1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO 205 of 1999 Date of decision: 7/9/2009 For approval and signature HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.U.CHANDIWAL 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers Yes/No. may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes/No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see Yes/No. the fair copy of the Judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial? Yes/No. question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder ? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Yes/No. Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important Yes/No question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ? (A.G. PARALIKAR) Private Secretary agp/office/205-99crwp 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO 205 of 1999 M/s Mahavir Finance India Ltd., "Agurchand Mansion", 1st floor, 151, Mount Road, Opp: Arts College, Chennai 600 002 ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Superintendent, State Excise Department, Ahmednagar, M.S. 2. Smt. G. Pushpa, Tirumala Nagar No.1, Extension IInd, Ponnamallee, Chennai 600 056. ...RESPONDENTS ... None for the petitioner. Mr. K.M.Suryawanshi, APP, for respondent/State. ... CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 7/9/2009 *** ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Counsel called. Absent. 2. Record shows respondent is not served. No efforts made to effect service as notice returned unserved. 3 3. The matter revolves about custody of the vehicle (tanker) subject matter of original litigation. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, as also Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, did not agree to the request of interim custody of the vehicle being numbered TN 21-7273. 4. The appellant (M/s Mahavir Finance India Ltd) claimed that the vehicle was under finance by virtue of hire purchase agreement dt.17th July, 1995, and they are the owners of the vehicle. 5. The vehicle was owned by respondent no. 2, as stated earlier. 6. Considering the lapse of the period from the order dt.31.3.1999, it is apparent, by now, the proceedings must have been terminated and appropriate order for custody of the vehicle could have been passed. 7. Criminal Writ Petition No.205/1999 sans merit, it is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/205-99crwp