ACB JUDGE SHASHIKALA S NAGUR MUMBAI SESSION WANT TO ARGUE MATTER WITHOUT CASE NUMBER. WHY JUDGE GIVING SPECIAL TREATMENT TO THIS CASE?
ALL THE CASES ARE ARGUING DURING FILING STAGE OR WITHOUT CAUSELIST LISTING?
Mumbai: The complainant filed three contempt petitions against mumbai ACB officers for not registering Zero FIR against Thane District Judge SB Agarwal, ADJ Amit Shete and JMFC Bohra for doing corruption in judicial process under section 7&13 of PC ACT 1992. The ACB officers disobeyed SC Lalita Kumari directions and contempt filed as per para 3 of the Lalita Kumari judgment.
The registry raised maintainability question to petitioner .Petitioner refered SC judgment that registry cannot decide maintainability of petition. As per the ACB judge Shashikala direction registry is not numbering contempt petition . Clerks are afraid to number petition as ACB officers are having well wishers in session court. They are insisting petitioner to argue with judge of maintainability of contempt petition. When petitioner send email to court 15 then ACB judge given direction to appear without case number. Is judge don't want to number petition ? Similar contempt matter is in process at CBI court 51 Mumbai Sapan Shrivastava vs Deepak Jamor joint director CBI Mumbai.As per the procedure registry list the matter with administrative judge not regular judge. The Admin judge give direction to list before regular court.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSION COURT MUMBAI(1), Mumbai City Civil Court
Next/ Disposal Date Case Number Party Name
Jul
10
2025
Pending 1)MISC APPLN CBI/101193/2024
COURT 51 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE
REPLY/SAY
Sapan Shrivastava Vs Deepak M Jamor and Other 5
11-07-2025 (4)
14-07-2025 (2)
15-07-2025 (1)
16-07-2025 (4)
17-07-2025 (1)
18-07-2025 (3)
19-07-2025 (1)
21-07-2025 (1)
22-07-2025 (1)
23-07-2025 (2)
25-07-2025 (3)
28-07-2025 (4)
29-07-2025 (3)
30-07-2025 (4)
31-07-2025 (2)
August 2025
01-08-2025 (1)
04-08-2025 (1)
05-08-2025 (2)
07-08-2025 (2)
08-08-2025 (3)
13-08-2025 (1)
18-08-2025 (3)
19-08-2025 (4)
23-08-2025 (2)
25-08-2025 (2)
26-08-2025 (6)
29-08-2025 (1)
September 2025
02-09-2025 (3)
04-09-2025 (3)
09-09-2025 (1)
10-09-2025 (1)
13-09-2025 (1)
15-09-2025 (1)
18-09-2025 (1)
20-09-2025 (1)
October 2025
03-10-2025 (1)
09-10-2025 (1)
16-10-2025 (2)
28-10-2025 (1)
November 2025
06-11-2025 (1)
11-11-2025 (1)
28-11-2025 (1)
December 2025
03-12-2025 (1)
10-12-2025 (1)
16-12-2025 (1)
27-12-2025 (1)
April 2026
13-04-2026 (1)
Toggle Menu button
eCourts Services
Remove caseAdd Case to My Cases
Case History
CITY CIVIL AND SESSION COURT MUMBAI
Case Type MISC APPLN CBI
Filing Number 115783/2024
Filing Date 29-08-2024
Registration Number 101193/2024
Registration Date 29-08-2024
CNR Number MHCC020130402024
First Hearing Date 29-08-2024
Next Hearing Date 18-08-2025
Case Stage REPLY/SAY
Court Number and Judge 51-COURT 51 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE
1) Sapan Shrivastava
Vs
1) Deepak M Jamor and Other 5
2) Vijay Patil
3) Shree Rajendra Sangale
4) Shree Sandip Diwan
5) State - DG, ACB Mumba
i
6) Union of India Through CBI Director, Delhi
Under Act(s) Under Section(s)
Contempt Of Court Act 15
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: NEETA PARAB <courtvc15@gmail.com>
To: Brijesh Sharma <brijesh100_sharma@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 at 07:28:59 PM GMT+10
Subject: Re: VC Link Court Room No. 15
On going through your application although you attended the other court as per your email dated 09/07/2025 at 11.12 am at Thane but you have not your inclination to attend this court. Your prayer in the application to register the complaint can not be granted without your hearing on the objections.
The last opportunity is given to you appear and or argue through video Conferencing on 15/07/2025 at 11.00 am failing which it will be presumed that you are not ready to argue the case. However in the interest of justice in case you want to file written argument on the point of objections you may do so.
It is a settled principle that a Presiding Officer or judicial forum cannot create or adopt procedures contrary to statutory provisions, the High Court rules, and binding Supreme Court precedents. In Union of India v. Madras Bar Association, (2010) 11 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that judicial powers must be exercised strictly within the framework of law and prescribed procedures; a court cannot override the statutory process by creating its own parallel procedure. Similar principles are reaffirmed in State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd., (2004) 11 SCC 26. Also, any disobeying direction of law will amount to a breach of judicial discipline and the binding effect of Supreme Court judgments under Article 141.
ReplyDelete