2016 (4) TMI 1029

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... B. Shukre, J. For the Petitioner : Mr Carlos Alvares Ferreira, Adv For the Respondent : Mr Sarvesh Kamat, Adv. and Mr S R Rivankar, Public Prosecutor JUDGMENT Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. It is true that there is a delay of about 10 months, which has not been explained in a specific manner by giving dates or months as to when the petitio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 submits that the main objection of these respondents is on the maintainability of the revisions application. He submits that respondent nos. 1 and 2 are also objecting to the contentions of the petitioner that these respondents had tried to delay the proceedings before the trial Court. These objections pertain to the maintainability of the revision appl....