Cr.P.C. S.309(2): Restriction of not to exceed 15 days, to extend the judicial custody of the accused is not applicable to the Court of Session or Special Court like under the M.P.I.D. Act 1999 .-Diviision Bench of Hon. Bombay High Court held in Harshad Dinanath Bari Vs. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No.2639 of 2019 decided on 18.12.2019.
This Appeal Against Order impugns the order dated 03.10.2019 passed by the Court of District Judge – 12, Nagpur, whereby delay of 25 days was condoned for filing an application under Section 5(3) of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 , (hereinafter referred to as M.P.I.D. Act ).
379.17WP.odt+ 7 However, without availing of the remedy under section 154 of Cr.P.C.
an immediately within a period of two months from withdrawing an earlier complaint and without producing any additional material/allegations, present respondent no.2 has filed Criminal Misc. Application No.22/2017, before the District and Sessions Court, Dhule, by merely adding sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1999 .
12/13/2020 · In the present case a very interesting question arises as to whether action taken under the provisions of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “ MPID Act ”) against a “Financial Establishment”, as contemplated under the MPID Act , can be challenged not before the Designated Court under the MPID Act but before the.
In the present case a very interesting question arises as to whether action taken under the provisions of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as MPID Act ) against a Financial Establishment, as contemplated under the MPID Act , can be challenged not before the Designated Court under the MPID Act but before the National Company …
