Neeta Karnik

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.673 OF 2013 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or orders or directions & Judge's orders. Registrar's orders. Ms Neeta Karnik for the Petitioner. Shri T.D. Deshmukh for Respondent No.1. Smt. M.P. Thakur, AGP for the State. CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ DATE : 22ND JANUARY 2013 P.C.: . Not on board. Taken on board. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first Respondent. Heard the learned AGP for the State. Leave to amend for adding a party respondent and for incorporating additional averments in the Petition. In view of the communication dated 9th January 2013, the Petitioner can continue to act as a Principal at least till 31st January 2013. Therefore, we direct that this Petition shall be fixed for admission on 30th January 2013. ( A.P. BHANGALE, J) (A.S.OKA, J)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.673 of 2013 Neeta Sane … Petitioner V/s. Dnyanasadhana College, Through Chairman and Ors. … Respondents Ms. Neeta Karnik , Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. T.D. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent No.3. Ms. Chandrakanta Gongane i/b. R.A. Rodrigues for Respondent No.2. CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : 30TH JANUARY, 2013 P.C. When the papers of this petition were produced before this Court on 22nd January, 2013 for seeking urgent relief, the papers were not circulated in advance. Therefore, it was not noticed that one of us (A.S. OKA, J.) will not be in a position to take up this petition. Hence, place it before a bench to which one of us (A.S. OKA, J.) is not a party. ( A.P. BHANGALE, J ) ( A.S. OKA, J )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 673 OF 2013 Neeta Sane .. Petitioner Vs. Dnyanasadhana College & Ors. .. Respondents Ms Neeta Karnik for Petitioner. Mr. T. D. Deshmukh for Respondent No. 1. Ms. Chandrakanta Gongane i/b. Mr. R. A. Rodriques for Respondent No. 2. Mr. P. P. Kakade – AGP for Respondent No. 3 . CORAM : NARESH. H. PATIL & A. R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 1ST FEBRUARY, 2013 P.C. 1] Heard. 2] The petitioner has questioned the communication made by the respondent College Dnyanasadhana, Thane dated 9.1.2013. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the University Regulations after putting in one year service in absence of any adverse communication the petitioner shall be deemed to have been confirmed as Principal. 3] This fact is disputed by the counsel appearing for the respondent college. The learned counsel for the respondent college submits that the petitioner has a statutory remedy under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. 4] In the facts of the case the petitioner has statutory remedy of approaching the College Tribunal under the provisions of Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. 5] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the communication dated 9.1.2013 the petitioner continued to act as a Principal till 31.1.2013 and prayed that the petitioner be allowed to continue to act as a Principal for a period of two weeks from today. 6] The petitioner be allowed to continue as a Principal till 14.2.2013. This court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. 7] Writ Petition is disposed of. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) Chandka 2/2

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5308 OF 2008 Rashmi Gruh Nirman Pvt.Ltd. through its Director Shri Ashwin Tribhuvandas Shah ...Petitioner Versus Unique Shanti Developers through its proprietor Harshad P.Doshi ...Respondent ...... Mrs.Neeta Karnik for Petitioner. Mr.Vineet B.Naik with Mr.Amit Yadkikar i/b M/s.Desai & Diwanji for Respondent. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. AUGUST 7, 2008. P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr.Yadkikar waives notice for Respondent. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane dated 27th February 2008 below Exhibit 353 in Special Civil Suit No.362 of 2000. By this order, the Trial Court has rejected the Application preferred by the Petitioner for amendment of written statement. By the said Application, the Petitioner intended to insert Paragraph 20A in the written statement which reads thus: "20A. That the suit filed by Unique Shanti Developer is not maintainable as the plan which is shown to have been sanctioned in the name of unique Shanti Pvt Ltd and the said plan is also sanctioned much after alleged suit agreement and hence the said suit agreement are not binding. Moreover by virtue of provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Repeal Act 1999, the provisions of Urban Ceiling Act are not applicable to suit lands, this has been done by State of Maharashtra by its government gazette dated 6.12.2007 wherein it has been declared that "Now, therefore in pursuance of clause (2) of article 252 of the Constitution of India, the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly hereby resolves that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Repeal Act 1999, passed by the parliament be adopted for this state." The Trial Court, however, has rejected the said application essentially on two counts. Firstly, that admission given in the cross-examination cannot be termed as subsequent event to permit bringing on record new facts now pleaded in the proposed amendment. The second reason is that the issuance of Notification referred to in the latter part of Paragraph 20A cannot be the basis to permit amendment to the written statement. Insofar as the first reason is concerned, I am in agreement with the submission of the Petitioner that it is for the first time during the course of cross-examination, the Respondent produced sanctioned plan on 16th October 2007. No reference to the said sanctioned plan was made in the Plaint or produced along with the documents on any earlier occasion. The position now stated in proposed Paragraph 20A is with reference to the said sanctioned plan which has come on record for the first time on 16th October 2007. That indeed was a revelation made to the Petitioner for the first time during the course of trial. Therefore, the Petitioner was entitled to raise such issues as were available to the Petitioner in relation to the said fact. That is the purport of amendment to be introduced in the written statement in terms of Paragraph 20A. By that amendment, the Petitioner would contend that the Suit filed by the Respondent itself is not maintainable as plan was sanctioned in favour of person other than the Respondent/Plaintiff. That fact necessarily has to be pleaded and also proved by the Defendant for which amendment as sought will have to be granted in the interest of justice. Insofar as the opinion recorded by the Trial Court in the context of the latter part of the Paragraph 20A, I am in agreement with the Petitioner that the merits of the efficacy of the Notification dated 1st December 2007 will have to be decided at the trial. The fact remains that the Notification has been issued recently on 1st December 2007. That is a subsequent event which is pleaded in proposed Paragraph 20A. Thus understood, even that part of the amendment will have to be granted. In the circumstances, the impugned Judgment and Order is set-aside and instead Application Exhibit 353 filed by the Petitioner is made absolute with further direction that the Petitioner shall carry out amendment within three weeks from today. The Petitioner who is personally present in Court, through Counsel, assures that the Petitioner will extend full co-operation to the Trial Court for early disposal of the Suit and shall not take recourse to any further applications during the course of trial to ensure that the trial is concluded expeditiously. That assurance is accepted. Needless to observe that as the Petitioner is permitted to amend the written statement by inserting Paragraph 20A and the written statement has been treated as counter claim, the Respondent would be free to file such pleadings in response to the said amended written statement as may be advised. That be done within two weeks from the date the Petitioner carries out amendment in the written statement. Petition disposed of on the above terms. No order as to costs. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5339 OF 2013 Shri Bartol Degin Farnat and Ors ..Petitioners Vs. Shri Pascol Manvel Gonsalves and Ors ..Respondents Ms. Neeta Karnik,for the Petitioners. Mr. P. B. Shah i/b Mr. Kayval P. Shah,for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : RAVI K. DESHPANDE *,* J. DATE : JULY 1, 2013. P. C.: 1 Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2 The learned counsel for the PetitionersPlaintiffs submits that it is the case of the Plaintiffs that the road in question is of 20 feet wide and it has been reduced to 2.8 feet because of the obstruction created by the Defendants in the way. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have gone through the orders passed by both the Courts below. Both the Courts below have taken into consideration the report of the Commissioner. However, there is no finding recorded, on prima facie assessment of the case on the question whether there existed 20 feet road and that it was reduced to 2.8 feet by the Aswale 1/2 5339.13.wp Defendants by creating obstruction. In the absence of any such finding, the orders impugned cannot be sustained. The same needs to be quashed and set aside. The orders are required to be remanded back to the Trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with law. 3 In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. 4 The order dated 28.09.2011 passed by the Trial court and also by the Appellate Court dated 12.04.2013 are hereby quashed and set aside. 5 The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court to decide Exhibit5 filed in Regular Civil Suit No. 159 OF 2009, afresh within a period of three months from the date of first appearance of the parties before it. 6 Parties to appear before the Trial Court on 15.07.2013. 7 The Trial Court is at liberty to grant adinterim relief, if such is claimed by the parties. ( RAVI K. DESHPANDE *,* J.)