NUZIVEEDU SEEDS PVT. LTD THR MANISH MADHUKARRAO RANGE AND OTHERS. GIRISH KAMALKISHOR MUNDHADA, MANISHA N. DHOOT,NARENDRA O. DHOOT vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — APL/959/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 528. Disposed: --ALLOWED on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 18-Jul-2025

CNR: HCBM040212422025

e-Filing Number

13-06-2025

Filing Number

APL/5788/2025

Filing Date

08-Jul-2025

Registration No

APL/959/2025

Registration Date

09-Jul-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vrushali V. Joshi

Coram

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vrushali V. Joshi

Bench Type

Single

Category

CRIMINAL ( 9 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal

Decision Date

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 26-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 528

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.NUZIVEEDU SEEDS PVT. LTD THR MANISH MADHUKARRAO RANGE AND OTHERS. GIRISH KAMALKISHOR MUNDHADA, MANISHA N. DHOOT,NARENDRA O. DHOOT

  2. 2.PRABHAT AGRI BIOTECH LIMITED

    Adv. GIRISH KAMALKISHOR MUNDHADA

  3. 3.PURUSHOTTAM SHIVNAYAM LADDA

    Adv. GIRISH KAMALKISHOR MUNDHADA

  4. 4.SAGAR GHANSHAMDAS BAIYA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vrushali V. JoshiView PDF

    Case Summary: APL/959/2025 The High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) quashed multiple criminal prosecutions against seed companies under the Seeds Act, 1966 and Maharashtra Cotton Seeds Act, 2009. The court held that prosecutorial delays—ranging from months to years between sampling and complaint filing, and further delays in serving summons—rendered the statutory right of re-analysis illusory, as seed samples had exceeded their shelf-life before defendants could exercise this critical safeguard. The court concluded that denying the accused a meaningful opportunity to challenge lab reports through re-testing violated fair trial principles and constituted abuse of process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    Applications For Admission After Notice (Criminal Side Matters)

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vrushali V. Joshi

  4. 27-Apr-2026

    Applications For Admission After Notice (Criminal Side Matters)

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vrushali V. Joshi

  5. 15-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vrushali V. JoshiView PDF

  6. 15-Apr-2026

    Applications For Admission After Notice (Criminal Side Matters)

    Hon'ble Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke

  7. 06-Nov-2025

    Applications For Admission After Notice (Criminal Side Matters)

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vrushali V. Joshi

  8. 01-Oct-2025

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vrushali V. JoshiView PDF

  9. 01-Oct-2025

    Applications For Admission After Notice (Criminal Side Matters)

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vrushali V. Joshi

  10. 15-Sep-2025

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vrushali V. JoshiView PDF

  11. 15-Sep-2025

    Applications For Admission After Notice (Criminal Side Matters)

    Hon'ble Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke

  12. 25-Aug-2025

    Hon'ble Justice Urmila Joshi PhalkeView PDF

  13. 25-Aug-2025

    Applications For Admission Fresh (Criminal Side Matters)

    Hon'ble Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke

  14. 25-Jul-2025

    Hon'ble Justice Urmila Joshi PhalkeView PDF

  15. 18-Jul-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  16. 08-Jul-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. APL/959/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: APL/959/2025 The High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) quashed multiple criminal prosecutions against seed companies under the Seeds Act, 1966 and Maharashtra Cotton Seeds Act, 2009. The court held that prosecutorial delays—ranging from months to years between sampling and complaint filing, and further delays in serving summons—rendered the statutory right of re-analysis illusory, as seed samples had exceeded their shelf-life before defendants could exercise this critical safeguard. The court concluded that denying the accused a meaningful opportunity to challenge lab reports through re-testing violated fair trial principles and constituted abuse of process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case