All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1083 OF 2002 Gulab Shivsharanappa Nippani ...Petitioner vs. Smt.Tangemma ...Respondents Gulab Nippani Ms A.S.Malvankar for the Petitioner Ms M.M.Deshmukh,A.P.P. for State CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 15,2005 P.C.: Heard Advocate for the Petitioner. The Petitioner is the husband of the Respondent No.1. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the children of the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1. On the application made by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3, the learned Magistrate granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.300/ p.m. in favour of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. The Revision Applications preferred by the Petitioner and the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were heard together. The Revision Application preferred by the Petitioner was dismissed and the one preferred by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 was partly allowed by enhancing the maintenance amount to Rs.500/- p.m. each payable to the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. After having heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner I find no merit in the Petition. The Courts below have accepted the evidence of the Respondent No.1 and her witnesses and have come to the conclusion that the marriage of the Respondent No.1 with the Petitioner has been established. In so far as quantum of maintenance is concerned, on the basis of salary certificate it was found that gross salary of the Petitioner is Rs.11,767/- p.m. and even after deductions, he is getting Rs.5937/- p.m.. The total maintenance payable by the Petitioner is only Rs.1500/- p.m. Hence, no case is made out for interference. Petition is rejected. JUDGE

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5111 OF 2014 Shri Jeevan Krishna Thakre. … Petitioner. V/s. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Grampanchayat, Division Thane. … Respondents. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of appearances, R.M.Kolge for the petitioner. S.P.Thorat for respondent No.1. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND R.V.GHUGE, JJ. DATED : 9 th June 2014. P.C. : Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Issue notice to the respondents returnable after three weeks. Court's or Judge's orders In case the petitioner has not been relieved so far, by way of adinterim relief, we direct that the respondents shall maintain statusquo in respect of posting of the petitioner. (R.V.GHUGE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) Sanjay Nanoskar, P.S.

Order - Status 6: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5111 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders Registrar's orders None present. CORAM : SHRIKANT D.KULKARNI REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) Date : 30 June 2014 One week time is granted for payment of Bhatta. If Bhatta is paid within one week, issue notice to Respondents returnable within seven weeks from today. REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) RJ -I aap/mvm 26/06/2014

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5111 OF 2014 Shri Jeevan Krishna Thakre. ... Petitioner. V/s. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Thane. ... Respondent. Rajesh M. Kolge for the petitioner. Shankar P. Thorat with Karan Thorat for the respondent. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. DATED : 12th August 2014. P.C. : The petitioner has challenged his transfer order from Kalyan to Murbad. The petitioner's contention is that once the petitioner was transferred from tribal to nontribal area vide order dated 22nd August 2013 by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, there was no reason for the Zilla Parishad authority to transfer him again to the tribal area. Learned counsel submits that the transfer of the petitioner is against the policy adopted by the State in respect of transfer of employees to the tribal and nontribal ares. It is submitted that the petitioner's wife is also serving and therefore the policy of the Government that couple be placed at one station is not followed while transferring the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that this transfer order is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner and his family. It is made with malafide intention and against the policy of the State. The respondent State has filed affidavit of Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Thane. In paras 4, 5 and 6, the deponent has stated as under: "4. I further say that pursuant to the direction and order passed by this Hon'ble Court number of Thane Zilla Parishad employees have been transferred in the adiwasi area. Since right from beginning the present Petitioner did not take the experience in the adiwasi area he is transferred from Kalyan non adiwasi area, to village Panchayat Shirol Shahapur in the adiwasi area. The distance between Kalyan and Shahapur is about 30 km. and therefore there is no reason for the Petitioner to be aggrieved. The Petitioner is relying on the old government policy regarding the transfer order. And on the basis of the said policy the Petitioner is claiming that the Zilla Parishad employee should be in one place for a period of 10 years, however the said policy is changed by the recent government resolution dated 15.5.2014. Pursuant to the said resolution the period of 10 years is minimized and now the said period is from 3 to 5. Now it is compulsory for the employee to have a turn in the adiwasi area. In the year 2013 the Petitioners turn to go at adiwasi was to be implemented, however because of his request he was again shifted at Kalyan immediately and therefore the Petitioner cannot insist in one place. The Petitioner is also insisting that he should be transferred at the area and place where his wife is doing service at Ambernath, however at Ambernath no post is vacant for the Petitioner moreover the Petitioner already had done his service at Ambernath he was doing service for a period of fifteen years right from 12.4.90 till 13.7.2005. Therefore he is not entitled to be posted at Ambernath which is non adiwasi area. After the ambernath the Petitioner has done his duty at Kalyan, Bhiwandi in the non adiwasi area. And therefore it is obligatory on the part of the Petitioner to go at Adiwasi area and he should not insist again for the non adiwasi area. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner's service career shows that except some brief service in tribal area, he has served only in nontribal areas. Learned counsel submits that on the recommendation of the President of the Thane Zilla Parishad, petitioner's transfer order was cancelled. The policy of the Government is to transfer the employees to tribal areas so that they can provide services to the tribal areas. Learned counsel submits that the administration would, ultimately, suffer if this Court interferes in the transfer order of the petitioner passed by the administration in the larger interest of the tribal people. We have heard both parties and perused the record. We find that the petitioner, in his 15 years of service, has mostly served in nontribal areas and for a very brief period he served in tribal area. In the month of August 2013, when the petitioner was transferred to tribal area he approached the President of Thane Zilla Parishad and on the recommendations of the President his transfer order was cancelled and he was again transferred in nontribal area. The petitioner is discharging his duties as Block Development Officer. It is submitted that the petitioner was relieved from his duties from Kalyan in the month of May 2014. Thereafter the petitioner is on leave and some other officer is holding charge. It is unfortunate that the petitioner is not honouring the transfer order. The petitioner could have joined the transferred post without prejudice to his rights and subject to result of this petition. Taking over all view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this petition and interfere with the transfer order. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. In view of dismissal of petition, civil application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) Sanjay Nanoskar, P.S..

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 17th January, 2020 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 07/02/2020 . In case any ad-interim/interim relief is operating till today, the said order will continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar And Ors ....RESPONDENT for Petitioner for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 30th November, 2022 P.C. : Wrongly on board. Remove from the Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 11: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 439 OF 2022 Parekh Market Premises Co-op Ltd. ....APPLICANT V/S Shree Padmanabh Builders, Ghatkopar And Ors. ...RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh And Ors PETITIONER V/S Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar And Ors RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15545 OF 2022 Mr. Nirmal Madanlal Tater And Anr PETITIONER V/S Shri Padmanabh Builders And Ors RESPONDENT Mr. Amit Shroff a/w Ashna Shah i/by HARISH SHROFF AND CO for Petitioner Kishore D. Shah for Respondent No.1 & 2 Mr. Karl K. Shroff i/by Mr. Kalpesh Nansi Adv. for R. No. in wp No.15545/22 & Petioner in WP 11053/2019 Mr. Sachin Punde, Adv. for R. No. 6 & 7 in CRA & Petitioner in WP CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 23rd January, 2023 P.C. : S. O. to 06/02/2023 ( at 2.30 pm). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 439 OF 2022 Parekh Market Premises Co-op Ltd. ....APPLICANT V/S Shree Padmanabh Builders, Ghatkopar And Ors. ...RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15545 OF 2022 Mr. Nirmal Madanlal Tater And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Shri Padmanabh Builders And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 20th February, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 10/04/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.439 OF 2022 [Parekh Vs. Shree Padmanabh] WITH WRIT PETITION NO.15545 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.11053 OF 2019 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders. Mr. Amit Shroff, Advocate a/w. Ashna Shah i/b Harish Shroff & Co. for Applicant in CRA/439/2022. Mr. Sachin S. Punde, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP/15545/2022. Mr. Karl K. Shroff, Advocate i/b. Kalpesh J. Nansi for the Petitioner in WP/11053/2019. Mr.V.V. Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate a/w. K.D. Shah for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in all matters. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 25th APRIL, 2023 P.C.: Due to paucity of time, both sides agree that the matters can be heard post-vacation. By way of interim arrangement, learned counsel of both sides agree that the affidavit-in-evidence can be filed in the suit, however, the cross-examinations may not be conducted till these matters are heard by this Court on the next occasion. Therefore, this arrangement shall continue till the next date of listing before this Court. Stand over to 25.7.2023. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) Deshmane (PS)

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 439 OF 2022 Parekh Market Premises Co-op Ltd. ...Applicant. Versus Shree Padmanabh Builders, Ghatkopar & Ors. ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15545 OF 2022 Nirmal Madanlal Tater & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus Padmanabh Builders & Ors. ...Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh & Ors. ...Petitioner. Versus Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar & Ors. ...Respondent. Mr. Amit Shroff i/b Harish Shroff and Co. for the applicant in CRA & respondent No.1 in WP 11053/2019. Mr. Kishore D. Shah for the respondent No. 1 & 2 in CRA and respondent no.1 in WP 11053/2019. Mr. Kalpesh Nansi for respondent No 3 & 5. in CRA & WP 15545/2022 & Petitioner in WP 11053/2019. Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : July 25, 2023. P. C. : Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on production board. $Patil_{SR}$ 1 of 2 Application has been moved seeking extension of ad-interim relief granted vide order dated 25th April 2023. List the matter on 31st July 2023 . Interim arrangement recorded in the order dated 25th April 2023 to continue till the next date. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Amit Shroff i/b Mr. Kalpesh Nansi for the Petitioners. Mr. Virendra V. Tulzapurkar i/b Mr. Kishore D. Shah for Respondent No. 1. Ms. Ashna Shah i/b Mr. Harish Shroff & Co. for Respondent No.4. —————— —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : July 31, 2023. P. C. : Heard. The challenge in the Petition is to the order dated 24th April 2019 allowing the Notice of Motion No. 3320 of 2015 preferred by the original Respondent No. 1 seeking recall of the order dated 15th July, 2015. Heard Mr. Amit Shroff, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Dr. Virendra V. Tulzapurkar, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 and Ms. Ashna Shah, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4. Mr. Shroff, Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submit that the Petitioners are one of the unit holders of first floor of the property known as Parekh Market and would submit that in view of termination of the Power of Attorney by Respondent No. 2 on 7th February, 2000 the Respondent No. 1 does not acquire any right to continue with the proceeding. He would further submit that the termination was challenged by the Respondent No. 1 which was taken right up to Apex Court in an application filed by Respondent No. 2 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and has been held to be time barred. He has taken to this Court to the order 24th November, 2006 passed by the Single Judge of this Court holding that the counter claim which was filed on 9th August, 2004 will not be maintainable in terms of the provisions of the Limitation Act. He would further submit that the Power of Attorney was in respect of the tenants who were occupying part of the property admeasuring 2455 sq. ft. and has nothing to do with the Respondent No. 4 society in which the Petitioners are one of the Unit holders. He has invited the attention of this Court to the Power of Attorney dated 8th June, 1990 which is at page No. 204 of the Petition and would submit that the proceedings in question have been instituted on the basis of this Power of Attorney. He would submit that the power which was given under the Power of Attorney was to file against the occupants of the structures which forms part of the portion of land admeasuring 2455 sq. ft. He would further submit that the said Power of Attorney having been terminated which challenge has failed right up to Apex court, Respondent No. 1 does not acquire any right to act on behalf of Respondent No. 2. He would further contend that the agreement which was executed with the unit holders was on 6th February, 1987 which was prior to the execution of the Power of Attorney. He would further urge that the Trial Court while allowing the Notice of Motion has failed to take into consideration the orders of the Single Judge of this Court as well as the Apex Court which upheld that the counter claim filed was barred by limitation. He would urge that as the challenge to the termination of the Power of Attorney has failed, the Power of Attorney cannot be said to be subsisting. He would further assail the finding of the Trial Court on the ground that the Trial Court has erroneously recorded that the affidavits filed by Defendant Nos. 2 to 4, no ground has been taken that the Power of Attorney concerned only the tenants and not the Defendant Nos. 2 to 4. He would further submit that the Trial Court has given specific findings in respect of the Power of Attorney being an irrevocable Power of Attorney was given for consideration coupled with interest. He would urge that by these findings, the challenge if any, to the Power of Attorney has been foreclosed by the Trial Court. Per contra, Dr. Virendra Tuljapurkar, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent-Plaintiff submits that the Notice of Motion was taken out by the Respondent for setting aside the order dated 15th July, 2015 listing the matter for dismissal under Order 39 Rule 11 of the CPC. He would further contend that the entire issue which was for consideration before the Trial Court was the application of provisions of Order 39 Rule 11 of the CPC and it is in that context, that the Trial Court has examined the Power of Attorney and has held that the provisions of Order 39 Rule 11 is not attracted in the present case. He would further submit that the order dated 15th July, 2015 was passed as the Trial Court had directed the original Plaintiff to appear in the Court. He would submit that the original Plaintiff, if required, will appear before the Court and in the present case, the only inquiry is the impugned order permitting recall of order of dismissal. He would further urge that in exercise to the power under Article 227, this Court may not go into the merits of an interlocutory order. Considered the submissions and perused the papers. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has made submissions as regards the validity of the Power of Attorneys which have been executed by the Respondent No. 2 in favour of Respondent No. 1. Perusal of the impugned order dated 24th April, 2019 discloses that the application was moved seeking recall of the order dated 15th July, 2015 keeping the matter for dismissal for non compliance of the order directing presence of the original Plaintiff by invoking the powers under Order 39 Rule 11 of the CPC. The Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion seeking recall of the order contends that there was a development agreement entered into in favour of the Respondent No. 1 and the possession was handed over for valuable consideration on a partly developed property and building was constructed thereon and various tenements were sold. The contention advanced was that Respondent No. 1 was granted irrevocable Power of Attorney as well as other Power of Attorney as required for development of the said properties and as such, considering the provisions of section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 the Power of Attorney is a power coupled with interest and hence, irrevocable. Apart from the prayer of seeking recall of the order an alternate prayer was sought that the Applicant be substituted in place of the Plaintiff under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which was not allowed and only the relief of recall of the order of dismissal was sought. It is in the context of the contentions taken up by the Respondent No. 1 for the purpose of assailing the order of dismissal that the Trial Court has gone into the issue as to whether the Power of Attorney is a power coupled with interest. After observing the provisions of section 2022 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 the Court has held that at this stage the Defendant No. 2 to 4 cannot challenge the validity of the power of Attorney which would otherwise be the matter in issue and can only be decided when both the parties will get an opportunity to lead evidence into that effect. The order of the Trial Court is clear in paragraph No. 10 that the issue which was being considered by the Trial Court was only the order dated 15th July, 2015 listing the matter for dismissal by invoking the provisions under Order 39 Rule 11 which according to the Trial Court was not applicable in the given circumstances. The Trial Court specifically observed that the documents place on record by the parties are subject matter of the evidence and therefore, for continuation of the suit on merits, the order dated 15th July, 2015 needs to be recalled and the suit needs to be proceeded on merits. In my view upon reading of the impugned order 24th April, 2019 it cannot be said that by the said order, the Trial Court has conclusively held that the Power of Attorneys which have been pressed into service by the Respondent No. 1 are irrevocable Power of Attorney given for consideration coupled with interest. On the contrary it appears that the Trial Court has held that the documents which are placed are the subject matter of evidence and only for the purpose of continuation of the suit on merits, at that stage, the order dated 15th July, 2015 was recalled. Considering that the impugned order only recalls the order of dismissal dated 15th July, 2015 no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition being devoid of merits stand dismissed. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Order - Status 11: 28.wp.1806-09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1806 OF 2009 Jitendra Narayanbhai Pokar. ..Petitioner. Versus Mr.Prakash Mavani and others. ..Respondents. Mr.Diwakar Dwivedi, Advocate i/b. Mr.Pravin Singhal, Advocate for the petitioner. Dr.F.R. Shaikh, A.P.P., for the Respondent - State. ... ... CORAM : 1: BILAL NAZKI AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 11TH AUGUST, 2009. P.C. :- Learned Advocate for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the Petition. Hence, Petition is allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed as such. [BILAL NAZKI,J.] [A.R.JOSHI,J.]

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6025 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Order or Directions and Registrar's Orders ------------------------------------------------------------------- ¦ Court's or Judge's ¦ Orders ¦ ¦ Mr.Arshad Shaikh with Mr.R.M.Pethe for the petitioner. Mr.N.M. Ganaji for Respondent No.2. Mr.Farhan Dubash i/by Naik Naik Iyer & Co. for Respondent No.3. Mr.Vishal Kanade i/by M/s. V. Deshpande for Resp.No.4. CORAM: SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 21ST SEPT., 2007. P.C.: 1. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are represented by their respective advocates. 2. The advocate for the petitioner to take steps to serve respondent No.1 within four weeks from today. 3. S.O. for four weeks. $ldots ldots$

Order - Status 8: vss : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6025 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda¦ Court's or Judge's of Coram, appearances, Court's¦ Orders Order or Directions and ¦ Registrar's Orders ¦ ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Arshad Shaikh with R.M. Pethe for the Petitioner Mr.Vishal Kanade for Respondent No.4 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: OCTOBER 19, 2007 P.C.: . Mr.Pethe for the petitioner seeks leave to amend the cause title by substituting the address of Respondent No.1. Leave granted. Amendments to be carried out within a week from today. Issue fresh notice to Respondent NO.1 on the amended address returnable in four weeks.

Order - Status 11: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6025 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3063 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's Memoranda of Coram, orders appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders ------------------------------------------------------ Mr. R.M. Pethe for petitioner. Mr.N.M. Ganaji for respondent no.2. Mr. Farhan Dubash i/by Naik Naik Iyer and co. for respondent no.3. Mr. Vishal Kanade i/by M/s.V. Deshpande for respondent no.4. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. 10/12/2007. P.C.: . Rule. . Respondent nos.2 to 4 waive service. . The learned Advocate for the petitioner is at liberty to serve the respondent no.1 by publishing a notice in an English daily published from Calcutta. The proof of such court within eight weeks. publication shall be placed before this . Rule be made returnable in the week commencing from 3rd March, 2008. . Civil Application No. 3063 of 2007 is disposed off accordingly. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)

Order - Status 14: ISM 1.wp.6025.07.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6025 OF 2007 Saifuddin Karachiwala ….PETITIONER V/s. The Indian Standard Metal Company Limited, & others …..RESPONDENTS Mr. R.M. Pethe, Advocate for the Petitioner. None for Respondent. CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE: JUNE 17, 2022. P.C.: On instructions, a motion is made by the Counsel for the petitioner for withdrawal of the Petition. Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. If the prayer for withdrawal of the amount is made, same be considered in accordance with law. [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]

Order - Status 9: Vasant Nanasaheb Mandlik .... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Shri D.G. Khamkar for the Petitioner. Shri D.P. Adsule, APP, for the State. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED: OCTOBER 6, 2009 P.C: The petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for life and according to him, he has served the sentence which he was required to serve. The Government also passed an order on 17-9-2009 ordering the immediate release of the petitioner, but he was not released. It is stated that while the petitioner was serving the sentence, he was released on parole during which he committed offences under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC. In both the offences he was given sentence of five years each which were directed to run consecutively. Therefore, the petitioner is now serving the sentence which he was awarded in the offence under Section 376. The petitioner wants to know as to when he completed the serving of sentence under Section 302 of the IPC and when the serving of the sentence under Section 376 commenced because, according to him, even if the said sentence is taken into consideration, he has served both the sentences. The Government to consider the matter and inform the petitioner within two weeks as to from which date the petitioner is serving the sentence under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)

Order - Status 5: 1 of 3 7-wp-1874-23 @ other mtrs. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1874 OF 2023 Zakir Ramzan Qureshi & Ors. ..Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1876 OF 2023 Danish Elyas Hingora ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1877 OF 2023 Zakir Ramzan Qureshi & Ors. ..Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1878 OF 2023 Zakir Ramzan Qureshi & Ors. ..Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1879 OF 2023 Danish Elyas Hingora ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Digitally signed by VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Date: 2023.06.07 14:48:25 +0530 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1880 OF 2023 Danish Elyas Hingora ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Ms. K. R. Shah for Petitioners in all W.Ps. Mr. N. B. Patil, APP for State/Respondent No.1 in WP/1874/23, WP/1877/23 and WP/1878/23. Mr. A. R. Patil, APP for State/Respondent No.1 in WP/1876/23, WP/1879/23 and WP/1880/23. __________ __________ CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 6 JUNE 2023 PC : Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that, she has an alternate remedy of approaching the Sessions Court challenging the order of issuance of process. She seeks liberty to withdraw these petitions and to approach the Sessions Court by way of filing revision applications against the impugned order by keeping all the contentions open. Her only concern is that, because of pendency of these petitions, the revision applications may be beyond the period of limitation. Since the petitioners have already filed these petitions before this Court, pendency of these petitions before this Court shall be taken into consideration by the Sessions Court if and when the revision applications are filed by the applicants challenging the order which is impugned in all these petitions, for the purpose of consideration of period of limitation. If such proceedings are filed, they shall be decided in accordance with law. With this observation and liberty, the petitions are allowed to be withdrawn and disposed of. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5235 OF 2012 Navjivan Co-op Housing Society Ltd ..Petitioners Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors .. Respondents Mr N.M.Sakhardande, i/b P.C.Kansara, Advocate, for the Petitioners. Ms M.S.Bane, AGP for respondent no.1. Mr Amar Matta-respondent no.2 in-person. CORAM : R.G.KETKAR,J. DATE : 22/06/2012 PC: Heard Mr N.M.Sakhardande, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms M.S.Bane, learned AGP for respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 in-person, at length. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly states that the issues raised in this petition were also raised in Writ Petition No.5232 of 2012. For the reasons recorded in the order disposing of Writ Petition No.5232 of 2012, this writ petition also fails and the same is dismissed. Respondent no.3 is directed to publish the final list of candidates including the name of the second respondent on or before 25.6.2012 and shall complete the election on or before 8.7.2012. All parties including respondent no.3 shall act on the authenticated copy of this order. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4843 OF 2005 R.K.Vidya Prasar Mandal & Anr. ... Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4844 OF 2005 Gautam Educational Trust & Anr. ... Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4845 OF 2005 Shethkari Shikshak Prasarak Mandal & Ors. ... Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4846 OF 2005 Oriental College of Engineering & Anr. ... Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents ….. ….. None for the Petitioners. Mr.R.S.Pawar, AGP for the Respondent/State. CORAM :- DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & G. S. KULKARNI, J. DATE :- MARCH 8, 2021 PC : 1 These Petitions have been notified as per the list of matters as received from the office of the learned Government Pleader to have become infructuous. As per the office notice dated 2nd March 2021, the Advocates for the petitioners/petitioners were called upon to give a praecipe in advance in case the petitions have not become infructuous. Such praecipe has not been received in regard to these petitions. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of as infructuous; however, with liberty to the petitioners to revive the petitions in case something survives. 2 Disposed of in the above terms. No costs. (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) Raju D. Gaikwad Digitally signed by Raju D. Gaikwad Date: 2021.03.08 21:08:43 +0530