Sugandh B. Deshmukh

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Writ Petition No.3488 Of 2013. Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat :: Petitioner. -------------------------- ---- ------------- Versus. Zhilla Parishad Satara & Ors. :: Respondents. •• itespondents. Appearance :- Mr. Matugade i/b. Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner. None present for the Respondents. Coram :: V.M. Kanade, & F.M. Reis, JJ. Date :: th April, 2013. 8 P.C. : Issue notice to the respondents returnable after four weeks. (F.M. REIS, J.) (V.M. KANADE,J.) 1

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELATE AND ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : A.S.OKA, & G.S.PATEL,JJ. DATE : JULY 19,2013 P.C.: . The following matters on Balance BoardDaily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. The matters will appear on the dates as may be fixed by C.M.I.S. Sr.No. C.M.I.S.Date 42,43,44,901 31/07/2013 45,46,47,49,53,58,59,60,61,62, 63,64,65,904 01/08/13 50,51,52,905 02/08/13 54 05/08/13 55,56,57,910,911,912,913,914,915 08/08/13 . If in any of the above matters, ad interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If adinterim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (G.S.PATEL,J.) (A.S.OKA,J.)

Order - Status 11: agk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE AND ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER FOR BALANCE DAILY / SUPPLEMENTARY BOARD DATED 1st AUGUST 2013 CORAM : A.S. Oka, & G.S. Patel, JJ. DATE : 1 st August 2013 P.C. : The following matters on Balance Board / Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. The matters will appear on the dates as may be fixed by C.M.I.S. Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 7, 54, 71, 72, 73, 74, 85, 89, 91 12/08/13 51, 52, 66, 90, 904, 906, 907, 909, 911, 913, 915, 916, 917, 918, 919, 920, 921, 922 16/08/13 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 78, 79 28/08/13 75, 76, 77, 88, 901 13/08/13 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 87, 912, 914 29/08/13 86 27/09/13 If in any of the above matters, adinterim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If adinterim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (G.S. Patel, J.) (A.S. Oka, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : A.S.OKA & G.S.PATEL, JJ DATE : 16TH AUGUST 2013 P.C: . On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on daily board and supplementary board stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. Sr. Nos. Adjourned date 57 ) 21st September 2013 58 ) 23rd September 2013 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72 and 73 ) ) 19th September 2013 62, 71, 76, 80, 81, 87, 92, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 903 and 904 ) ) 30th August 2013 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 82, 84, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 905 and 906 ) ) 20th September 2013 83 and 85 ) 21st October 2013 96 and 901 ) 26th August 2013 If any adinterim or interim relief granted in the aforesaid matters is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the dates which are fixed under this order. If there is an extreme urgency, the parties can get the papers produced before the Court. (G.S.PATEL, J) ( A.S. OKA, J ) ---------------- -----------------

Order - Status 15: 903,906,907,909,910n912 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : A.S.OKA & REVATI MOHITE­DERE, JJ DATE : 30TH AUGUST 2013 P.C: . On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on daily board and supplementary board stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. Sr. Nos. Adjourned date 50, 51, 52 and 54 ) rd October 2013 3 53 and 902 ) 12th September 2013 55, 56, 60, 910 and 912 ) th October 2013 4 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 903, 906 and 907 ) ) 20th September 2013 63 ) 25th September 2013 64 ) 19th October 2013 901 ) 26th September 2013 909 ) 21st September 2013 If any adinterim or interim relief granted in the aforesaid matters is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the dates which are fixed under this order. If any adinterim or interim order is to operate till further orders, such orders shall remain unaffected. If there is an extreme urgency, the parties can get the papers produced before the Court. (REVATI MOHITEDERE, J) ( A.S. OKA, J )

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELATE AND ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : A.S.OKA, & REVATI MOHITE DERE,JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 20,2013 P.C.: . The following matters on Balance BoardDaily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. The matters will appear on the dates as may be fixed by C.M.I.S. Sr.No. C.M.I.S.Date 27,28,29,30,31,42,50,54,55,57,58,59, 64,65,66,70,71,74,904,905,906,907 07/10/2013 32,33,34,35,36,910 19.10.2013 37,38,39,40,41,43,44,45,46,47,48,49, 51,52,53,56,60,61,62,67 21.10.2013 68, 72 28.11.2013 69,76,77,78,80,85 22.10.2013 73 29.11.2013 75,79,81,82,83,84,86,87 08/10/13 901 01/10/13 902, 903 04/10/13 . If in any of the above matters, ad interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If adinterim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected.

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : A.S.OKA & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ DATE : 07th OCTOBER, 2013 P.C: . On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on daily board and supplementary board stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. Sr. Nos. Adjourned date 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 ) 23rd October, 2013 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 61, 69, 70, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81 ) 24th October, 2013 59 ) 15th November, 2013 60 ) 18th October, 2013 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 75, 82, 92 19th October, 2013 64 ) 22nd October, 2013 83, 84, 86, 88, 89, 91 25th October, 2013 90, 93 ) 05th December, 2013 If any adinterim or interim relief granted in the aforesaid matters is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the dates which are fixed under this order. If interim relief or adinterim relief is not granted for limited duration, the said orders will remain unaffected. If there is an extreme urgency, the parties can get the papers produced before the Court. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J) ( A.S. OKA, J )

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : A.S. OKA AND REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 24, 2013. P.C. On account of paucity of time, as this Court was required to take up final hearing Board in the afternoon session, rest of the matters on daily board and supplementary board stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS, as mentioned below: Sr. Nos. Adjourned date/CMIS Date 36, 37, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 ) 18th November, 2013 38, 41 ) rd 3 December, 2013 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, ) 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 901, ) 19th November, 2013 69, 70, 71, 72, 80, 81, 85, 89, 91, 92, ) 94, 95, 96, 904, 905 ) 20th November, 2013 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 84, 86, 87, ) 88, 90, 93, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, ) 103, 105, 906 ) ) ) ) th December, 2013 4 82, 83, 104, 107, 108 ) 11th November, 2013 106 ) 28th November, 2013 If any ad-interim or interim relief granted in the aforesaid matters is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the dates which are fixed under this order. If interim relief or ad-interim relief is not granted for limited duration, the said orders will remain unaffected. If there is an extreme urgency, the parties can get the papers produced before the Court. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.) (A. S. OKA, J.)

Order - Status 27: Dond IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3488 OF 2013 Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat (Mrs. Sunita Nilesh Patil) ..Petitioner. Vs. Zilla Parishad, Satara & Anr. ..Respondents. ----- Mr. A.V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Tanaji Mahatugde i/b Mr. S.B. Deshmukh for Petitioner. Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar a/w Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. C.P. Yadav, AGP for State. CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & A.S. GADKARI, JJ. DATE : 13th January 2015. P.C. Leave to add the State as party-Respondent. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Learned AGP waives service for the State. 2 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is under suspension since 5th February 2013 consequent to the impugned order dated 5th February 2013 on the allegations of the incident which is described in the said order. It is submitted that the impugned order be stayed as it is passed without authority of law and even on merits, the order of suspension is not sustainable. 3 The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1-Zilla Parishad states that the Zilla Parishad has forwarded the proposal to the State government after holding preliminary enquiry by a communication dated 23rd April 2013 in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 28th March 2012. So far the State Government has not communicated its decision. 4 The facts reveal that on the incident which is reflected in the impugned order, the Medical Officer has been suspended and she continues to be under the suspension since 5th February 2013. So far no enquiry has been initiated against her. We find appropriate in the facts of the case that until further orders, the services of the Medical Officer could be made available to the rural people. 5 Prima facie, we are convinced to pass the following order: By way of an interim order, we stay the order of suspension. The Petitioner shall report to her duties at the earliest. 6 Stand over to 3rd February 2015. (A.S. GADKARI, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) wp.3488-2013

Order - Status 29: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2013 Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat (mrs. Sunita Nilesh Patil) ....Petitioner V/S Zilla Parishad, Satara And Anr ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ DATE : 15th December, 2016 P.C. : Due to paucity of time Stand Over to 22/12/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 31: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2013 Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat (mrs. Sunita Nilesh Patil) ....Petitioner V/S Zilla Parishad, Satara And Anr ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ DATE : 22nd December, 2016 P.C. : Due to paucity of time Stand Over to 05/01/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 32: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2013 Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat (mrs. Sunita Nilesh Patil) ....Petitioner V/S Zilla Parishad, Satara And Anr ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ DATE : 5th January, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time Stand Over to 12/01/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 34: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2013 Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat (mrs. Sunita Nilesh Patil) ....Petitioner V/S Zilla Parishad, Satara And Anr ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ DATE : 12th January, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time Stand Over to 19/01/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 36: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2013 Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat (mrs. Sunita Nilesh Patil) ....Petitioner V/S Zilla Parishad, Satara And Anr ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ DATE : 19th January, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time Stand Over to 02/02/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 38: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2013 Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat (mrs. Sunita Nilesh Patil) ....Petitioner V/S Zilla Parishad, Satara And Anr ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ DATE : 2nd February, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time Stand Over to 09/02/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 39: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2013 Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat (mrs. Sunita Nilesh Patil) ....Petitioner V/S Zilla Parishad, Satara And Anr ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ DATE : 9th February, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time Stand Over to 16/02/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 41: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2013 Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat (mrs. Sunita Nilesh Patil) ....Petitioner V/S Zilla Parishad, Satara And Anr ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ DATE : 23rd February, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time Stand Over to 02/03/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 43: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2013 Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat (mrs. Sunita Nilesh Patil) ....Petitioner V/S Zilla Parishad, Satara And Anr ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ DATE : 2nd March, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time Stand Over to 09/03/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 45: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2013 Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat (mrs. Sunita Nilesh Patil) ....Petitioner V/S Zilla Parishad, Satara And Anr ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ DATE : 9th March, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time Stand Over to 16/03/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 47: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2013 Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat (mrs. Sunita Nilesh Patil) ....Petitioner V/S Zilla Parishad, Satara And Anr ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ DATE : 16th March, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Ad-interim relief, if any, to continue till then. Stand over to 22/03/2017 on Supplementary Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 49: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2013 Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat (mrs. Sunita Nilesh Patil) ....Petitioner V/S Zilla Parishad, Satara And Anr ....Respondent Mr.Tanaji Mhatugade i/by Mr.Sugandh B. Deshmukh Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.Uday P. Warunjikar Advocate for Respondent No.1 And 2. Ms.Sushma Bhende AGP for Respondent No.3. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ DATE : 22nd March, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 24/03/2017 for Passing Orders. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 53: 904.wp.3488.13.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3488 OF 2013 Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat (Mrs. Sunita Nilesh Patil) ..Petitioner Vs. Zilla Parishad, Satara and Others ..Respondents Mr. Anil V. Anturkar, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. Sugandh B. Deshmukh, for the Petitioner. Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms. Sushma Bhnde, AGP, for the State. CORAM :- S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P.COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE :- MARCH 24, 2017. P. C.: The Petitioner at the relevant time was posted at Primary Health Center and which was controlled by the Satara Zilla Parishad. 2 An order of suspension was issued by the then Chief Executive Officer of that Zilla Parishad on 5th February, 2013, which is under challenge. 3 While dealing with the challenge at ad-interim stage, a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order:- " Leave to add the State as party-Respondent. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Learned AGP waives service for the State. 2 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is under suspension since 5th February 2013 consequent to the impugned order dated 5th February 2013 on the allegations of theincident which is described in the said order. It is submitted that the impugned order be stayed as it is passed without authority of law and even on merits, the order of suspension is not sustainable. 3 The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1-Zilla Parishad states that the Zilla Parishad has forwarded the proposal to the State government after holding preliminary enquiry by a communication dated 23rd April 2013 in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 28th March 2012. So far the State Government has not communicated its decision. 4 The facts reveal that on the incident which is reflected in the impugned order, the Medical Officer has been suspended and she continues to be under the suspension since 5th February 2013. So far no enquiry has been initiated against her. We find appropriate in the facts of the case that until further orders, the services of the Medical Officer could be made available to the rural people. 5 Prima facie, we are convinced to pass the following order: By way of an interim order, we stay the order of suspension. The Petitioner shall report to her duties at the earliest. 6 Stand over to 3rd February 2015." 4 That order is operative till date. 5 Mr. Warunjikar on the earlier occasion had sought time to take instructions and revert back to this Court as to whether the Petitioner indeed was allowed to report for duties. 6 Mr. Warunjikar produces photocopy of a communication received from the Satara Zilla Parishad and particularly signed by the District Health Officer dated 23rd March, 2017. That indicates that Dr. Sunita Suresh Thorat now Mrs Sunita Nilesh Patil has been allowed to report for work but after permitting her to resume duties at the very Primary Health Center, later on, the District Health Officer has posted the Petitioner at some other Primary Health Center. She has, therefore, reported for work by joining duties at that Primary Health Center. The instructions are that the Petitioner is allowed to work. 7 In the light of the ad-interim order passed by this Court which ensures that a Primary Health Center has services of a qualified Doctor and particularly a lady Doctor, Aswale 3/5 we do not wish to proceed with this Writ Petition any further. The Petitioner admittedly was on deputation and to this health services of the Satara Zilla Parishad. She is stating that she is a State Government employee. The Satara Zilla Parishad is awaiting instructions from the Government as to whether the Satara Zilla Parishad can enquire into a misconduct of the Petitioner or it would be the employer who has appointed her on a substantive post who is empowered to hold such enquiry. 8 We only direct that if any written proposal for initiating a disciplinary enquiry against the Petitioner and from the Satara Zilla Parishad is pending consideration of the State Government, the Competent Authority therein should take a decision on this proposal and as expeditiously as possible. We direct that the decision be taken within two months, if such written proposal is pending consideration. 9 We dispose off the Writ Petition by confirming the ad-interim order but at the same time clarifying that neither Aswale 4/5 have we expressed any opinion on whether the Petitioner has committed any misconduct nor have we expressed our view on the powers of any particular authority to hold such disciplinary enquiry. Therefore, the issue of maintainability of such proceedings, jurisdiction of authority and equally the contentions on the merits of the charges, are kept open. They shall be gone into uninfluenced by the order in the Writ Petition. We take on record a communication addressed to Mr. Warunjikar and mark it "X" for identification. (B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.) (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION No. 289 OF 2016 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL (St.) No. 14685 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. Segandh B. Deshmukh, for the Applicant / Appellant. CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & Mrs. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 26, 2016 PC. Issue notice before admission R/o. 5th December, 2016. Hamdast permitted. Sd/- [V. M. KANADE, J.] Sd/- [Mrs. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J.] ________________________________________________________________ VPH Vinayak Halemath

Order - Status 6: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C.A.M. NO.289 OF 2016 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL ST. NO.14685 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders None Present. CORAM : R.M. JOSHI I/c.REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 25th November, 2016 1 week granted for furnishing copy. sd/­ I/c.Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 25.11.16

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C.A.M. NO.289 OF 2016 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL ST. NO.14685 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders None Present. CORAM : AJIT N. MARE, REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 09th December, 2016 S.O. to 1 week. sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 09.12.16

Order - Status 11: (CAM 289 of 2016) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION No. 289 OF 2016 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL (ST) No.14685 OF 2016 Smt. Sarika Badal Shinde ...Applicant Vs. Shri Badal Vijay Shinde ...Respondent *********** Mr. Sugandh B. Deshmukh for Applicant Mr. Abhijit Patil i/b. Mr. Sushant S. Prabhune for Respondent *********** CORAM : R.M. BORDE & A.S. GADKARI, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 04, 2017 P.C. : This is an application, seeking condonation of delay of 60 days in filing the present Family Court Appeal. The decree passed by the Family Court appears to have been (CAM 289 of 2016) issued in the absence of the Appellant. In this view of the matter, the delay of 60 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Civil application for condonation of delay is allowed and disposed of. Place the Family Court Appeal for consideration on the Board on 11.1.2017 [ A.S. GADKARI, J.] [ R.M. BORDE, J.] Vaishali Tikam

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16 OF 2014 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2013 Mr.Kobad Dorabji Davierwalla ...Applicant / Orig.Respondent No.1 In the matter between Mrs.Perin Hoshang Davierwalla & Anr. ...Appellants vs. Mr.Kobad Dorabji Davierwalla & Ors. ...Respondents AND REVIEW PETITION (STAMP) NO. 19448 OF 2014 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2013 WITH CIVIL APPLIATION NO. 171 OF 2014 Mrs.Perin Hoshang Davierwalla & Anr. vs. Petitioners / Orig.Appellants Mr.A.V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Prathamesh Bhargav i/b. Mr.S.B. Deshmukh for Applicant (Original Respondent No.1). Mr.Darius Khambata, Senior Advocate with Mr.J.B. Sen, Senior Advocate, Mr.Akshay Patil i/b. M/s.Federal & Rashmikant for Respondent No.1 and 2 (Original Appellants). Mr.Priyanka Vegad for Respondent No.2 in Review Petition No**.**19448/2014, Arb.Appeal No.42/2013, Respondent No.3 in CA 16/2014. Mr.B.K. Bali i/b. M/s.Bali Associates for Respondent No.3. CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J. 01 SEPTEMBER 2014 P.C. : The delay of fourty-five days in taking out the review petition is condoned, and the review petition is taken up for hearing. 2 The review petition is filed by the original Appellants seeking a review of paragraphs 16 and 17(ii) of the order passed by this Court on 7 May 2014 and modification of the same by directing Respondent No.1 to vacate the two rooms in the hotel premises, currently in occupation of Respondent No.1 as agent of the Court Receiver without payment of royalty and security. The application is made in the following facts. 3 The Appellants and Respondents are partners in a partnership firm called IL Palazzo Hotel running a business of lodging and boarding house at Panchgani in Maharashtra. During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings between the parties for adjudication of disputes arising out of dissolution of this partnership firm by the Appellants, by an order passed by this Court on 7 May 2014, Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay has been appointed as a receiver of the assets and business of the partnership firm. The Appellants have been appointed as agents of the Court Receiver for conducting the business of IL Palazzo Hotel on payment of royalty. Paragraph 15 of this order inter alia records that Respondent No.1, who was carrying on business on the date of this order, not only had the suit business as the only source of livelihood, but even lived in two rooms within the building where the partnership business of lodging and boarding house was carried on. The order records the plea of Respondent No.1 that the residence of Respondent No.1 inter alia needs to be protected since he was actually using the two rooms. Accordingly, paragraph 17(ii) of the order provides that Respondent No.1 would be entitled to retain these two rooms presently in his personal use for the residence of himself and his family as agent of the Court Receiver without payment of any royalty or security. 4 It is a case of the Appellants in the present review petition that on or about 20 April 2014, after the conclusion of the hearings in the appeal, the Appellants came to know that Respondent No.1 has been in possession of a two storied apartment bungalow with a workable basement in Khinger village (about 3 to 4 km from IL Palazzo Hotel) admeasuring an area of more than 2000 sq.ft.; that this bungalow was in the name of Respondent No.1 and his wife; that the bungalow has a telephone installed therein; that the Respondent has been paying telephone and electricity charges; that this bungalow has been used by Respondent No.1 for the residence of himself and his family since much before the passing of the order dated 7 May 2014 and till today; that in the premises, Respondent No.1 has never actually resided in the hotel premises even once after the charge of the hotel was handed over to the Appellants, as agents of the Court Receiver and that, on the other hand, Respondent No.1 and his wife have only visited the two rooms occasionally during all this period; that the wife of Respondent No.1 had been interfering with the administration and functioning of the hotel and ordering around the staff and interacting with the hotel guests; and that in the premises, it is necessary and in the interests of justice that the directions in the order dated 7 May 2014 be modified and Respondent No.1 and his family be directed to vacate the rooms occupied by them in the hotel premises. 4 Along with the review petition, there is an application filed by Respondent No.1 himself inter alia for certain modifications to the order of 7 May 2014. It is prayed by Respondent No.1 that he should be allowed to use all common facilities, services, amenities, etc. provided in the hotel such as common hot and cold water, appliances, common generators and other infrastructure and utility services without any charge. Respondent No.1 has also applied for use of boarding facilities and services provided by the hotel at a charge of Rs.10,000/ per month. By an amendment proposed in the affidavit dated 22 June 2014, Respondent No.1 sought to amend the prayer inter alia providing for payment of charges in the sum of Rs.3500/- per month for use of the common and shared amenities and services provided in the hotel. Respondent No.1 does not press his prayer for provision of boarding facilities against payment of Rs.10,000/- per month, as originally proposed in his civil application. Thus, the application is now for permission to use all common amenities and facilities provided by the hotel on payment of a charge of Rs.3500/- per month. 5 It is obvious that the original application for permission to retain the two rooms claimed to be in occupation of Respondent No.1, as agent of the Court Receiver and without payment of royalty or security, was on the express footing that Respondent No.1 had all along been using, and even now requires, the two rooms for residence of himself and his family. At no stage in the pending appeal, before the order was passed on 7 May 2014, had the Respondent indicated that he was in possession of, and using, a bungalow of more than 2000 sq.ft. at Khinger village near IL Palazzo Hotel. In fact, in his reply filed in the review petition, Respondent No.1 has not disputed his residence in the bungalow at Khinger. All that the Respondent mentions in his reply to the review petition is that the two rooms in the hotel are his permanent residence; that all official documents, fax documents and administrative documents have the address of the hotel as his permanent residence; and that it would cause great difficulty to Respondent No.1 if this permanent address has to be changed temporarily. It is also submitted by Respondent No.1 that the bungalow at Khinger is not habitable round the year; that residence at this bungalow is not practicable due to its distant location, extreme weather conditions, etc. However, Respondent No.1 has not said that he does not actually use the bungalow as his residence. 6 Secondly, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 that photographs of this bungalow were shown to the Court by the Appellants, before this Court passed its order on 7 May 2014. Since these photographs were before the Court, it is submitted that the attention of the Court was invited to the existence of this bungalow and that therefore, the facts narrated before the Court in the review petition are neither new nor brought for the first time before the Court to enable the Appellants to apply for review of the order. It may be that the photographs were shown to the Court when this Court passed its order on 7 May 2013. The photographs were, however, not shown by Respondent No.1. The contest as to whether this bungalow was actually used as residence by Respondent No.1 throughout the relevant period was not before the Court when the order of 7 May 2014 was passed. The Appellants have claimed in the review petition that this fact came to light after the hearing of the matter concluded on 23 April 2014 and the order was reserved. On the basis of their knowledge acquired subsequently, the Appellants have averred in the review petition that Respondent No.1 and his family have been residing in the bungalow at Khinger and have not used the two rooms for residence at any time during the period of pendency of the arbitration appeal. There is no effective denial of this fact in the reply of Respondent No.1. Secondly, it is submitted that right from inception, four rooms have been kept for three groups of partners of the firm for their residence and that these rooms have been kept for residence of the parties in spite of the fact that even the Appellants have their bungalow at Panchgani, not very far from IL Palazzo hotel. It is submitted that even today, two rooms are in occupation of the Appellants. Whether or not the two rooms are in occupation of the Appellants, it is a fact that these two rooms have been treated to be a part of the hotel premises under the order of 7 May 2014 and the compensation payable by the Appellants as agents of the Court Receiver has been worked out on that basis. Whether the rooms are, in fact, used as guest rooms to be rented out for the hotel business or whether they are actually used for occupation of the Appellants, is immaterial as long as these two rooms are in occupation of the Appellants as agents of the Court Receiver for conducting the hotel business and the Appellants are paying compensation for the same as agents of the Court Receiver. In fact, the fact that two rooms in occupation of the Appellants for their residence have been made part of the hotel premises, in occupation of the agents of the Court Receiver and for which compensation is payable by the agents, supports the Appellants' case that the two rooms which are in occupation of Respondent No.1 and which are not actually used for his residence ought to be made over to the Court Receiver for conducting the hotel business. The Appellants have offered to pay an additional royalty of Rs.6 lakhs per annum for the two rooms to be vacated by Respondent No.1 and allowed to be used for the hotel. This additional royalty is offered with a view to account for the additional revenue that may accrue to the agents, if these two rooms are allowed to be used for the hotel. 7 Lastly, it is submitted that the Court Receiver has not been appointed of the four rooms which were in occupation of the partners for their respective residence. This submission is made on the basis of the licence issued by the authorities, which is in respect of 17 rooms only. It may be that the licence for renting out room to the guests exists in respect of 17 rooms for the lodging business of the hotel, but there is nothing to indicate that these two rooms are not part of the assets of the partnership firm of which Court Receiver is appointed. In fact, it is on the basis that the Court Receiver is appointed also of these four rooms that the two rooms in occupation of the Appellants have been made part of the agency business and for which the Appellants have been asked to pay compensation. So also, it is on the same basis that Respondent No.1 is directed to be appointed as agent of the Court Receiver without any royalty for the two rooms purportedly in his occupation. There is no substance in the plea that the Court Receiver is not appointed of these four rooms. 8 In the premises, the review petition filed by the Appellants deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the order of 7 May 2014 is modified by directing Respondent No.1 to vacate the two rooms in his occupation and make over the same to the Court Receiver for being used as part of the hotel premises. With effect from the expiry of a period of 45 days after the rooms are vacated and possession thereof is handed over to the Court Receiver by Respondent No.1, the Appellants shall pay an additional royalty of Rs.6 lakhs per annum for use of these two rooms as part of the agency agreement. This amount shall be paid on a quarterly basis as in the case of royalty of Rs.70 lakhs payable per annum for the agency of the hotel. 9 At the time of handing over of the two rooms by Respondent No.1 to the Court Receiver, the Court Receiver shall prepare an inventory of the furnitures and fixtures lying within the premises. Respondent No.1 shall be at liberty to make a claim in respect of these furnitures and fixtures at the hearing before the District Court or before the Arbitrator, as the case may be. The Court Receiver will, of course, permit Respondent No.1 to take away his movables lying within the two rooms. 10 Having regard to the order passed on the review petition, the civil application of Respondent No.1 for use of additional amenities and facilities provided by the hotel in connection with the two rooms in his occupation as agent of the Receiver, does not survive and is disposed of. 11 There shall be no order as to costs. 12 On the application of the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, this order is stayed for a period of five weeks from today. (S.C. Gupte, J.)