years and therefore for want of further instructions, the Advocate on record

       for Petitioner is unable to proceed with the hearing of the Petition. She

       therefore expressed inability to proceed with the hearing of the Petition.

       2)             It appears that, the Petitioner is no more interested in pursuing

       the Petition and therefore has not given necessary further instructions to his

       Advocate on record.

       3)             Dismissed for want of instructions.



                  (R.M. JOSHI, J.)                          (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
            Digitally signed
            by SANJIV
SANJIV      SHARNAPPA
SHARNAPPA   MASHALKAR                                                                  1/1
MASHALKAR   Date:
            2026.02.13
            18:20:10 +0530


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.