Niket Mehta vs Prashant Mehta — IA/1170/2026
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 156(3). Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 07th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM010135712026
e-Filing Number
17-03-2026
Filing Number
IA/5741/2026
Filing Date
17-Mar-2026
Registration No
IA/1170/2026
Registration Date
08-Apr-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Shivkumar Dige
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Shivkumar Dige
Bench Type
Single
Category
CRIMINAL ( 9 )
Sub-Category
OTHERS ( 99 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal
Decision Date
07-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Last updated 11-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Niket Mehta
Adv. Aloukik R Pai
Respondent(s)
-
1.Prashant Mehta
-
2.The State of Maharashtra
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
07-May-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Shivkumar DigeView PDF
Case Summary: IA/1170/2026 The High Court at Bombay recalled its own February 23, 2026 order directing expedited trial, finding that Respondent No.2 (Prashant Mehta) obtained it through fraud and dishonest conduct. The court held that Respondent No.2 made false statements about witness examination, failed to impart that Applicant Niket Mehta was an accused requiring party status, and subsequently exploited the order in collateral proceedings with malafide intent, thereby justifying recall under principles permitting correction of orders procured through fraud. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
07-May-2026
For Admission
Hon'ble Shri Justice Shivkumar Dige
-
16-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Shivkumar DigeView PDF
-
16-Apr-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. IA/1170/2026
Case Summary: IA/1170/2026 The High Court at Bombay recalled its own February 23, 2026 order directing expedited trial, finding that Respondent No.2 (Prashant Mehta) obtained it through fraud and dishonest conduct. The court held that Respondent No.2 made false statements about witness examination, failed to impart that Applicant Niket Mehta was an accused requiring party status, and subsequently exploited the order in collateral proceedings with malafide intent, thereby justifying recall under principles permitting correction of orders procured through fraud. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts