State of Maharashtra vs Salim P. Govani Advocate - Joshi S.G. — 32/2021

Case under Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,1966 Section 52,53,54,55. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 03rd June 2026.

R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case

CNR: MHRG120001482021

Evidence

Next Hearing

03rd June 2026

Filing Number

118/2021

Filing Date

24-03-2021

Registration No

32/2021

Registration Date

24-03-2021

Court

Civil Judge, J.D. and J.M.F.C.,Murud

Judge

1-Civil Judge Jr. Dvn. and J. M. F. C. Murud

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,1966 Section 52,53,54,55
Maharashtra Revenue Jurisdiction Act Section 45
ENVIRONMENT (PROTECTION) ACT Section 15

Petitioner(s)

State of Maharashtra

Adv. A P P

Respondent(s)

Salim P. Govani Advocate - Joshi S.G.

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr. Dvn. and J. M. F. C. Murud

20-04-2026

Evidence

12-03-2026

Evidence

05-02-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

29-12-2025

Charge

01-12-2025

Argument on Exh.____Unready

Interim Orders

22-09-2025
Order on Exhibit

Case Summary: R.C.C./32/2021 The court rejected the accused Salim P. Govani's application for discharge under Section 239 CrPC. The accused was charged with unauthorized construction of an 84 sq. meter house on property within 120 meters of the sea line in violation of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 and Environment Protection Act, 1986. The court found sufficient prima facie material in the FIR, panchanama, and witness statements to proceed against the accused, rejecting his contentions regarding lack of evidence and improper authority to file the complaint. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: R.C.C./32/2021 The court rejected the accused Salim P. Govani's application for discharge under Section 239 CrPC. The accused was charged with unauthorized construction of an 84 sq. meter house on property within 120 meters of the sea line in violation of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 and Environment Protection Act, 1986. The court found sufficient prima facie material in the FIR, panchanama, and witness statements to proceed against the accused, rejecting his contentions regarding lack of evidence and improper authority to file the complaint. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Civil Judge, J.D. and J.M.F.C.,Murud All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case