Vitthalrao Mukundrao Deshpande vs Shailja Vitthalrao Deshpande Advocate - Mande Sujit Vikramaditya — 89/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 448. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 09th April 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHLA010051092025
e-Filing Number
18-11-2025
Filing Number
1420/2025
Filing Date
18-11-2025
Registration No
89/2025
Registration Date
19-11-2025
Court
District and Sessions Court , Latur
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge Latur
Decision Date
09th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vitthalrao Mukundrao Deshpande
Adv. Badde Nagnath B
Respondent(s)
Shailja Vitthalrao Deshpande Advocate - Mande Sujit Vikramaditya
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge Latur
Disposed
Order
Arguments
Arguments
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 08-04-2026 | Order |
| 23-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 13-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 02-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Sessions Court rejected Vitthalrao's application to transfer a Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act case from the 6th JMFC Latur, finding no credible evidence of judicial bias. The court held that an unfavorable order alone does not establish bias, and transfer powers must be exercised sparingly only in exceptional circumstances where fair justice is genuinely imperiled. The applicant failed to demonstrate concrete material supporting his apprehension and was ordered to pay ₹10,000 as exemplary costs for filing a frivolous and vexatious application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Sessions Court rejected Vitthalrao's application to transfer a Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act case from the 6th JMFC Latur, finding no credible evidence of judicial bias. The court held that an unfavorable order alone does not establish bias, and transfer powers must be exercised sparingly only in exceptional circumstances where fair justice is genuinely imperiled. The applicant failed to demonstrate concrete material supporting his apprehension and was ordered to pay ₹10,000 as exemplary costs for filing a frivolous and vexatious application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts