M/S PARANJAPE SHEMES BANGALORE THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER MR SHUKLENDU KATDARE vs OBEDULLA KHAN — Crl.A. No. 1555/2013
Case under 1511Misc-criminal Law : Criminal Matters Other Than Covered by the Aforesaid Categories(slps Arising Out of Quashing Applications, Orders Framing Charge, Summoning Orders, Interim Orders in Criminal Matters, Withdrawal of Prosecution, Orders for Further Investigation/re-investigation Etc. Section II-E. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010142662012
Filing Date
23-Apr-2012
Registration No
Crl.A. No. 1555/2013
Diary Number
14266/2012
Order Date
28-Aug-2025
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Appeals Allowed
Last updated 06-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.M/S PARANJAPE SHEMES BANGALORE THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER MR SHUKLENDU KATDARE
Adv. V. D. KHANNA (Dead / Retired / Elevated) ASTHA SINGH[P-1]
Respondent(s)
-
1.OBEDULLA KHAN
Adv. RESPONDENT-IN-PERSON
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
28-Aug-2025
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
28-Aug-2025
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
-
21-Aug-2025
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Aug-2025
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
-
22-May-2025
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
22-May-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
20-Aug-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
23-Sep-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
12-Aug-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Jul-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
05-Apr-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Feb-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Jan-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-May-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
23-Apr-2012
Case filed
Registration No. Crl.A. No. 1555/2013
Summary of Crl.A. No. 001555/2013 The Supreme Court allowed Paranjape Schemes Bangalore's appeal and quashed the private complaint filed by Obedulla Khan under the Environment Protection Act, finding it identical to complaints already filed by Karnataka State Pollution Control Board for the same violation. The court held the High Court erred in partially quashing proceedings and directed complete quashing to avoid multiplicity. All pending applications were disposed of. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts