Bombay High Court

Uday Network TechnologiesversusCompuage Infocom Ltd

Decided: 22 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The writ petition is allowed to be withdrawn and disposed of with liberty to adopt appropriate alternate proceedings.

Summary

The petitioners Arjun Vitthal and Uday Network Technologies filed a writ petition challenging an order of issuing process. Respondent No.1, Compuage Infocom Ltd., argued that an alternate remedy existed to contest the order. The petitioners, upon instruction, sought to withdraw the writ petition while retaining the option to pursue alternative proceedings. The Court allowed the withdrawal and ordered the petition to be disposed of, granting liberty to adopt appropriate alternate proceedings. It further held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and expressly left all merits open for future consideration.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petition may be withdrawn and the petitioner allowed to pursue alternate remedies
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963

Legislation cited

Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 14

Subjects

writ petition
withdrawal
alternate remedy
Limitation Act
Section 14
procedural law
criminal appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

                                                                                  15-WP-3767-2026.doc


                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ARJUN                                    WRIT PETITION NO.3767 OF 2026
VITTHAL
KUDHEKAR              Uday Network Technologies & Anr.                     ...Petitioners
Digitally signed by
ARJUN VITTHAL                Versus
KUDHEKAR
Date: 2026.09.22      Compuage Infocom Ltd. & Anr.                         ...Respondents
20:03:08 +0530
                                                    ——————
                      Mr. Akshay Patil a/w Jarin Doshi, Krushna Wankhade & Prateek Jain i/b
                      Ranchoddas & Co., for the Petitioners.
                      Ms. Gayatri Mohite a/w Dhrupad Vaghani, Ashutosh Agarwal, Ashwath
                      Kumar Reddy & Ronit Doshi i/b Anchorstone Legal, for Respondent No.1.
                      Ms. S. M. Yadav, APP, for the Respondent No.2-State.
                                                    ——————

                                                                Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar, J.
                                                                Date: 22 September 2026
                      P.C.:

                      1.      At the outset, Ms. Mohite, learned Counsel appearing for

                      Respondent No.1, submits that there is an alternate remedy to

                      challenge the impugned Order of issuing process.

                      2.      In view of the said contention raised by Ms. Mohite, learned

                      Counsel for Respondent No.1, Mr. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for

                      the Petitioners, on instructions, seeks withdrawal of the Writ Petition

                      with liberty to adopt appropriate alternate proceedings.

                      3.      Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed to be withdrawn and

                      disposed of with liberty as sought.




                      Arjun                                 1
                                                          15-WP-3767-2026.doc


4.      The Petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of Section 14 of the

Limitation Act, 1963.

5.      It is clarified that this Court has not considered the merits and all

contentions on merits are expressly kept open.



                                                  [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.]




Arjun                                2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

S M Yadav