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



Rauf Khan Wahab Khan Patel v/s The State of Maharashtra


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

Company & Directors' Information:- PATEL CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U70100MH1989PTC050515

Company & Directors' Information:- PATEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29299MH1946PTC005012

Company & Directors' Information:- K. PATEL & CO. PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH1973PTC017100

Company & Directors' Information:- C PATEL AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51500MH1973PTC016751

Company & Directors' Information:- PATEL CORPN PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51900MH1949PTC007835

    Criminal Writ Petition No. 541 of 2018

    Decided On, 23 July 2018

    At, In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SHINDE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JADHAV

    For the Petitioner: Akshay Kulkarni a/w Kuldeep Kahalekar, N.S. Ghanekar, Advocates. For the Respondent: Y.G. Gujrathi, APP.



Judgment Text

S.S. Shinde, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties.

3. This Petition is filed praying therein to quash and set aside the order dated 3rd March, 2018, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order dated 16th November, 2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Division2 Aurangabad, externing the petitioner from Aurangabad district for two years.

4. The background facts for filing the present Petition, as disclosed in the memo of Petition, in brief are as under: It is the case of the petitioner that the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad issued show-cause notice to the petitioner on 18th/21st September, 2017, stating therein that as to why the petitioner should not be externed from Aurangabad city and adjoining districts for two years. In the said notice it has been mentioned that, there are three matters pending against the petitioner. As there was delay in filing the reply to the show-cause notice, the office of the Authority, was not accepting the reply of the petitioner, hence the petitioner was required to send the reply by Speed Post on 9th October, 2017 to the show-cause notice, explaining the background in which the false offences have been registered against the petitioner. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad forwarded the externment proposal of the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without following principles of natural justice.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad issued show--cause notice under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 to the petitioner on 17th October, 2017. The petitioner filed application on 25th October, 2017 for allowing him to engage an Advocate to represent his case, however, no orders have been passed on the said application by the Authority.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Division2 Aurangabad without considering the case of the petitioner issued externment order on 16th November, 2017, thereby externing the petitioner from Aurangabad district for a period of two years. Thereafter, the petitioner filed appeal bearing No. Externment/CR169 before the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, which came to be dismissed by an order dated 3rd March, 2018, thereby confirming the order of externment passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Division-2 Aurangabad. Hence this Writ Petition.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invites our attention to the documents placed on record and submits that, as far as the Crime No.518 of 2016 registered with Satara Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), under Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act and under section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act dated 13th December, 2016 is concerned, the informant Rahul Namdeo Sirsath has included the names of the petitioner, his father, brother and son, and all of them have been released on anticipatory bail by Sessions Judge, Aurangabad on 21st December, 2016 and 28th December, 2016 respectively. It is submitted that, the incident in the said crime is alleged to have taken place in December, 2016 and on the basis of the said offence, an externment order is passed in November, 2017, which is illegal. So also the allegations made in the said crime were general in nature and that was not involving the public at large, and there was no question of breach of peace and tranquility.

8. Learned counsel submits that, as far as Crime No.688 of 2015 registered with Krantichowk Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364A, 397 of the IPC and under sections 3 and 5 of the Indian Arms Act by one Tausif Deshmukh is concerned, the said crime is outcome of a civil dispute and money transaction in between the petitioner and Tausif Deshmukh. The petitioner had given him hand loan by cash and said Tausif has given the cheques for the said transaction, and the said cheques were dishonoured, in turn the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act came to be filed, which is pending for adjudication. The registration of Crime by Tausif Deshmukh is clearly outcome of money dispute. This incident is of the year 2015 and the said incident is considered for passing the externment order against the petitioner in the year 2017.

9. Learned counsel submits that, the petitioner was having civil dispute in respect of his property at village Nagapur, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad in respect of Gut No.20 with Suleman Bandu Tayde and others. The Civil Court has granted orders in favour of the petitioner. So also the High Court has also granted bail to the petitioner. It is submitted that, the offence under section 307 of the IPC is of the year 2014 and therefore, that incident cannot be considered by the authorities to extern the petitioner in the year 2017. It is submitted that, all criminal matters are pending before the competent courts and the petitioner is not convicted in any matter. The presence of the petitioner is also required even to attend the Court dates and to make preparation for his defence. This material aspect has not been considered by the externing authority or the appellate authority, while passing the impugned order.

10. Learned counsel further submits that, there is no evidence to show that the witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence in public against the petitioner by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. So also there is no evidence to show that the movement or act of petitioner were causing danger or harm to person or property. The Authorities below have not considered the fact that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is engaged or is about to be engaged in commission of any offence involving force or violence. The order of externment is passed mechanically without following due procedure of law and without giving proper opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the externment order is not legally sustainable and requires interference by this Court. The Authorities below have not taken into consideration the fact that, the crimes which have been registered against the petitioner are sub-judice before the respective Courts and the petitioner will be required to attend the dates of the said cases. In support of his aforesaid contentions, he pressed into service the exposition of law in the cases of Hanuman Rajaram Mhatre V/s The State of Maharashtra (2013 ALL MR (Cri) 1646), Praful Bhausaheb Yadav V/s K.K. Pathak and others (2013(3) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 65)and Akas Madhukar Patil (Rajput) V/s The State of Maharashtra and others (2018(1) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 456). Therefore, he submits that the Petition may be allowed.

11. On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for the respondent – State relying upon the original record and also the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Respondent submits that both the authorities have considered the material collected during the course of enquiry and also three pending offences against the petitioner. In-camera statements of the witnesses have also been recorded, and they have deposed that, the witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence in public against the petitioner by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. It is submitted that, the mandate of Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act has been met, and therefore, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merits and the same may be rejected.

12. We have given careful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned APP appearing for the Respondent/State. We have also carefully perused the reasons assigned by the authorities in the impugned orders. It appears that, though the petitioner examined the witnesses in support of his contentions in the written statement, nevertheless there is no discussion about the contentions of the witnesses. Though the authorities have mentioned in the impugned orders that they have seen the statements of the witnesses, nevertheless it was necessary at least to discuss in brief about what the witnesses have stated. The valuable remedy of appeal is available to the externee and once the appeal is filed, the appellate authority is obliged to consider the case of the externee on the facts as well as on law. To brand a person habitual criminal, it is necessary to find out his past record. In the present case, both the authorities have not considered the fact that, the petitioner is not convicted in any of the criminal cases registered against him. It appears that, in pending criminal cases, he is enlarged on bail by the trial Court and also the High Court respectively. There is no material brought on record by the respondent that liberty granted in favour of the petitioner has been misused by him. All this contentions raised by the petitioner ought to have been considered by both the authorities, and to that effect at least there should have been discussion in the order passed by the appellate authority. Learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner is right in placing reliance on the ratio laid down in the cases of Hanuman Rajaram Mhatre, Praful Bhausaheb Yadav and Akas Madhukar Patil (Rajput)(supra).

13. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the appellate authority deserves to be quashed and set aside and the appeal filed by the petitioner is required to be restored to its original file so as to consider the same afresh, by the appellate authority, on the facts as well as on law.

14. In the result, the impugned order dated 3rd March, 2018, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad is quashed and set aside. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the said authority is restored

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

to its original file. The appellate authority is directed to decide the said appeal afresh, uninfluenced by the observations made herein above on the facts as well as on law, and after summoning the original record in relation to the proceedings of externment of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and preferably, within eight weeks from today. The petitioner to appear before the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad on 30th July, 2018. The said Authority can proceed with the hearing of the appeal on the said date or may fix the next date for hearing of the appeal. Till the appeal is heard and decided by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, the order dated 16th November, 2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Division-2 Aurangabad shall remain stayed. As a result, the petitioner would be entitled to enter within the limits of Aurangabad district. The said order shall remain in force till the appeal is decided by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad afresh. We issue the note of caution to the petitioner that he shall not indulge into any illegal activities once he enters into Aurangabad city.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

02-07-2020 Ashok Janardhan Dhumule Versus M/s. Ankur Seeds Private Limited, Maharashtra & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-07-2020 Nagpur Agriculture Equipment Engineers Private Ltd., Maharashtra & Another Versus Premnath National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-06-2020 Sheshmani Patel Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
26-06-2020 Taraben Nathubhai Patel Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
19-06-2020 Harchandbhai Jivaabhai Patel Thro Versus Jail Superintendent High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
19-06-2020 Vishwas Utagi & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-06-2020 Alpeshbhai Babubhai Patel Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
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 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 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
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
28-05-2020 Patel Imtiyaz bhai Ibrahim bhai Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
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
26-05-2020 Ms. X Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-05-2020 Patel Engineering Ltd. Versus North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (Neepco) Supreme Court of India
22-05-2020 Mohiuddin Vaid Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-05-2020 Grant Medical Foundation Ruby Hall Clinic, Pune Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-05-2020 Jerambhai Vanmalibhai Patel & Another Versus State (NCT of Delhi) & Others High Court of Delhi
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 M/s S.M.C Power Generation Ltd, Orissa Versus Dilip Bhai Patel High Court of Chhattisgarh
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 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
07-05-2020 Gobind Patel Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
05-05-2020 Zafar Jamal Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-05-2020 Shekhar @ Mukesh Sanadi 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 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 Syed Salim & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantrayalay & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Shivray Kulkarni & Others Versus State of Maharashtra &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 Babu Bhairu Ovhal & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra 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 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 The State of Maharashtra Versus Baban Gangaram Chirate & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2020 Shankar Sarvotam Pai & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2020 Abuzar Shaikh Abdul Kalam Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2020 Shanta Babarao Deshmukh Versus BecharbhaiJivabhai Patel thr. POA ManibhaiKishorebhai Patel & 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 Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar Versus Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Others Supreme Court of India
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
20-04-2020 Patel Aabidali Yusufbhai Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
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
15-04-2020 Mohammad Zakir Mohammad Bashir Solanki Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Nilesh Shriniwas Baswant Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
08-04-2020 C.H. Sharma & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
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 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
08-04-2020 Shahid Bhagat Singh Cooperative Housing Society Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-03-2020 Azam Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
26-03-2020 Anilkumar Vaikuthlal Patel Versus O.L. of A'bad Jubili Spinning & Mfg. Mills Co. & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
24-03-2020 Rajesh Manibhai Patel Versus Bar Council of Gujarat (BCG) & Another High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
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
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
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 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 Aarifaben Yunusbhai Patel & Others Versus Mukul Thakorebhai Amin & Others Supreme Court of India
17-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
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
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
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
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 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 Mukeshkumar Prahaladbhai Patel Versus State of Gujarat & Another High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
13-03-2020 Sheetal Medicare Products Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
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 Nivrutti Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another 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 Sayyad Azim Sayyad Mnazur & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector 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
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 Sanjay Devaji Ramteke Versus The State of Maharashtra, through PSO In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
09-03-2020 Kumari Shaikh Shashim Mhamulal Versus The State of Maharashtra & 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 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 Hasina Siraj Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra Secretary through Department of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-03-2020 Dr. Nishigandha Ramchandra Naik Versus State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-03-2020 Manohar Bhimraoji Mahalle & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Balaso Gulab Pendhari & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box