Shikur Gafur Kudle

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 243 OF 2015 Samayadurai K. Agamudian. ..Petitioner. Versus The Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Maharashtra and Others. ..Respondents. Mr. S. G. Kudale for the Petitioner. Mr. F. R. Shaikh, learned APP for the State. Mr. S. G. Surana for Respondent No. 5. Mr. Mahesh Vaswani, Mr. Javed Gheewala, Dharini Nagda, Anushree Kulkarni for Respondent No. 6 and 7. Coram : RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. Date : February 2, 2015 . P. C. : Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeks leave to amend the prayer clause. Leave granted. Necessary amendment be carried out within a week. Place the writ petition for admission on 16th February 2015. [SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 243 OF 2015 Samayadurai K. Agamudian. ..Petitioner. Versus The Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. S. G. Kudale for the Petitioner. Mr. S. G. Suvarna for Respondent No. 5. Mr. U. V. Kejriwal, learned APP for the State. Coram : RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. Date : March 17, 2015 . P. C. : By the order dated 2nd February 2015, we granted leave to the Petitioner to amend the prayer clause. The Petitioner, however, not only amended the prayer clause but has also inserted paragraph No.11a to 11j in the main petition without seeking leave of the Court. Besides, the Petitioner without leave of the Court, has annexed Exhibit-F to N. Registry is directed to submit explanation in what circumstances, the Petitioner was allowed to carry out amendment by introducing paragraph 11a to 11j and annexe Exhibit-F to N, without leave of the Court to that effect. [SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 243 OF 2015 Samayadurai K. Agamudian .. Petitioner v/s. The Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S.G. Kudle for the petitioner Mr. S.G. Suvarna for respondent no.5 Ms. Dharini Nagda i/b Javeed Mohd. Gaus Gheewala for respondent nos. 6 and 7 CORAM: RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. DATED: 31st MARCH, 2015. P.C. We have gone through the explanation offered by Mrs. Mali, Section Officer. We accept the explanation, however, Section Officer is directed to be more cautious in future. Mr. Kudale, learned Counsel for the petitioner has carried out amendment contrary to the order dated 02.02.2015 hence, the paragraphs, which are inserted contrary to the order of amendment, shall be removed. Stand over to 6th April, 2015. (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) ( RANJIT MORE, J.)

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.243 OF 2015 Samayadurai K. Agamudian ..Petitioner. V/s. The Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.S.G.Kudle for the petitioner. Mrs.U.V.kejriwal, APP for respondent-State. Mr.M.S.Surana for respondent No.5. Mr.Mahesh Vaswani i/b. Mr.Javeed Mohd. Gaus Gheewala for respondent Nos.6 and 7. CORAM : RANJIT MORE AND V.L.ACHLIYA, JJ. DATED : 17TH DECEMBER, 2015 P.C. :- Heard learned counsel for the parties. At the outset, Mr.Kudle, learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his petition to the relief claimed in prayer (c). Statement is accepted. Mr.Kudale in this regard relies upon his application dated 29th November, 2013 (annexed at Exhibit-L, page 80 of the petition) seeking police protection, which is pending since last two years. Learned APP having taken instructions states that said application will be decided by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Protection Branch), Mumbai as expeditiously as possible. In the above circumstances, we direct the Deputy Commissioner (Protection Branch), Mumbai to dispose of the petitioner's application within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Order accordingly. Petition is disposed of accordingly. (V.L.ACHLIYA, J.) ( RANJIT MORE, J.)

Order - Status 4: NITIN DINKAR JAGTAP Digitally signed by NITIN DINKAR JAGTAP Date: 2021.10.09 12:06:01 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel … Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents Mr.S.G.Kudle for the Petitioner. Mr.S.B.Kalel, AGP for the State. Mr.Saurabh Oka for Respondent No. 8. CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 8TH OCTOBER, 2021 P.C. : The Respondents shall file their respective Affidavits-in-Reply within a period of one week from today. Stand over to 18th October, 2021. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ) ( S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. )

Order - Status 6: 69.6555-21-wp.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel ….. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….. Respondents Mr. S.G.Kudale for the petitioner Mr.Prashant Suryawansh i/b Mr.G.M.Savagave for the respondents Smt.A.A.Purav, A.G.P. for the State Mr.Saurabh Oak for the respondent no.1 CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA & VINAY JOSHI, JJ. DATED : APRIL 12, 2022 P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner was apprised of the fact that the order that is sought to be challenged is passed in Second Appeal. The proper procedure is to move the second appellate court if the petitioner feels that fraud is being played by the respondents. The order passed in Second Appeal i.e. Civil Court cannot be challenged by way of Writ Petition. The Second Appeal is under the Civil Jurisdiction. The order is passed below Exhibit 1 in Regular TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Digitally signed by TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2022.04.18 15:14:04 +0530 Darkhast also. If the petitioner contends that the fraud has been played by the respondents then the proper procedure is to challenge the said order obtained by fraud before the appropriate forum and not in Writ Petition. Provisions of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure would come into play. The learned counsel for the petitioner may consider this aspect. Stand over to 07.06.2022. (VINAY JOSHI, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel Thr Her Att Nasir Nuruddin Patel ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....RESPONDENT Mr. Shikur Gafur Kudle for Petitioner Mr. N.K.Rajpurohit, AGP for Respondent-State Mr. Prashant R. Suryawanshi i/b Mr. G.M.Savagave, Advocate for R.No.6 & 7 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ DATE : 7th June, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 28/06/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel Thr Her Att Nasir Nuruddin Patel ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ DATE : 28th June, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 03/08/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel Thr Her Att Nasir Nuruddin Patel ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. M. SATHAYE, JJ DATE : 13th February, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 27/03/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 6555 OF 2021 VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Shankerabanu Afsar Patel ….Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ….Respondents Digitally signed by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date: 2023.03.10 14:32:26 +0530 Mr. S.K. Kudle, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. N.K. Rajpurohit, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 Mr. P.r. Suryawanshi i/by Mr. G.M. Savagave for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 Mr. Ketan Dhavle i/by Mr. Saurabh Oka, Advocate for Respondent No.8 Mr. T.J. Pandian, Advocate for Respondent No.5 Mr. S.S. Aradhye, Advocate for Respondent No.6 CORAM:- R.D. DHANUKA & GAURI GODSE, JJ. DATE :- 6TH MARCH, 2023. P. C.: The Petitioner has impugned the order passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 690 of 2014 in this Writ Petition, on the ground that fraud is committed by some of the Respondents in obtaining the order in Second Appeal No. 690/2014. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 raises an issue regarding maintainability of this Writ Petition. Our attention is invited to the order dated 12th April, 2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. By the said order, dated 12th April, 2022, this Court has already observed; if the Petitioner contends that the fraud has been played by the Respondents then the proper procedure is to be challenge the said order obtained by fraud before the appropriate forum and not in Writ Petition. Provisions of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure would come into play. This Court after making these observations, directed the learned counsel for the Petitioner to consider this aspect. Mr. Kudale, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that since the fraud is committed in obtaining the order in Second Appeal, this Court can set aside the order passed in Second Appeal, in Writ Petition. We are afraid, we cannot accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner . Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the correctness of the order passed in Second Appeal for want of jurisdiction. If any appropriate proceedings are filed by the Petitioner, the same shall be decided on its own merits. All contentions of the parties are kept open. (GAURI GODSE, J.) ( R.D.DHANUKA, J. )