w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M. Sea Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Another v/s The State of Maharashtra & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- MAHARASHTRA CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L71100MH1982PLC028750

Company & Directors' Information:- M SEA PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900HP2015PTC000911

Company & Directors' Information:- P P PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24232WB2003PTC096731

Company & Directors' Information:- S T PHARMACEUTICALS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1989PTC047031

Company & Directors' Information:- A. PHARMACEUTICALS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U24232DL1999PTC100973

    Criminal Application No. 6787 of 2017

    Decided On, 10 July 2018

    At, In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE VIBHA KANKANWADI

    For the Applicants: Rashmi S. Kulkarni, Sanket S. Kulkarni, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1 & R2, S.P. Sonpawale, Addl. Public Prosecutor.



Judgment Text

1. Present application has been filed invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing the proceedings i.e. R.C.C. No. 124 of 2016, pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhule, against the applicants.

2. Non-applicant no.02, through the Drug Inspector, filed complaint against the present applicants and others. It was contended in the application, that Drug Inspector Shri Jeevan D. Jadhav had visited the premises of M/s. Abhijeet Pharma on Agra Road, Dhule, on 20.05.2015. At the time of visit, the partner of the said business firm was present. At that time, sample of Amoxtar-CV Dry Syrup from batch no. MSDS61, manufacturing date 12/2014 and expiry date 05/2016, manufactured by the present applicant no.01 was taken. Thereafter, on the next day i.e. on 21.05.2015, one sealed sample was sent for analysis to the Government Analyst, Mumbai. A report was received from the Government Analyst, Drug Control Laboratory, Mumbai, on 20.07.2015, stating that the said sample which was sent to the laboratory was not of standard quality.

3. Thereafter, then Drug Inspector, Shri U.B. Gharote issued notice on 28.07.2015, as contemplated under Section 18A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 [For the purpose of brevity, hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"], to M/s. Abhijeet Pharma. M/s. Abhijeet Pharma disclosed from where the product was purchased and the photocopy of the invoice bill was attached to its letter dated 29.07.2015. Thereafter, notice under Section 18A of the said Act was also given to one M/s. All Star Remidies, Jagadhari 135 003. M/s. All Star Remidies gave reply and disclosed that the product is being manufactured by the present applicant. They had also attested photocopy of the bill for their purchase. Thereafter, notice was further issued under Section 18A of the said Act to the present applicant. It is stated that the original accused no.04 is the approved analytical chemist of accused no.05 and he was responsible for testing of the drug. In fact, accused no.04 had declared that the said drug was of standard quality. It was then stated that accused nos.01 to 05 were responsible for the manufactured drug for distribution and then distributed the product which was not of standard quality. Hence, the complaint was filed on 04.03.2016, stating that the accused persons have contravened Sections 18(a)(i), 18(a) (vi), read with Section 16 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which is made punishable under Section 27(d) read with Section 34 of the said Act.

4. After perusal of the complaint and the documents placed on record, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued process against all the accused by his order dated 31.03.2016 and it was made returnable on 29.06.2016.

5. The applicants have contended that they had replied the notice that was issued to them and even before they could reply the said notice, already sanction to prosecute was obtained by the complainant which is not legal. Further, though report of the analyst was received by the complainant on 20.07.2015 and the reply which was given by the applicants was on 31.08.2015, yet the complaint was filed by the complainant intentionally belatedly on 04.03.2016. The complainant had every knowledge that the expiry date for the sample which was taken by the complainant was 05/2016. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not consider the said fact and though the order of issuance of process was passed on 31.03.2016, the summons was made returnable on 29.06.2016. That was after the date of expiry of the drug. It has also been stated that on the first day of appearance as per the order, accused persons were not served and they were ultimately served and were required to appear before the concerned court on 03.07.2017. Therefore, the vital right of the applicants to get the sample reanalyzed and to challenge the report of the Government Analyst has been denied. It would be abuse of process of law, under such circumstance, to ask them to face the trial and therefore, they have prayed for quashing the entire proceedings.

6. A reply has been filed on behalf of non-applicant nos.01 and 02. The facts in the complaint have been again reiterated. It has been contended that after receipt of laboratory report on 05.08.15, notice under Section 25(2) and 23(4)(iii) of the said Act along with one part of sample to the applicant, an opportunity was given to challenge the report, if he wants, before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhule, by making an application within 28 days. Accordingly, the applicant replied to the said notice on 31.08.2015 and gave entire explanation and the reasons for sample being declared as not of standard. The applicant did not opt for challenging the report of Government Analyst and therefore, the applicant now cannot take advantage of the lapse of time.

7. Heard learned Advocate Mrs. R.S. Kulkarni, holding for learned Advocate Mr. S.S. Kulkarni, for the applicants. Also, heard learned Addl. Public Prosecutor Mr. S.P. Sonpawale for the non-applicants.

8. In order to cut short, I would like to say that both the parties have argued in respect of their respective contentions. Further, learned Advocate for the applicants has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Brij Lal Mittal & others [AIR 1998 SC 2327], wherein it has been held that "the vicarious liability of a person for being prosecuted for an offence committed under the Act by a company arises if at the material time he was in-charge of and was also responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. Simply because a person is a director of the company it does not necessarily mean that he fulfills both the requirements." Further, under similar facts, this Court in the case of Anandkumar & others Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others [2017 ALL MR (Cri) 3236] has held that when complaint came to be filed just before expiry of shelf life of drug and it was nowhere averred in the complaint that the petitioners were responsible for objectionable drug and same was manufactured with their consent or production of said drug was attributed to any neglect on their part, then continuation of prosecution in such case would be mere formality. Therefore, in this case, the petitions were allowed and the accused persons were discharged.

9. Further, in the case of Medicamen Biotech Ltd. & another Vs. Rubina Bose, Drug Inspector [AIR 2008 SC 1939], Drug Inspector after receiving the test report from the Drugs Laboratory, declared the drugs as not conforming to the prescribed standards. The said report was denied by the accused persons and in that case also, the appellants were deprived of the right to have fourth sample tested from the Central Drugs Laboratory. In that case also, the complaint was filed a month short of the expiry date of the drug thereby making impossible to get the sample tested before its expiry. It was held that the appellants have been deprived of a valuable right under Section 25(3) and 25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

10. Further, in the case of Northern Mineral Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and another [AIR 2010 SC 2829], which was in fact, the case under the Insecticides Act, 1968, but the provisions are pari materia, it was held that Section 24(3) gives right to the accused to rebut the conclusive nature of the evidence of Insecticide Analyst by notifying its intention to adduce evidence in contravention of the report before the Insecticide Inspector or before Court where proceedings in respect of the samples is pending. On the date, notice was issued, there was no proceedings pending before any court. Then intention to adduce evidence was conveyed to the Inspector concerned. Under such circumstance, the Inspector was obliged to institute complaint forthwith, produce sample and request the court to send the sample for analysis. When this has not been done, it amounts to denying valuable right to the appellant and, therefore, in that case also, the criminal prosecution against the appellant therein was dismissed.

11. Further, in the similar facts, in the case of M.S. Theivendran & others Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others [2015 ALL MR (Cri) 1394], this Court has quashed and set aside the proceedings under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

12. It can be seen that the facts are very simple. Samples in this case were extracted on 20.05.2015. On the next day i.e. on 21.05.2015, one of the samples was sent for analysis. The report of the analyst was received by the complainant on 20.07.2015 wherein the drug was declared as not of standard quality. The complainant has not explained as to why the notices under Section 18A of the said Act were not sent to so many persons i.e. at least, some of the accused persons including the manufacturer whose name would have been on the product. After sending notice to the person from whom the sample was taken and his reply has been received, further recourse is taken. Ultimately, the notice was issued to the present applicants on 05.08.2015. It is stated to be along with original copy of test report and one sealed intact portion of the sample under Sections 25(2) and 23(4)(iii) of the said Act. Though the complainant had received the reply to the show cause notice wherein it was submitted by them that the product is of standard quality and then clear intention was made known to the complainant that they intend to challenge the report given by the government analyst.

13. Therefore, taking into consideration ratio laid down in the case of Northern Mineral Ltd. (supra), though that case was under the Insecticides Act, but the provision is pari materia. It was for the complainant to institute the complaint immediately and produce the sample with a request to the court to send the sample for analysis. It is to be noted that the reply was given to the show cause notice by the appellant on 31.08.2015. However, the complaint has been filed on 04.03.2016. The expiry of the sample extracted was 05/2016. Even on that day, if the complainant who would have presented the complaint itself ought to have pointed out the said fact to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and made a request to send the sample immediately or make the summons returnable before the period of expiry of the drug. No explanation has been given in the complaint, as to why inspite of receipt of notice reply dated 31.08.2015, the complaint was not filed immediately. On the contrary, it is stated in the complaint, that the controlling authority, Food & Drugs Administration, vide its letter dated 10.08.2015, had issued an order to enquire in the matter and launch a prosecution. That means, the sanction was obtained even before the reply was given by the applicants. The show cause notice was issued to the applicant on 05.08.2015 and the sanction was accorded on 10.08.2015. That means, within 05 days, the sanction has been obtained. As per the ratio laid down in the case of Northern Mineral Ltd. (supra), the valuable right of the appellant (in the present case, applicants) has been defeated and, therefore, the criminal prosecution against them is required to be dismissed.

14. On the similar lines, in the case of Anandkumar & others (supra) and in the case of M.S. Theivendran & others (supra), the vital right of the appellant to challenge the report of the Central Analyst and get the sample reanalyzed has been upheld. Further, as regards applicant no.02, who is accused no.01, it is not mentioned in the complaint that he was responsible for the daytoday affairs of the Company applicant no.01. Merely because he is designated as Director, he cannot be held vicariously liable and, therefore, the ratio laid down in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Brij Lal Mitt

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

al & others (supra) would be applicable. 15. In Medicamen Biotech Ltd. & another (supra) also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the right of the accused persons under Sections 25(3) and 25(4) of the said Act. Here, in this case also, while issuing order of process, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not considered what was the expiry date of the product of which sample was taken. Further, it is also to be noted that though the summons was made returnable for the accused persons on 29.06.2016 (which was itself after the period of expiry), accused persons were not served. Much time has been consumed to serve the accused persons. When the applicants have been deprived of their vital right, it cannot be the empty formality to face the trial. It would be the abuse of process of law and, therefore, inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, deserve to be invoked in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & others [AIR 1992 SC 604]. 16. In the result, the application is allowed. The proceedings of Regular Criminal Case No. 0124 of 2016, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhule, is hereby quashed and set aside, as against the present applicants.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

22-07-2020 Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus Sujoy Chatterjee National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-07-2020 Atmaram Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
16-07-2020 Vikas & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Maharashtra State Transport Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-07-2020 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, Registered under Society's Registration Act, 1860, Through its founder- President M.N. Navale & Another Versus Directorate of Technical Education Maharashtra State & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-07-2020 Mohan Shamrao Shinde Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary to Government of Maharashtra, Department of Higher & Technical Education, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-07-2020 Gorakh Ramdas Kandge & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-07-2020 Mhaibub D. Shaikh Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-07-2020 Premier Employees & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-07-2020 Makrand Chandrakant Bapardekar Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-07-2020 Imran Mohd. Salar Shaikh Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-07-2020 Devanand Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
06-07-2020 M/s. Srini Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Red. by its Managing Director, Tera Chinnappa Reddy Versus Union of India, rep. by its Secretary & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
02-07-2020 Nagpur Agriculture Equipment Engineers Private Ltd., Maharashtra & Another Versus Premnath National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-07-2020 Ashok Janardhan Dhumule Versus M/s. Ankur Seeds Private Limited, Maharashtra & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-06-2020 Arnab Ranjan Goswami Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-06-2020 Vishwas Utagi & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-06-2020 Komal Hiwale Versus State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
12-06-2020 Mahesh Sambhaji Chafle Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Akheda Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-06-2020 State rep. by the Drugs Inspector, O/o. Director of Drugs Control, Tamil Nadu, Chennai Versus M/s. National Pharmaceuticals [A-3], A Division of Rider Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Kamalchand Jain, Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-06-2020 Vishnupant Motba Kesarkar Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Versus Principal, College of Engineering, Pune High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 M/s. Thakur Stone Quarries through its Partner Munesh Hotilal Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 Piya Mahantaney & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-06-2020 Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited Versus BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
05-06-2020 Sahyog Homes Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-06-2020 Sachin @ Satish Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
01-06-2020 Citizen Forum for Equality, a registered NGO, vide registration no:-MH/645/11, through its President Madhukar Ganpat Kukde Versus The State of Maharashtra, through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
29-05-2020 The State of Maharashtra through Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad Versus Prabhakar Karbhari Ghatmale & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
26-05-2020 Ms. X Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-05-2020 Abhinav Bharat Congress & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-05-2020 Bhagtam & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
26-05-2020 State of Maharashtra Versus Mangesh & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
22-05-2020 Grant Medical Foundation Ruby Hall Clinic, Pune Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-05-2020 Mohiuddin Vaid Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-05-2020 Yogesh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Chief Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 Amalner Municipal Council, Amalner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Hubandary, Dairy Development & Fisheries Department, Mantralaya & Another Versus Madhukar Suryabhan Ingale In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 Pfizer Inc & Others Versus Kwality Pharmaceuticals Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
15-05-2020 A.P. Suryaprakasam Versus Superintendent of Police, Sangli District, Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-05-2020 Chandrakant Kotecha Charitable Trust Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-05-2020 Pratik & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Mahur Dist. Nanded & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
05-05-2020 Shekhar @ Mukesh Sanadi Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-05-2020 Zafar Jamal Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-05-2020 Shobha Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Annexe, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
04-05-2020 Pradeep Gandhy Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others Supreme Court of India
03-05-2020 Mohammad Nishat Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
30-04-2020 Shivray Kulkarni & Others Versus State of Maharashtra &Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Gajanan Shahu Keripale Versus The State of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, School Education & Sports Dept, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Babu Bhairu Ovhal & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Baban Gangaram Chirate & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Sardar Manjieeth Singh Jagan Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Mohan Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through : The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Natural Sugar and Allied Industries Limited & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary for Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Syed Salim & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantrayalay & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
27-04-2020 Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar Versus Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Others Supreme Court of India
27-04-2020 Shankar Sarvotam Pai & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2020 Ajay Versus State of Maharashtra, through PSO In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
27-04-2020 Abuzar Shaikh Abdul Kalam Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-04-2020 Arvind Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
23-04-2020 High Court on its own motion Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-04-2020 Deodutta Gangadhar Marathe Versus The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-04-2020 Mohammad Zakir Mohammad Bashir Solanki Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
15-04-2020 Pankaj Rajmachikar Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-04-2020 The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
08-04-2020 Shahid Bhagat Singh Cooperative Housing Society Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-04-2020 Nilesh Shriniwas Baswant Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
08-04-2020 Sarva Hara Jan Andolan through Ulka Mahajan & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-04-2020 C.H. Sharma & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur, Ravindranath Tagore Marg, through its Registrar & Another Versus State of Maharashtra, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, through its Secretary & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
01-04-2020 Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd V/S Rohit Prajapati and Others Supreme Court of India
27-03-2020 Azam Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shivaji Shankar Bhintade High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shankar Khandu Thombare & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Kondiba Bahiru Thambare High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-03-2020 Professor Smt. Manorama Prakash Khandekar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Higher and Technical Education Department, through its Secretary, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
18-03-2020 Manglam Roongta & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 Ritesh Rajendra Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Through its Superintending Engineer, Admn. Versus M/.Pranavditya Spinning Mills Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra (Through – PI of Chavani Police Station, Malegaon, District - Nasik) Versus Dr. Baban Lahanu Gangurde & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Chetan Prabhakar Rajwade Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
16-03-2020 Jeevan Niwas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra through Department of Co-operation & Textiles, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 Bhavna Kisan Uradya & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 CEAT Limited (formerly known as Ceat Tyres of India Ltd.) Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2020 Nagrik Samanvya Samiti & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-03-2020 Sheetal Medicare Products Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-03-2020 Ram Pralhad Khatri & Others Versus State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-03-2020 Chirag Sundarlal Gupta Versus The State of Maharashtra (through Kurar Village Police Station High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2020 Yogesh Kalyanrao Ghadage And Another V/S The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Dnyaneshwar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Nivrutti Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another Versus Mohd. Nazir & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-03-2020 Ishwar & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Co-operation and Textile Department, Maharashtra State Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Sayyad Azim Sayyad Mnazur & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-03-2020 Jaggu Sardar @ Jagdish Tirathsing Labana @ Punjabi Versus The State of Maharashtra (Through the Office of the Government Pleader, High Court, A.S. Mumbai) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Lahu Bhausaheb Sonwane Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-03-2020 Kumari Shaikh Shashim Mhamulal Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Milind Bhimsing Shirsath Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Hasina Siraj Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra Secretary through Department of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay