Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

INDIANA FABRICATORS AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION/DEFAULT AT ADMISSION STAGE

Holding

The writ petition was dismissed as it had become infructuous and was not prosecuted.

Summary

The petitioners, Arjun Vitthal and partners of Indiana Fabricators, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging an order of the State of Maharashtra. Respondent No.2, represented by counsel, submitted that the petition had become infructuous following an order dated 1 June 2026 issued by a Single Judge (Vacation Court). No counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioners to contest this submission. The Court noted the petition was no longer maintainable and that the petitioners had not prosecuted the petition further. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition for non‑prosecution.

Issues considered

  • Whether a writ petition remains maintainable after it becomes infructuous due to a subsequent order?

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • non‑prosecution
  • infructuous
  • dismissal
  • Bombay High Court
  • criminal appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

                                                                               918-WP-6489-2025.doc


                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

         Digitally
                                          WRIT PETITION NO.6489 OF 2025
         signed by
         ARJUN
ARJUN    VITTHAL
VITTHAL  KUDHEKAR     Indiana Fabricators                                      ...Petitioners
KUDHEKAR Date:
         2026.07.31
         21:48:08
                      Through its Partners Mr. Irshad Ahmad Khan & Anr.
         +0530
                              Versus
                      The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                          ...Respondents

                                                     ——————
                      None for the Petitioners.
                      Mr. S. S. Ghag, APP, for the Respondent-State.
                      Mr. Aashish Shasheendran h/f Amarendra Mishra, for Respondent No.2.
                                                     ——————
                                                               Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar, J.
                                                               Date: July 31, 2026
                      P.C.:

                      1.      Mr. Aashish Shasheendran, learned Counsel appearing for

                      Respondent No.2, states that the Writ Petition has become infructuous

                      in view of the Order dated 1st June 2026 passed by a learned Single

                      Judge (Vacation Court).

                      2.      None appears for the Petitioners.

                      3.      Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.



                                                                         [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.]




                      Arjun                                1


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.