ARVIND N PARIKH AND ANR vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Judgment text excerpt

10-APL-867-2017 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 867 of 2017 1 Arvind N Parikh, Chairman Lee & Muirhead Private Limited, 35, Tarun Bharat CHS Ltd Dr B K Karanjia Marg, Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400 099. 2 Pranav Parikh, Director Lee & Muirhead Private Limited, 35, Tarun Bharat CHS Ltd. Dr B K Karanjia Marg, Chakala, Andheri (East, Mumbai - 400 099. Applicants Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra (Notice through Public Prosecutor High Court, Mumbai. 2 The State of Maharashtra (Notice through Public Prosecutor High Court, Mumbai. Shri RY Panchal, Inspector, Under Shops & Establishments, Ward K/East, Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. Respondents _________________________________________________________________ SHUBHADA Mr. Lancy D’Souza along with Ms. Deepika Agarwal i/b. Mr. V. M. Parkar, SHANKAR Advocate for the Applicant. KADAM Mr. Prashant P. Jadhav, APP for Respondent No.1-State. Digitally signed by SHUBHADA Mr. P.P. Chavan i/b. Ms. Komal Punjabi, Advocate for Respondent No.2- SHANKAR KADAM Date: 2026.01.29 BMC. 14:50:25 +0530 _________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 5 10-APL-867-2017 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 20th JANUARY, 2026. Oral Judgment: 1. The present application challenges the summons issued against the applicants under Section 35(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (for short “the said Act”), whereby respondent No.2 has filed a complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 39 th Court, Vile Parle, Mumbai (for short “the learned Magistrate”). 2. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicants that respondent No.2 has alleged that the applicants