All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 7: ingale IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6447 OF 2013 Smt.Ashwini Ravindra Pingle .. Petitioner Vs. Shri Sanjay Ramchandra Kamthe and another .. Respondents Mr.Avinash B.Avhad, for Petitioner. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 01st August, 2013 P.C. : . The application for amendment in the written statement is rejected. Mr.Avhad, the learned Counsel for petitioner states that simply because, the matter is at the stage of final argument, that could not have been reason for rejecting the application for amendment. It was only at that point of time, the petitioner got the knowledge of the other properties owned by the plaintiff and given for redevelopment. The defendant had given details in the application, only because the defendant could not get the relevant documents, that could not have been the ground of denying the amendment application. According to the learned Counsel, the ground for eviction agitated by plaintiff is bonafide requirement. The said amendment would be relevant and material for effective adjudication of the dispute. The plaintiff had filed say to the application denying the said fact. The Court has observed that not a single document is produced along with the application substantiating the factum of the plaintiff possessing the survey No. 87 and given it for redevelopment. The parties have concluded the evidence. The plaintiff has even advanced his final argument. The matter was adjourned thrice for the argument of the defendant and thereafter, present application has been filed. The Court has considered the said aspect of the matter. I do not see any error committed by the Court while passing impugned order. The petitioner may assail the said order in case is required to file the appeal, if in law as it is permissible, relying on section 105 of C.P.C. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) 909.wp.6447.13

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6185 OF 2018 Sagar s/o. Arjun Thakur ..Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. WRIT PETITION NO.6186 OF 2018 Kashinath s/o. Arjun Thakur ..Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.S.C.Yeramwar for the petitioner in both the petitions. Mr.M.M.Pabale, AGP for the respondentState in both the petitions. CORAM: SHANTANU KEMKAR AND NITIN W.SAMBRE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 14, 2018 P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable as per C.M.I.S. date. The learned AGP waives service on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Reply to the petition be filed within four weeks. Steps of service of notice on respondent No.3 be taken within two weeks. Until the next date, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner on the basis of the impugned order passed by the Caste Scrutinty Committee. List the matter as per C.M.I.S. date. (NITIN W.SAMBRE, J.) (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6185 OF 2018 Sagar Arjun Thakur ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6186 OF 2018 Kashiram Arjun Thakur ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent Ms Anita Gavkar i/by Mr Yeramwar Sushant Chandrakantrao For Petitioner Mr P.G. Sawant AGP FOR R.no. 1 To 3 CORAM : A.S. OKA & SANDEEP KASHINATH SHINDE, JJ DATE : 6th December, 2018 P.C. : Await Service. Stand over to 17/01/2019. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6185 OF 2018 Sagar Arjun Thakur ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6186 OF 2018 Kashiram Arjun Thakur ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent Mr Yeramwar Sushant Chandrakantrao, Advocate For Petitioners in both WP Mr Y S Khochare, AGP for R.no. 1 and 2 in both W.P.; Mr Ramesh D Rane, Advocate for R.no. 3 in WP/6185/2018. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATE : 21st January, 2019 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the petitioners, Stand over to 04/02/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4829 OF 2017 Ramesh Nana Morajkar ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6185 OF 2018 Sagar Arjun Thakur ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6186 OF 2018 Kashiram Arjun Thakur ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent Mr Yeramwar Sushant Chandrakantrao, Advocate for Petitioners in above 3 WP. Mrs R A Salunkhe, AGP for R.no. 1 To 3 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATE : 18th February, 2019 P.C. : Office is directed to place the matters HIGH ON BOARD ON 25/02/2019 along with WP/4649/15 and WP/6842/15. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: (4)-WP-4829-17 & group.doc BDPSPS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4829 OF 2017 Ramesh Nana Morajkar ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6185 OF 2018 Sagar S/o Arjun Thakur ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6186 OF 2018 Kashiram S/o Arjun Thakur ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4649 OF 2015 Surendra Bhagwan Morajkar ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6842 OF 2015 Prafulla Vitthal Thakur ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH (4)-WP-4829-17 & group.doc CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3201 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6842 OF 2015 Prafulla Vitthal Thakur ..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7643 OF 2015 Yogesh Shantaram More Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and another Respondents Mr. Sushant C. Yeramwar, Advocate for the Petitioners in all the Writ Petitions & for Applicant in Civil Application. Mr. P. G. Sawant, AGP for Respondent – State in all the Writ Petitions and Civil Application. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ. DATE: 25th FEBRUARY, 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) 1] Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Petitions are taken up for final hearing. 2] All these Writ Petitions impugn the orders passed by Respondent – Scrutiny Committee, thereby invalidating the claim of the Petitioners of belonging to Thakar Scheduled Tribe. Admittedly, all the Petitioners are members of one family. 3] It is the contention of the Petitioners that their blood relatives have been subsequently granted validity certificates. For a change, the Respondent – Scrutiny Committee, in its affidavit, has come with a reasonable stand. It is stated in the affidavit that in view of validity certificates having been subsequently granted in favour of the Petitioner's blood relatives, the Committee is willing to reconsider the issue. 4] In that view of the matter, Petitions are partly allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside and the matters are remitted to the Respondent – Scrutiny Committee for deciding afresh in the light of the validity certificates granted in favour of the blood relatives of the Petitioners. Interim protection, which has been granted in favour of the Petitioners by this court on earlier occasions, shall stand continue till decision of the Committee and, in the event, decision of the Committee is adverse to the interest of the Petitioners, (4)-WP-4829-17 & group.doc for further period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the communication of the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. 5] Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. 6] Since Writ Petitions are partly allowed and disposed in the aforesaid terms, Civil Application No.3201 of 2015 taken out in Writ Petition No.6842 of 2015 does not survive and the same is also disposed of. (N. J. JAMADAR, J.) (B. R. GAVAI, J.)

Order - Status 16: (4)-WP-4829-17 & group-spk-minutes.doc BDPSPS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4829 OF 2017 (Modified as per order dated 8/4/2019) Ramesh Nana Morajkar ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6185 OF 2018 Sagar S/o Arjun Thakur ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6186 OF 2018 Kashiram S/o Arjun Thakur ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4649 OF 2015 Surendra Bhagwan Morajkar ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6842 OF 2015 Prafulla Vitthal Thakur Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents (4)-WP-4829-17 & group-spk-minutes.doc WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3201 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6842 OF 2015 Prafulla Vitthal Thakur ..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7643 OF 2015 Yogesh Shantaram More ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and another ..Respondents Mr. Sushant C. Yeramwar, Advocate for the Petitioners in all the Writ Petitions & for Applicant in Civil Application. Mr. P. G. Sawant, AGP for Respondent – State in all the Writ Petitions and Civil Application. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ. DATE: 25th FEBRUARY, 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) 1] Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Petitions are taken up for final hearing. 2] All these Writ Petitions impugn the orders passed by Respondent – Scrutiny Committee, thereby invalidating the claim of the Petitioners of belonging to Thakar Scheduled Tribe. Admittedly, all the Petitioners are members of one family. 3] It is the contention of the Petitioners that their blood relatives have been subsequently granted validity certificates. For a change, the Respondent – Scrutiny Committee, in its affidavit, has come with a reasonable stand. It is stated in the affidavit that in view of validity certificates having been subsequently granted in favour of the Petitioner's blood relatives, the Committee is willing to reconsider the issue. 4] In that view of the matter, Petitions are partly allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside and the matters are remitted to the Respondent – Scrutiny Committee for deciding afresh in the light of the validity certificates granted in favour of the blood relatives of the Petitioners. The Respondent – Scrutiny Committee shall decide the matter on remand within a period of three months from the date of uploading of the order. Interim (4)-WP-4829-17 & group-spk-minutes.doc protection, which has been granted in favour of the Petitioners by this court on earlier occasions, shall stand continue till decision of the Committee and, in the event, decision of the Committee is adverse to the interest of the Petitioners, for further period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the communication of the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. 5] Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. 6] Since Writ Petitions are partly allowed and disposed in the aforesaid terms, Civil Application No.3201 of 2015 taken out in Writ Petition No.6842 of 2015 does not survive and the same is also disposed of. (N. J. JAMADAR, J.) (B. R. GAVAI, J.)

Order - Status 17: (Prod)WP482917 & group.doc. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4829 OF 2017 Ramesh Nana Morajkar ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6185 OF 2018 Sagar S/o Arjun Thakur ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6186 OF 2018 Kashiram S/o Arjun Thakur Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4649 OF 2015 Surendra Bhagwan Morajkar Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6842 OF 2015 Prafulla Vitthal Thakur ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3201 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6842 OF 2015 (Prod)WP482917 & group.doc. Prafulla Vitthal Thakur ..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7643 OF 2015 Yogesh Shantaram More Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and another Respondents Mr. Sushant C. Yeramwar, Advocate for the Petitioners in all the Writ Petitions. Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for Respondent – State in all the Writ Petitions and Civil Application. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. DATE : 8th APRIL, 2019 P.C. 1] Not on board. Mentioned at 11:00 a.m. 2] Learned counsel for the Petitioners has moved this Court for speaking to the minutes of the order dated 25th February 2019. It is stated that after second sentence in 4th paragraph, the Court has dictated as under : " The Respondent – Scrutiny Committee shall decide the matter on remand within a period of three months from the date of uploading of the order. " 3] The contention appears to be correct. The said sentence be inserted after the second sentence in 4th paragraph. [DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.] BGP. 2 of 2

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.217 OF 2006 Santosh Madhukar Chavan. ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Shashikant Samant for the Petitioner. Mr.P.S. Hingorani, APP. for the State. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE,J. DATED : 31/1/2006. P.C. Heard both sides. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. This petition impugns an order dated 7.1.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg below Exh.131 and 148 in Sessions Case No.3/4/5 of 2005. The crux of the matter is that during the trial certain witnesses who had made certain statements of facts in their police statements were examined. When they entered into the witness box, in their examination in chief they did not depose about the said facts mentioned in the police statements. However, in their cross examination a version which was contrary to what they had stated in police statement relating to those facts was elicited by the defence. On eliciting such a contradictory version in their substantive evidence, a contradiction with their earlier police statement was sought to be brought on record. This has been disallowed by the trial court on the ground that a statement of fact which find place in the police statement recorded in the course of the investigation cannot be used to contradict the different version which had been elicited during the cross examination of the witness in the court. Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the rules relating to use of police statements in evidence. In short, the said section provides that when any witness is called by the prosecution in an inquiry or trial and the statement of such witness has been reduced to writing in the police investigation, then any part of the statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the court by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down the rules relating to cross examination as to previous statements made by a witness in writing. It provides that a witness may be cross examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into :2: writing, and relevant to matters in question without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. Neither Section 162 nor Section 145 lay down any embargo to the effect that such a contradiction can only be brought on record in the examination in chief. It is well settled that the evidence of a witness consists of examination in chief, his cross examination as well as re-examination if any. In the absence of any embargo, it would be open to the defence to prove a contradiction, if any exists, between the police statement and the evidence which has been brought on record during the cross examination of the witness. The Trial Court in the present case appears to be of the view that the defence cannot be allowed to create a contradiction and then prove the same. There is no question of creation of contradiction. If within the parameters which define the scope of the cross examination, any statement is brought on record by the defence in the cross examination, then said statement is a part of the evidence and if their exists a previous statement of the witness which is contradictory then in my view, the contradiction can be put to the witness and brought on record. In the circumstances, in my view this is a case where rule will have to be made absolute. It has been observed in the impugned order that certain questions were improperly asked in the sense that they pertained to nature of the contents of the statement made to the police. It is made clear that the reasoning given hereinabove would not permit the defence to ask the witness directly about the contents of the statement said to have been made to the police officer. I am informed that the evidence of some of the witnesses in respect of whose evidence questions were disallowed, has been already completed. I am further informed that this application was moved principally because the defence may face similar difficulty in the recording of evidence yet to come. In view of the closing of the evidence of the said witnesses, it will be open to the defence to apply for recall of those witnessses and if any such application is made, the same may be dispose off on merits. Rule is made absolute accordingly and the the petition is disposed off. (R. S. MOHITE, J.)

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4848 of 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 5th July 2010. Mr.R.R.Sonawane for the petitioner. P.C. : Issue notice before admission to the respondents returnable on 9 August 2010. Notice shall indicate that the writ petition may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself. In addition to the court service, petitioner shall serve the respondents by private notice and file affidavit of service. Interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) to be operative till 9 August 2010 only. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 10: FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4848 of 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr.R.R.Sonawane for the petitioners. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 18th November 2010 P.C. : Office to verify and report service. S.O for four weeks. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 12: FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4848 of 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders None for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 20thDecember 2010 P.C. : None present for the petitioner when called. Writ Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 4848 of 2010 Smt. Sumanbai w/d. Of Damu Bodake & ors. ... Petitioners v/s. Manohar Narayan Bodake & anr. ... Respondents Mr. R.R. Sonawane for the petitioners. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- APRIL 27, 2011. P.C. Inspite of being duly served with notice for final disposal, none appears for the respondents. Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally. The petitioners by way of present petition challenges the order dated 10th November, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for setting aside no written-statement order. The respondents-plaintiffs have filed suit for partition. The petitioner no. 1 is the wife of deceased brother of the plaintiffs whereas no. 2 and 3 are the children of the petitioner no. 1. Respondents 4 and 5 are the sisters of the plaintiff. The suit summons came to be received by some of the defendants on 7th April, 2008 and by the others on 11th April, 2008. On being summoned the petitioners appeared on 3rd May, 2008 and thereafter from time to time on 26th June, 2008 and 4th July, 2008 file an application for grant of time to file written-statement. The same were granted. On the next date i.e.. 5th August, 2008, the written-statement was filed. However, since it was brought to the notice of the plaintiffs that the written-statement was filed after the period of 90 days, the application was filed on 15th September, 2008 below exhibit 19 for condonation of delay. The same was rejected on 15th October, 2008. As such the present application came to be filed for setting aside no written statement order. The parties are closely related to each other. The suit is for partition. It appears from the record that the applications filed by the present petitioner for adjournment, so as to enable them to file written-statement were granted and as such the written statement was filed beyond the period of 90 days. The delay is of 30 days. The petitioner no. 1 is the widow and no. 2 and 3 are her sons taking education whereas other petitioners are married sisters of the plaintiff who are residing at far away places. Taking into consideration these aspects of the matter and particularly that the learned trial Judge himself has granted adjournment to the petitioners to file written-statement, I am inclined to allow the petition. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (B.R. GAVAI, J)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE. WRIT PETITION NO. 4961 OF 2006 ordersOrders. or directions and Registrar's orders. OfficeCourt's Notes, Office Memorada or Judge's Shri Sachin Manale for the petitioner None for the Respondent. CORAM; V.G.PALSHIKAR Acg.C.J.& V.M.KANADE, J. DTAED: 8TH AUGUST, 2006. P.C. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the respondent to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. His claim was rejected on the ground that the disease for which the petitioner's father retired was not the one of a serious nature. Hence appointment on compassionate ground cannot be granted. We see no fault in the reasoning. Hence petition is rejected. ...

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2358 OF 2021 Vikas Vitthal Ghurup .....Petitioner Vs. The State Of Maharashtra .....Respondent None for the Petitioner. Ms. M.H. Mhatre APP, for the Respondent-State. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. DATE : $13^{text{th}}$ JANUARY, 2023. P.C.:- ssm Ms Mhatre, learned APP on instructions from the Superintendent, Nashik-Road Central Prison, Nashik submitted that, subsequent to the rejection of the Application dated 20 th August 2018 for furlough leave filed by the Petitioner, he was released on COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency Parole Leave on 23 rd August, 2021and has reported back to the Jail Authority on 20 th May, 2022. That, the Petitioner was also released on furlough leave from 10 th June, 2021 to 9 th July, 2021 and 10 th October, 2021 to 8 th November, 2022. That, the Petitioner has reported back to the Jail Authority within stipulated period. In view of the above, present Petition has become infructuous and is accordingly disposed off. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.) 1/1

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6590 OF 2017 M/s. Ashirwad Nice Developers ....Petitioner V/S Mr. Chotelal Chunilal Yadav ....Respondent CORAM : B.P. COLABAWALLA, J DATE : 28th June, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is stand over to 07/07/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6590 OF 2017 M/s. Ashirwad Nice Developers ....Petitioner V/S Mr. Chotelal Chunilal Yadav ....Respondent CORAM : B.P. COLABAWALLA, J DATE : 7th July, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of tim, stand over to 22/08/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: 904.wp.6590.17 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6590 OF 2017 M/s ASHIRWAD NICE Developers ..Petitioner Vs. Mr Chotelal Chunilal Yadav ..Respondent Mr. Ranjit Bhonsale i/b Rakesh Agrawal, for the Petitioner. CORAM :- B. P. COLABAWALLA, J. DATE :- JULY 19, 2017. P. C.: The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this Writ Petition with liberty to canvas all contentions before the Trial Court. Leave is granted. 2 The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed. ( B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.754 OF 2010 Madhukar Narayan Sali .. Petitioner versus Arjundas Sattaramdas Banga & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Pankaj J. Das for the petitioner. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 4th February 2010. P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The learned counsel is not disputing that the clause (h-a) of clause (iv) of section 6 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 is applicable. He, however, pointed out that the two sale deeds which are under challenge relate to the same suit property. He submitted that assuming that market value of the suit property is Rs. 11,00,000/-, the petitioner is ready and willing to pay Court fees on the said amount. His submission is that under clause (h-a) Court fee is leviable on the value of the property and therefore, merely because there is a challenge to the two sale deeds, the petitioner is not liable to pay Court fees on the market value mentioned in both the sale deeds in respect of the same property. He invited my attention to paragraph 3 of the impugned order which requires the petitioner to pay Court fees on a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- which according to the petitioner is much more than the value of the property contemplated by clause (h-a). Issue notice to the respondents for final disposal at admission stage returnable on 5th March 2010. Hamdast allowed. Till the next date, the plaint shall not be rejected on the ground of non-compliance with the impugned order. Private service is also permitted. (A.S.OKA,J)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.754 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Pankaj J. Das for petitioner. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 5th March 2010 PC :- 1. Await service till 12th April 2010. If affidavit of service of private notice is not filed on or before 8th April 2010, the petition will stand dismissed for non prosecution without further reference to the Court. Ad-interim relief granted earlier is extended till next date. (A.S.OKA, J.) mst

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET WRIT PETITION NO.754 OF 2010 1 ............................................................. Office Notes,Office memorandum of Coram, appearances,Court's Court's or orders or directions Judge's orders & Registrar's orders. ............................................................. Mr.Pankaj Das for the petitioner None for the respondents CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. DATE : APRIL 8,2010 P.C.: . Not on board. Taken on board. 1 Petition to come up on board on 12th April 2010 which is the scheduled date. 2 Till next date, the conditional order will not operate. JUDGE ssp

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 754 of 2010 Madhukar Narayan Sali ...Petitioner v/s. Arjundas Sattaramdas Banga & ors. ..Respondents Mr. Pankaj J. Das for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Chandnani for respondents 5-8. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- FEBRUARY 25, 2011. P.C. The Petitioner to take steps to serve the unserved Respondents 2 and 3 within a period of four weeks from today, failing which petition to stand dismissed for non-prosecution, without further reference to the Court. If steps are taken in time, place the matter on 25th March, 2011. (B.R. GAVAI, J)