State of Maharashtra vs Sunil Gangadhar Athanikar Advocate - Shedbale Saveeta Parag — 658/2020

Case under Copyright Act Section 51,53,. Status: Awaiting Muddemal. Next hearing: 28th April 2026.

R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case

CNR: MHSN060029092020

Awaiting Muddemal

Next Hearing

28th April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

2424/2020

Filing Date

16-12-2020

Registration No

658/2020

Registration Date

16-12-2020

Court

Civil Court Junior Division,Miraj

Judge

2-JT. CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. MIRAJ, J.M.F.C. MIRAJ

FIR Details

FIR Number

201

Police Station

M.I.D.C. Kupwad Police Station

Year

2020

Acts & Sections

COPYRIGHT ACT Section 51,53,

Petitioner(s)

State of Maharashtra

Adv. App

Respondent(s)

Sunil Gangadhar Athanikar Advocate - Shedbale Saveeta Parag

Hearing History

Judge: 2-JT. CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. MIRAJ, J.M.F.C. MIRAJ

07-03-2026

Awaiting Muddemal

30-12-2025

Awaiting Muddemal

09-10-2025

Awaiting Muddemal

23-07-2025

Awaiting Muddemal

06-06-2025

Awaiting Muddemal

Interim Orders

30-01-2021
Order on Exhibit

OUTCOME SUMMARY: The application is allowed. The court ordered release of seized property (103 boxes of MLT candles and 502 water filter cartridges worth Rs. 48,92,500) to the accused/applicant subject to execution of an indemnity bond for the same amount and preparation of a proper panchnama. The applicant was also directed not to sell the goods using the complainant's brand name or any infringing trademark, not to alienate or dispose of the property until case disposal, and to produce the property when required by court. Additionally, seized machinery was ordered to be unsealed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

OUTCOME SUMMARY: The application is allowed. The court ordered release of seized property (103 boxes of MLT candles and 502 water filter cartridges worth Rs. 48,92,500) to the accused/applicant subject to execution of an indemnity bond for the same amount and preparation of a proper panchnama. The applicant was also directed not to sell the goods using the complainant's brand name or any infringing trademark, not to alienate or dispose of the property until case disposal, and to produce the property when required by court. Additionally, seized machinery was ordered to be unsealed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division,Miraj All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case