Vivek Arun Limaye vs Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate Mumbai Zone II Advocate - Bharat Jadhav — REVN/33/2025

Case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act Section 397(2). Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 05th May 2026.

CNR: HCBM010052852025

CASE DISPOSED

e-Filing Number

25-01-2025

Filing Number

REVN/2119/2025

Filing Date

28-01-2025

Registration No

REVN/33/2025

Registration Date

28-01-2025

Judge

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHIVKUMAR DIGE

Coram

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHIVKUMAR DIGE

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Criminal

Decision Date

05th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Acts & Sections

Prevention of Money Laundering Act Section 397(2)
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 397(2)
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 397(2)
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam Section 397(2)

Petitioner(s)

Vivek Arun Limaye

Adv. Manohar Vasu Shetty

Respondent(s)

Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate Mumbai Zone II Advocate - Bharat Jadhav

The State of Maharashtra

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHIVKUMAR DIGE

12-03-2025

FOR CIRCULATION

05-05-2026

FOR PASSING ORDER

23-04-2026

FOR ADMISSION

11-11-2025

FOR CIRCULATION

22-09-2025

FOR CIRCULATION

Orders

05-05-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHIVKUMAR DIGE

The Bombay High Court allowed Dr. Vivek Arun Limaye's revision application and discharged him from a PMLA case. The court found that his 2012 transactions with accused Mahesh Kisan Motewar for hospital sale were genuine and predated the criminal offence registration (2015), making continued prosecution an abuse of process. The applicant's innocence was evident from bank records showing transparency about MOUs and loan repayments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court allowed Dr. Vivek Arun Limaye's revision application and discharged him from a PMLA case. The court found that his 2012 transactions with accused Mahesh Kisan Motewar for hospital sale were genuine and predated the criminal offence registration (2015), making continued prosecution an abuse of process. The applicant's innocence was evident from bank records showing transparency about MOUs and loan repayments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case