The State of Maharashtra vs MS Ratnagiri Wind Power Project Pvt. Ltd. — 601012/2015
Case under Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act Section 3/3. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHST070019702015
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
601417/2015
Filing Date
04-08-2015
Registration No
601012/2015
Registration Date
04-08-2015
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Karad
Judge
3-3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C.Karad.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra
Adv. A.P.P.
Respondent(s)
MS Ratnagiri Wind Power Project Pvt. Ltd.
Anilkumar Surendrnath Chanmalla Shetti
Anilkumar Surendrnath Chanmalla Shetti
Hearing History
Judge: 3-3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C.Karad.
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 10-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 31-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 15-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 24-12-2025 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court allowed the discharge application and discharged Accused Nos. 2 and 3 (Anilkumar Surendranath Chanmalla Shetti) from the offence under the Maharashtra Private Security Guards Act, 1981. The court found that the accused's names were wrongly mentioned in the complaint—documentary evidence showed the accused had ceased to be a Director as of July 2014, and inspection reports identified a different H.R. Manager, making no prima facie case against them. Proceedings continue against Accused No. 1 (the company). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court allowed the discharge application and discharged Accused Nos. 2 and 3 (Anilkumar Surendranath Chanmalla Shetti) from the offence under the Maharashtra Private Security Guards Act, 1981. The court found that the accused's names were wrongly mentioned in the complaint—documentary evidence showed the accused had ceased to be a Director as of July 2014, and inspection reports identified a different H.R. Manager, making no prima facie case against them. Proceedings continue against Accused No. 1 (the company). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts