All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1015 OF 2011 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Sachin Patil i/b Mr. Manoj A. Patil for the petitioner. Mr. Lalit Jain for respondent no.1B. Mr. Bipin Joshi for respondent no.2. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 P.C. : Colleague of Mr. Manoj Patil, advocate for the petitioner, prays for an adjournment on the ground that Mr. Patil is ill. S.O. for a week. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 31: Ingale FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1014 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1015 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1016 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1017 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr.Sandeep K.Shinde a/w Mr.A.B.Vagyani i/b Mr.Manoj A.Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.R.D.Mishra, Advocate for the Respondents No. 1A to 1B. Mr.Bipin Joshi, Advocate for Respondents No. 3 & 4. CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 12th February, 2014 P.C. . Heard Mr.Sandeep K.Shinde, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.D.Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1A to 1B and Mr.Bipin Joshi, learned Counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4. Since the matters are to be disposed of finally at the state of admission as per order dated 27/04/2011, call for record and proceedings of the case telephonically. The petitioner will file copies of i) plaint ii) report of the court Commissioner and iii) evidence led by the plaintiffs in all the suits and serve the copies in advance on the other side. List the petitions for admission on 26/02/2014 at 3.00 p.m. The parties are put to notice that subject to the time constraint and convenience of the Court, the petitions may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)

Order - Status 34: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1014 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1015 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1016 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1017 OF 2011 GULAMBHAI VALIBHAI RAJE )...PETITIONER V/s. SURESH KALYAJI BHAGAT (since deceased) ) JAYA SURESH BHAGAT AND ORS. )...RESPONDENTS Mr.Ashish P. Pawar i/b. Mr.Manoj A. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Vijay R. Dubey, Advocate for Respondents Nos.1A & 1B. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATE : 2 nd APRIL, 2014. P.C. : 1 Stand over by Two Weeks, to enable the petitioner to file compilation, pursuant to the order dated 27th April 2011. The counsel for Respondents nos.1A & 1B states that Respondent no.1B died on 23rd March 2014. Petitioner to take the suitable steps. (SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J.)

Order - Status 38: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1014 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1015 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1016 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1017 OF 2011 .... .... Gulambhai Valibhai Raje ..Petitioner Vs. Suresh Kalyani Bhagat (Since Deceased) Through L.Rs. And Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Ashish Pawar, Advocate i/b Manoj Patil for Petitioner. Mr. R.D. Mishra, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1A to 1B. Mr. Sachin Pawar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. CORAM : N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 24 MARCH 2015 P.C.: The learned Counsel for petitioner states that Respondent No.1.B. has expired and seeks time to take necessary steps in that regard. At his request, S.O. to 7 April 2015. [N.M. JAMDAR, J.] S.S.DESHPANDE 1 / 1

Order - Status 41: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1014 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1015 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1016 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1017 OF 2011 Gulambhai, Son of Valibhai Raje. ] … Petitioner Versus Suresh Kalyanji Bhagat (Since Deceased) ] through legal heirs ] 1A Smt. Jaya Suresh Bhagat and Ors. ] … Respondent Mr. Gulambhai Valibhai Raje, Petitioner present in person. Mr. Manoj A. Patil for Petitioner. Mr. V. R. Dubey for Respondent Nos.1A and Ab. CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : JULY 07, 2015 P. C. : Mr. Gulambhai Valibhai Raje, Petitioner, appears in person and states that his Advocate is unwell and therefore unable to attend the Court. The record reveals that this matter has been taken up for consideration no less than 54 times. There is an interim order, which affects the Respondents. Nevertheless, at the request of Mr. Gulambhai Valibhai Raje, stand over to 15/07/2015. It is made clear that in case, the Counsel for the Petitioner is not present and does not proceed with the matter on the next occasion, the appropriate orders shall be made, including orders for dismissal of this petition for nonprosecution. (M. S. SONAK, J.)

Order - Status 55: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1014 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1015 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1016 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1017 OF 2011 Gulambhai Valibhai Raje … Petitioner Vs. Suresh Kalyanji Bhagat (decd) though LRs Jaya Suresh Bhagat and others … Respondents Mr. Manoj A. Patil for Petitioner in all the Petitions. Mr. Sachin Pawar for Respondents No.3 and 4 in all the Petitions. CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 P.C. : Heard Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for petitioner and Mr. Pawar, learned Counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 in all the Petitions at length. By these Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner, hereinafter referred to as 'defendant', has challenged - (i) the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2003 passed by the learned Judge, presiding over Court Room No.8 of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai in R.A.E. Suit No.480/857 of 2002 as also (ii) the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2010 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court in Appeal No.712 of 2007. By these orders, the Courts below decreed the Suit instituted by original plaintiff and directed the defendants to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of Shop No.1 known as "Hotel Cafe Aaram" situate at plot No.212, Vinod Mahal, Worli Market, Worli, Mumbai 400 018 (for short 'suit premises') to the plaintiff. Defendants have also challenged the judgment and order dated 29.01.2011 passed by the learned trial Judge in Miscellaneous Application No.959 of 2010. By that order, the learned trial Judge allowed the application filed by Vinod Kalyanji Bhagat and Tanuja Bhagat filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'C.P.C.') and deleted the direction given by the Courts below to the defendants to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. By order dated 27.02.2003, the learned trial Judge decreed the Suit ex-parte after observing that all the defendants were served with the writ of summons. Defendant No.3 remained absent. Defendants No.1 and 2 engaged Counsel to file written statement on record, but failed to file written statement. In short, defendants did not participate in the trial, despite service of writ of summons. Plaintiff filed affidavit of evidence as also produced documents. While decreeing the Suit, the learned trial Judge observed that plaintiff's evidence remained unchallenged as the defendants chose not to contest the Suit. After considering the documents on record including the Court Commissioner's report, the learned trial Judge decreed the Suit ex-parte. Defendants took out Miscellaneous Notice No.247 of 2004 under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The notice was dismissed on 06.07.2004 by the trial Court. Aggrieved by that order, defendants preferred appeal, which was dismissed on 16.03.2006. Aggrieved by these decisions, defendants instituted four Petitions in this Court. All the Petitions were disposed of as not pressed on 25.01.2007. The order passed by this Court reads thus, " Mr.M.P.Vashi for the petitioners. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED: 25TH JANUARY, 2007 P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr.Vashi, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the four petitions submits that he has instructions not to press the writ petitions and seeks liberty to challenge the judgment and decree dated 27th February, 2003 in the appeals before the appropriate court. The writ petitions are disposed of as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. The petitioners to file appeals within four weeks from today. If the appeals are filed, same may be considered on merits in accordance with law. All contentions are kept open. The writ petitions are disposed of." In pursuance of the liberty granted by this Court, defendants preferred substantive appeals under Section 96 of C.P.C. The appeals preferred by the defendants were dismissed on 30.10.2010. After the appeals were disposed of, application under Section 152, as noted earlier, was made out for deleting the direction to handover possession. That application was allowed. It is against the trial Court's and appellate Court's judgment and decree as also order passed in an application under Section 152 of C.P.C., defendant has instituted these Petitions. In support of these Petitions, Mr. Patil strenuously contended that the defendants were not given opportunity to participate and contest the Suit. The learned trial Judge relied upon the Commissioner's report. The learned trial Judge was not justified in relying only upon the Commissioner's report and decreeing the Suit. As the defendants were not given opportunity to contest the Suit, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside thereby permitting defendants to file written statement and also cross-examine plaintiff's witness and lead their evidence. On merits, Mr. Patil submitted that the Courts below were not justified in passing the decree on the ground that defendants No.1 and 2 have carried out additions and alterations of permanent nature and that, defendants No.1 and 2 have unlawfully sublet the suit premises in favour of defendant No.3. As far as the order passed in an application under Section 152 of C.P.C. is concerned, he submitted that none of the parties to the proceedings filed application under Section 152. Application was filed by Vinod Kalyanji Bhagat and Tanuja Bhagat, who were not party to the proceedings. The learned trial Judge was, therefore, not justified in entertaining their application. On the other hand, Mr. Pawar supported the impugned orders. He submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.1 died on 30.06.2008 leaving behind, Hitesh Suresh Bhagat (son) and Maniben Kalyanji Bhagat (mother). Advocate for respondent No.1, therefore, addressed a letter to the petitioners, who were the appellants before the appellate Court for amending the appeal memo and bringing on record Maniben Kalyanji Bhagat, mother of respondent No.1 - plaintiff (since deceased). However, petitioners did not suitably amend the appeal memo. He further submitted that Tanuja is the grand-daughter of Maniben and niece of respondent No.1 Suresh Kalyanji Bhagat. Vinod is the real brother of respondent No.1 – Suresh Bhagat. He also relied upon Section 152 of C.P.C. to contend that Court has power to correct clerical mistake on its own motion or on the application made by any of the parties to the proceedings. He submitted that in fact from the record, it would be evident that decree was executed and possession was obtained on 22.03.2004, and therefore, the direction issued by the Courts below against the defendants to handover possession was required to be deleted. He submitted that even in the order dated 27.04.2011, while issuing injunction restraining respondents from creating third party rights or inducting any third party, this Court noted that decree has already been executed and the respondents have taken possession. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. I have also perused the material on record. As noted earlier, respondent No.1 had instituted Suit against defendants for recovery of possession of the suit premises. Perusal of the trial Court's order dated 22.02.2003 shows that defendants were duly served with the writ of summons. Though defendants No.1 and 2 engaged Counsel to file written statement, they did not file written statement. Defendant No.3 remained absent. Thus, despite service of suit summons on defendants, they chose to remain absent. During the pendency of the Suit, original plaintiff took out interim notice for appointment of the Court Commissioner. Court Commissioner visited the suit premises after giving notices to the defendants and after inspection, submitted a report along with photographs. After considering the plaintiff's evidence together with documents as also Commissioner's report and after recording that defendants chose not to contest the Suit, the learned trial Judge observed that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff remained unchallenged and accordingly, decreed the Suit. Defendants filed application under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. for setting aside ex-parte decree. As noted earlier, Order 9, Rule 13 application was rejected by the learned trial Judge on 06.07.2004. Appeal preferred therefrom was also dismissed on 16.03.2006. Though defendants instituted four Petitions in this Court challenging these orders, they did not press Writ Petitions and Petitions were disposed of on 25.01.2007. I have already extracted the order dated 25.01.2007. Perusal of the order shows that while giving liberty to the defendants to file appeal, this Court directed that the same shall be considered on merits in accordance with law. Mr. Patil submitted that the impugned decrees passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside as no opportunity was given to the defendants to participate and contest the Suit. It is not possible to accept this submission. In the first place, defendants were duly served with the suit summons. Despite that, they chose not to participate in those proceedings. Secondly, against the ex-parte decree, defendant has as many as 4 options available, namely, (i) filing of application under Order 9, Rule 13; (ii) filing of substantive appeal under Section 96; (iii) filing of Review Petition and lastly, (iv) filing of Suit on the ground that decree was obtained by playing fraud upon the Court. The proceedings filed by the defendants under Order 9, Rule 13 were decided against the defendants with liberty to file substantive appeal under Section 96. In the substantive appeal, defendants have to challenge the decree passed by the trial Court on merits. In other words, in the substantive appeal, defendants cannot be permitted to agitate the points which are available in proceedings under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. In view thereof, the Court has to proceed to decide the appeal on its own merits and not on the grounds available for setting aside ex-parte decree under Order 9, Rule 13. In view thereof, it is not possible to accept the submission advanced by Mr. Patil that the impugned decrees are liable to be set aside for giving opportunity thereby restoring the Suits with permission to the defendants to file written statement and cross examine plaintiff's witness and lead evidence in support of their case. As far as merits of the case are concerned, the Courts below have considered the fact that the evidence of the plaintiff remained unchallenged. In view thereof, no fault can be found in the decrees passed by the Courts below. That brings me to the contention advanced by Mr. Patil that application under Section 152 was made by persons, who were not parties to the proceedings. Section 152 of C.P.C. reads thus, 6/8 "152. Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders.- Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. (emphasis supplied) " Mr. Pawar submitted that Maniben died executing Will and appointed Tanuja Bhagat as Executrix. As far as Hitesh Suresh Bhagat is concerned, though he was brought on record, he was arrested in MCOCA case and died. In fact perusal of record shows that on behalf of the original plaintiff, letter dated 15.09.2008 was addressed to the Advocate for defendants for bringing on record Maniben Bhagat, mother of original plaintiff and Hitesh, son of original plaintiff. Vinod is the real brother of original plaintiff – Suresh Bhagat and Tanuja is the grand-daughter of Maniben Bhagat and is also Executrix. In view thereof, it cannot be said that they are totally strangers to the lis between the parties. That apart, Section 152 enables the Court to exercise its power suo motu for correcting any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. While allowing the application under Section 152, Court has noted that decree was executed on 22.03.2004. This is also evident from - (i) paragraph 5 of the application dated 02.04.2004 wherein defendants No.1 and 2 have stated that possession of the suit premises was forcibly taken on 22.03.2004; (ii) paragraphs 22 and 33 of the trial Court's order dated 06.07.2004 dismissing notice under Order 9, Rule 13. In paragraph 22, the learned trial Judge has noted the submission advanced on behalf of the plaintiffs that the decree was executed on 22.03.2004. In paragraph 33, the learned trial Judge noted that the decree was executed on 22.03.2004, after passing two years. Thereafter, plaintiff has handed over the possession to Mr. Hira Chauhan and Mr. Rahul D. Jadhav by executing leave and licence agreement in their favour on 23.03.2004. Thus, from the record, it is evident that decree was executed and possession was obtained on 22.03.2004. In view thereof, I do not find that the trial Court has committed mistake in deleting the direction issued to the defendants to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. Hence, no case is made out for invocation of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitions fail and the same are dismissed. At this stage, Mr. Patil orally applies for continuation of the adinterim order dated 27.04.2011 for a period of 12 weeks from today. He further assures that petitioner will not apply for further extension. Mr. Pawar opposes this application. Having regard to the fact that the interim order is operating from 27.04.2011 as also having due regard to the fact that the petitioner intends to challenge this order in the higher Court, I find that the request made by Mr. Patil is reasonable. In view thereof, notwithstanding dismissal of the Petitions, interim order dated 27.04.2011 shall remain in force for a period of 12 weeks from today with express understanding that petitioner will not apply for further extension. Order accordingly. (R. G. KETKAR, J.) Minal Parab

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3800 OF 2012 Smt. Lalita Atmaprakash Rajpal & Anr. ..Petitioners. Versus Jitendrasingh R. Kushawaha and Others. ..Respondents. Mr. Motkari i/b Ms. Archana Khan for the Petitioner. Mr. Vaibhav A. Sugadare for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : August 23, 2012 . P. C. : Heard. The writ petition arises out of the proceedings under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. At the instance of Respondent, eviction decree is passed against the Petitioner by the learned trial Court on the ground of non user, nuisance, additions and alternations. The Petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court. The appeal is admitted and interim stay is also granted. In this appeal, the Respondent-landlord took out an application for direction to the Petitioner to deposit market rent of the suit premises. This application is allowed and the learned appellate Court directed the Petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month towards the compensation for the use and occupation of the suit premises. The area of the suit premises is 320 sq. ft., which is being used for residential purposes. The premises are situated at Crawford Market area, which is the busiest locality. The learned appellate Court considered the age and condition of the building in which the premises are situated and also took into consideration the locality of premises. The Court also considered the valuer's report and fixed the compensation at Rs.6,000/- per month. In my view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, compensation of Rs.6,000/- cannot said to be exorbitant. I do not find any merit in the petition and same is accordingly dismissed. At the request of learned counsel for the Petitioner, time to deposit arrears of compensation as per the impugned order, is extended by three months from today. (RANJIT MORE, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5203 OF 2011 Solapur Zilla Dekhrekh Sahakari Saunstha Maryaditt ..Petitioner V/s. Malkari Banappa Whanmane & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Surel Shah for the Petitioner CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 20TH AUGUST, 2011. P.C. :- 1 Heard Shri Surel Shah for the Petitioner. Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable in two weeks. Apart from the Court notice private service through Courier / Email / Registered post A.D. is permitted. Parties are put to notice that the Petition may be heard and disposed of finally at the admission stage. The Learned AGP waives service on behalf of Respondent No.2-District Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies. (R.M.Savant, J.)

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL AND CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : JULY 3, 2013 P.C. On account of paucity of time rest of the matters on Daily Board are adjourned to dates fixed as per the CMIS (Court Management Information System) which read as under : Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 14 30/07/2013 44,46 22/07/2013 49 TO 52 23/07/2013 54 TO 56 24/07/2013 57, 58 29/07/2013 59, 60 30/07/2013 61 31/07/2013 62 TO 66 07/08/2013 67 TO 76 12/08/2013 77 TO 96 13/08/2013 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. If there is any extreme urgency, the parties can get the papers produced before this Court. ( K.K. TATED, J )

Order - Status 25: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5203 OF 2011 Solapur Zilla Dekhrekh Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit ... Petitioner V/s. Malkari Banappa Whanmane & Ors. ... Respondents None for the Petitioner and Respondent. CORAM : K.K. TATED *, J. 7th August, 2013.* P.C. : Twice the matter is called out no one appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. Writ Petition is dismissed for default. (K.K. TATED, J.) katkam k

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents Mr. Sarwadnya Kadtane for Petitioners. Mr. S.S. Hulke, A.P.P. for Respondent-State No.1. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND SHIVKUMAR DIGE, JJ. DATE : 21st June 2023. P.C. : Issue notice to Respondent No.2, returnable on 2nd August 2023. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners is directed to supply spare copies of the Petition in the Registry within a period of two weeks from today. Stand over to 2nd August 2023. Till the next date, ad-interim relief in terms of prayer Clause (b). [ SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. ] [ A.S. GADKARI, J. ]

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharahstra & Anr. … Respondents NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Digitally signed by NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Date: 2023.08.07 11:07:36 +0530 Mr.Sarwadnya Kadtane a/w Mr.Yash Naik, for the Petitioners. Mr.S.S. Hulke, APP for Respondent-State. Mr.D.M. Thosar, for Respondent No.2. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI AND SHIVKUMAR DIGE, JJ. DATE : 02nd AUGUST 2023 P.C. : At the request of learned Advocate for Respondent No.2, stand over to 24th August 2023. Ad-interim relief if any, granted earlier, to continue till next date. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 8: Amol Diliprao Nawale Digitally signed by Amol Diliprao Nawale Date: 2023.09.04 17:50:38 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao & Anr. …Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents Mr. Sarwadnya Kadtane for the Petitioners. Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for the State. Mr. D. M. Thosar i/b. Thosar & Associates for the Respondent No.2 ____________________________________ ____________________________________ CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE & RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ. DATED : 31 st AUGUST, 2023 P.C.: Counsel for the Petitioners assures that the brother of the Petitioner is party to the D.V. Act proceeding and shall appear before the Magistrate Court at Belapur in D. V. Act Proceeding. Since the statement is made, on instructions, the same is accepted. It appears that earlier there was a settlement between the parties i.e., Respondent-Complainant and her husband. However, the settlement terms have not materialized. As we have heard respective counsel for sometime, we deem it appropriate to adjourn the matter to next week, as a last chance, so as to enable the brother of the Petitioner, who happened to be husband of the Respondent-Complainant to make an offer of one time alimony. Stand over to 7th September, 2023. Ad-interim relief if any, granted earlier, to continue till next date. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao & Anr. ..Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Sarwadnya Kadtane a/w Kanchan Phatak, for the Petitioners. Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for the Respondent/State. Mr. D. M. Thosar i/by Thosar & Associates, for the Respondent No.2. CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE & RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 7 th SEPTEMBER, 2023 P.C. If copy is not supplied to the counsel for the petitioners of reply within one week with an acknowledgment to be produced on record within said time, the defence of the respondent shall be struck of. Stand over to 5th October, 2023. Ad-interim relief, if any, to continue till then, only to the extent of the present petitioners. [RAJESH S. PATIL, J.] [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.] Digitally signed by BALAJI GOVINDRAO PANCHAL Date: 2023.09.08 12:27:37 BALAJI GOVINDRAO PANCHAL BGP. 1 of 1

Order - Status 12: BDP-SPS-TAC BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Digitally signed by BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2023.10.09 12:12:07 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao and Anr. ….Petitioners V/s The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …..Respondents --- Mr. Yash Naik i/b Sarwadnya Kadtane for the Petitioner. Mr. S.V. Gavand, APP for the Respondent/State. Mr. D.M. Thosar i/b Thosar & Associates for Respondent No.2. ---- CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE & N. R. BORKAR, JJ. DATE: OCTOBER 05, 2023 P.C.:- Stand over to 26.10.2023. Interim order to continue till the next date. ( N. R. BORKAR, J. ) ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

Order - Status 14: 31-WP-1995-2023.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao and another Petitioners WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao and another … Petitioners Versus • Mr. Sarwdnya Kadtane alongwith Mr. Akash Kotecha for the Petitioners. Mr. S.V. Gavand, APP for the State. Ms. Rupali Thosar instructed by Thosar and Associates for Respondent No.2. …...... CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE & N.R. BORKAR, JJ. DATED : 26 OCTOBER 2023 P.C. :- Both the parties assure that they shall be appearing before the Mediator Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, APP on 31 October 2023 at 2.30 p.m. The statement is accepted. List the Petition on 9 November 2023. ( N.R. BORKAR, J. ) ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. ) Kanchan P Dhuri 1 / 1

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao and anr. … Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and anr. … Respondents Mr. Sarwadnya Kadtane for the Petitioner. Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for the State. Ms. Rupali Thosar i/b Thosar and Associates for Respondent No. 2. …...... …...... CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE & N.R. BORKAR, JJ. DATED : 9 NOVEMBER 2023 P.C. :- As the mediation is in progress, stand over to 25 January 2024. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( N.R. BORKAR, J. ) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao & Anr. …..Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …..Respondents Mr. Sarwadnya S. Kadtane (through V.C.) for the Petitioners. Mr. Ashish I. Satpute, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State. A.P.I. Mr. Balasaheb Bhimraj Shinde, Rable Police Station present. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 5 th AUGUST 2024. P.C.:- Learned Advocate for the Petitioners on instructions submitted that, the process of mediation has failed and prayed that the Petition may be heard on merits. 1.1) At his request, stand over to 26th August 2024. Ad-interim relief, if any granted earlier, to continue till then. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (A. S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao And Anr. …..Petitioners Vs. The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. …..Respondents Mr. Sarwadnya Kadtane for the Petitioners. Mr. A.I. Satpute, APP, for Respondent No.1-State. None for the Respondent No.2. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND DR NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 29 th AUGUST, 2024. P.C.:- Despite service, none appears for the Respondent No.2. Stand over to 24th September 2024. Ad-interim relief, if any granted earlier, to continue till then. (DR NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.) NILESH SHIVGAN Digitally signed NILESH SHIVGAN Date: 2024.09.02 19:18:32 +0530

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents Mr. Yash Naik a/w Adv. Sarwadnya Kadtane and Mr. Shakti Kolekar for Petitioners. Mr. Ashish I. Satpute, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. D.M. Thosar i/b Thosar & Associates for Respondent No.2. P.S.I. Mr. Balaji Pawane, Rabale Police Station, Navi Mumbai, present. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : th 24 September 2024. P.C. : At the request of learned Advocate for Respondent No.2, stand over to 1st October 2024. Ad-interim relief, if any granted earlier, to continue till next date. ( DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. ) RAJESH VASANT Digitally signed by RAJESH VASANT CHITTEWAN CHITTEWAN Date: 2024.09.30 10:24:49 +0530

Order - Status 24: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao & Anr. ... Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. Sarwadnya Kadtane for Petitioners. Mr. Ashish I. Satpute, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. D.M. Thosar i/b Thosar & Associates for Respondent No.2. PSI Mr. Balaji Pawane, Rabale Police Station. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 3 rd October 2024. P.C. : Stand over to 24 th October 2024. 1.1) To be listed under the caption 'For Admission'. Ad-interim relief, if any granted earlier, to continue till next date. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.) RAJESH Digitally signed by RAJESH VASANT VASANT CHITTEWAN CHITTEWAN Date: 2024.10.08 10:48:40 +0530

Order - Status 27: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao & Anr. …..Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …..Respondents Mr. Sarwadnya Kadtane, for Petitioners. Mr. Ashish I. Satpute, APP, for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. D.M. Thosar, i/b Thosar & Advocates, for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL AND DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 24th OCTOBER 2024. P.C.:- This Writ Petition is filed for quashing of the F.I.R. bearing C.R.No. 9 of 2023 lodged at Rabale Police Station, Navi Mumbai on 4th January 2023 under Sections 323, 498-A, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The F.I.R. is lodged by the Respondent No.2 herein. The Petitioners are the younger brothers of her husband Gopal @ Anil. It is stated in her F.I.R. that she was married with Gopal on 21st April 2017. Her father had given her gold ornaments weighing 2.5 tola and Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cash to her husband's father. On further demands he has given 1.5 told of gold. He also gave household articles in the marriage. After the marriage, she started residing with her in-laws at village Ligdal, Taluka Amadpur, Post Telgaon, District Latur. The F.I.R. mentions that her mother-in-law did not allow her to use any article given by her father. Her husband had told her that she had no right to use those articles. She was not allowed to use Air Cooler. It is alleged that her mother-in-law did not give her sufficient food and used to make her to do all household work. It is further mentioned that Gopal's parents and both the Petitioners as well as Gopal himself suggested that the Informant and Gopal should stay at Udgir, Latur. Accordingly, she and Gopal started residing at Udgir, Latur. It is further alleged that Gopal used to ill-treat her and used to beat her. He was addicted to different vices. She became pregnant, but even then her mother-in-law and husband Gopal assaulted her. There is a general statement that because of the harassment of the family members of the husband, she had to undergo cesarean. Even at that time, Gopal did not spend any money. The F.I.R. thereafter mentions different instances particularly in respect of Gopal and his mother. There are only two references of both the Petitioners. At one instance, it is alleged that Gopal and the Petitioner No.2 Vikram had gone to their house at Udgir and had broken the iron gate and abused to her and her mother. She was also beaten up by them and then they had left. The other allegations are that her two children were sick, but then Gopal did not look after them. She called the Petitioner No.1 to inform him about this. At that time, he told her that he had no concern with informant and her children. These are the only two allegations against both the Petitioners. Otherwise the entire F.I.R. is about allegations against her husband including the allegations of his extramarital affair. We have heard Mr. Kadtane, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Satpute, learned APP for Respondent No.1-State and Mr. Thosar, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. With consent of the parties, the matter is decided finally at this stage. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that from the narration in the F.I.R. it is clear that the allegations against the Petitioners did not attract the ingredients of Section 498-A and other offences under which the F.I.R. is lodged. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 on the other hand relied on the F.I.R. which contains the specific instances attracting the ingredients of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the Petitioners along with his husband and mother-in-law harassed and ill-treated her. Learned APP produced investigation papers before us. Apart from the F.I.R., there is statement of the Informant's father, wherein he has mentioned the instances in which that particulars that gate was broken. However allegations against the Petitioners were only two references of Petitioner No.2 Vikram was that he was accompanying Gopal. It was alleged that for some time Informant's son was taken away and he was brought back within short time. Apart from that, there is absolutely no material against the present Petitioners. We have considered the F.I.R. and the statement of Informant's father. As we have observed, there is hardly any material against these two Petitioners. There are only general and omnibus allegations. There are no specific instances against the present Petitioners which were attracting the provisions of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. In fact, the F.I.R. mentions that at the instance of the Informant's in-laws, she and her husband Gopal had started residing separately at Udgir. It clearly mentions that the Petitioners were not even residing with the Informant and her husband Gopal. 4/5 The allegations against the present Petitioners are vague. Considering this discussion, the Petitioners have made out a case for quashing of the F.I.R. and the further proceedings. Hence, the following order: ORDER (i) The F.I.R. bearing C.R.No. 9 of 2023 lodged at Rabale Police Station, Navi Mumbai on 4th January 2023 is quashed and set aside qua the present Petitioners only. (ii) The Petition is accordingly disposed of. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1652 OF 2009 Girish Vasant Kolhe .... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Through Jail Shri A.S. Gadkari, APP, for the State. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED: SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 P.C: The petitioner is serving life imprisonment and has undergone more than five years of imprisonment. He applied for furlough leave. It appears that till date he has never been released on furlough. Furlough leave is to be granted as a matter of right. However, the State has power under Rule 4 of the relevant Rules to deny furlough to a convict on certain grounds. In the present case, furlough has been denied on the ground that the concerned police officer was of the view that if the petitioner is released, there would be danger to public peace. We have not found any material having been considered by the concerned police officer for coming to such a conclusion. It was merely an apprehension of the concerned police officer. For these reasons, we allow the petition; set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to release the petitioner on furlough leave on usual terms and conditions. The petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.13748 OF 2018 Vijesh K. Khimasia & Ors. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents --- Mr.P.J. Thorat i/by Mr.S.P.Thorat for the petitioner. Mr.S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for the respondent no.1-State. Mr.P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate and Ms.Manorama Mohanty i/by M/s.S.K. Srivastav & Co. for the respondent nos.2 and 3. CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. DATE : 2nd May 2018 P.C.: . Papers are allowed to be produced at 3.00 p.m. Mr.Thorat, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks liberty to withdraw this petition with liberty to file appropriate proceedings after election of managing body of the respondent no.2 is held on 6th May 2018. Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed. No order as to costs. R.D. DHANUKA, J.