Nitin Mahadeo Bhawar vs Sanjay Daniel Tribhuvan Advocate - Pathan Shabbir Khash Khan — 54/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 237,322,335,336(3),340. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 07th March 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHPU080003522025
e-Filing Number
14-02-2025
Filing Number
352/2025
Filing Date
20-02-2025
Registration No
54/2025
Registration Date
24-02-2025
Court
Cantonment Court, Khadki
Judge
2-JT. J.M.F.C. KHADKI CONTT.
Decision Date
07th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED
FIR Details
Police Station
KHADAKI POLICE STATION
Year
0
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Nitin Mahadeo Bhawar
Adv. Shukla Krupashankar Mathuraprasad
Prashant Ashok Jadhav
Adv. KRIPASHANKAR SHUKLA
Respondent(s)
Sanjay Daniel Tribhuvan Advocate - Pathan Shabbir Khash Khan
Prachur Sah
Adv. Moon Pranali Dadaji
Sanjay Nigam
Adv. INDERJITSINGH BAGHSINGH GILL
Hearing History
Judge: 2-JT. J.M.F.C. KHADKI CONTT.
Disposed
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-02-2026 | Reply/Say | |
| 09-01-2026 | Reply/Say | |
| 02-12-2025 | Reply/Say | |
| 17-11-2025 | Reply/Say |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court dismissed the complaint under Section 226 of B.N.S.S. due to fundamental defects in the complaint's title clause. The court held that the Satya River Co-Operative Housing Society should have been made the primary complainant instead of its individual officers, and M/s Indus Towers Ltd. should have been named as the main accused rather than its individual representatives, citing Supreme Court precedent that company officers cannot be held vicariously liable without specific allegations of their individual roles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The court dismissed the complaint under Section 226 of B.N.S.S. due to fundamental defects in the complaint's title clause. The court held that the Satya River Co-Operative Housing Society should have been made the primary complainant instead of its individual officers, and M/s Indus Towers Ltd. should have been named as the main accused rather than its individual representatives, citing Supreme Court precedent that company officers cannot be held vicariously liable without specific allegations of their individual roles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts