Bombay High Court

KISHOR RAMESHWAR CHAUDHARIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The writ petition is disposed, with the petitioner directed to file a fresh application before the trial court, which shall decide the matter on its merits.

Summary

The petitioner, Kishor Rameshwar Chaudhari, filed a criminal writ petition seeking the return of a vehicle, asserting that he is the original owner. The trial court had earlier rejected an application for return of the property because it was filed by a holder of a General Power of Attorney, which the petitioner argued was not a valid ground for denial. The petitioner offered to file a fresh application before the trial court, requesting that it be decided on its own merits without prejudice from the present writ petition. The High Court agreed that the petitioner may file a fresh application and that the trial court should consider it independently. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without any substantive order on the return of the vehicle.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate remedy for a petitioner seeking the return of property when the earlier application was rejected solely on the basis that it was filed by a General Power of Attorney holder?

Subjects

property return
general power of attorney
writ petition
trial court
fresh application
criminal procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41529
                                                -1-
                                                                      993-WP-370-2026

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                         CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 370 OF 2026
                            KISHOR RAMESHWAR CHAUDHARI
                                            VERSUS
                               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                              ......
             Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit R. Kakani
             APP for Respondent - State : Mr.V. K. Kotecha
                                              ......
                                          CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                          DATED : 3rd SEPTEMBER 2026
             PER COURT :
             1.          Learned Advocate for petitioner submits that, earlier
             application for return of property was filed by General Power of
             Attorney holder. Learned APP submits that it was the sole ground
             on the basis of which application came to be rejected. He submits
             that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the proposition that
             has been adopted by learned Trial Court.

             2.          Learned Advocate for petitioner submits that, if liberty
             is granted to the petitioner, who is the original owner of the vehicle,
             he is ready to file a fresh application before the learned Trial Court.

             3.          The suggestion is fair. If the petitioner files a fresh
             application before the learned Trial Court for return of property,
             then the said application be decided on its own merits. Learned Trial
             Court shall consider the fresh application without being influenced
             by the order passed in the present application.

             4.          In above terms, writ petition stands disposed of.



                                                      (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)

             Tandale

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…