All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3165 OF 2017 ................... Sundari Somnath Salian .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents .................... Mr. Sunil Karandikar for Petitioner. Mr. S.H.Kankal, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. None for Respondent No.5. CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 23, 2022. P.C. : Heard Mr.Karandikar, learned Advocate for Petitioner. By Order dated 25.05.2008, Tahasildar granted access of 16 sq.mtr. for road to the Petitioner with one pre-condition that Petitioner shall keep the said area open and not construct any compound on the same seeking exclusivity. It is submitted that Respondent No.5 society being aggrieved, challenged the above condition before the Collector. By Order dated 19.09.2008, Collector confirmed the Order of Tahasildar rejecting the said challenge. By order dated 14.10.2009, Additional Commissioner dismissed the revision. In second revision before the State, specifically pertaining to the said condition which emanated from the order of the Tahasildar, the State passed order cancelling the original allotment and grant of 16 sq.mtr. area for road by Tahasildar to the Petitioner. Prima-facie it is seen that the subject matter in appellate proceedings and revision proceedings was limited to the extent of challenge to the condition only i.e. restricting the constructions of compound by Petitioner. In that view of the matter cancelling the original allotment of the subject land to the Petitioner was never in dispute or the subject matter of challenge in Appeal proceedings or in the subsequent revision proceedings. In view of the above, issue notice to Respondents. In addition to service of notice through Court, Petitioner shall serve Respondents by any permissible mode of service and file affidavit of service with tangible proof thereof before the returnable date. Mr. Kankal waives notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Petitioner shall serve a copy of the order on Respondent No.5. In the meanwhile, impugned order dated 31.10.2014 shall stand stayed. Reply to be filed within four weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, to be filed within one week thereafter. Stand over to 11th January, 2023. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3165 OF 2017 Smt. Sundari Somnath Salian ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 11th January, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 15/02/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3165 OF 2017 Smt. Sundari Somnath Salian ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 15th February, 2023 P.C. : Mentioned out of turn. At the request of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Respondent, stand over to 21/02/2023. Ad-interim relief, if any, to continue till the next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: 1 of 7 2-wp-3165-17 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3165 OF 2017 Smt. Sundari Somnath Salian ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Sunil G. Karandikar for petitioner. Mr. Avinash H. Fatangare i/b. Archana S. Shelar for Respondent No.5. Mr. C. D. Mali, A.G.P. for the State/Respondent Nos.1 to 4. __________ __________ CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 10 MARCH 2023 PC : The petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 22/04/2014 passed by the Secretary and Special Executive Officer (Appeals) in the Revision Application S-30/2710/P.K.139/G-4 P.K.524(01)/2012/AVPU, as well as, the order dated 31/10/2014 rejecting the review of that particular order. The petitioner had requested for a road for accessing her plot at City Survey No.7754. The Tahsildar, Ambernath vide order dated 25/03/2008 directed that the plot admeasuring 16 Sq.mtr. from the plot No.81 owned by the respondent No.5 Society be allotted to the petitioner for a road accessing to her plot after depositing certain amount. That order was challenged by the respondent No.5 Society before the Collector, Thane. The said authority vide order dated 19/09/2008 rejected the objection raised by the society and upheld the order passed by the Tahsildar. However, vide Clause 3 of the said order dated 19/09/2008 it is clarified that the said portion could be used by the petitioner only for accessing her plot as a road to her plot. She was directed not to erect any compound around that particular portion. This particular clause of the Collector's order was challenged by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner (Konkan Division) Mumbai. That appeal was dismissed vide order dated 14/10/2009 and the order passed by the Collector was confirmed. In this particular appeal before the Additional Commissioner, the petitioner had challenged only the restriction on putting up a compound around that portion. There was, of course, no challenge by the petitioner for grant of that particular portion for her use. The petitioner thereafter filed the Revision U/s.257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966 (for short 'M.L.R.Code') 3 of 7 2-wp-3165-17 before the Government of Maharashtra. That Revision application was rejected vide order dated 22/04/2014. While rejecting that revision application, the Secretary and Special Executive Officer (Appeals) for Government of Maharashtra also set aside the orders dated 25/03/2008 passed by the Tahsildar, Ambernath, the order dated 19/09/2008 passed by the Collector, Thane and the order dated 14/10/2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Konkan Division) Mumbai. The petitioner then preferred a review application of that order before the same authority. That review was also dismissed. The petitioner in these circumstances has approached this court challenging the order passed by the Government of Maharashtra U/s.257 of the M.L.R. Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State Government exceeded the scope of revision application preferred by the petitioner. The Government could only have taken into consideration the objection raised by the petitioner and the contentions raised by the petitioner. It was not open for the 4 of 7 2-wp-3165-17 Government to have considered the legality or validity of the order passed by the Tahsildar, Ambernath, the Collector, Thane and the Additional Commissioner (Konkan Division) Mumbai. Therefore, prejudice is caused to the petitioner because she was not given notice that all these three orders would be set aside by the impugned order. He further submitted that the Revisional Authority had taken into consideration Section 143 of the M.L.R. Code, but the petitioner was not heard and in consonance of the principles of natural justice, she at least deserved hearing before any adverse order was passed in her own revision application. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.5 submitted that the said respondent had filed their written submissions before the revisional authority, therefore, the petitioner was very much aware of the stand taken by the society. Therefore, the petitioner was not taken by surprise when the order was passed by the revisional authority. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.5 relied on the Judgment passed by a Single Judge of this Court in the case of Pandurang Chandrabhan Bauche and another Vs. Jalindhar Sarandhar Tupe & Ors. 1 to contend that the powers U/s.143 of the M.L.R. Code could be used only in respect of an agricultural land and not for the lands which are situated within the city limits. I have considered these submissions and I have perused the impugned orders passed by the revisional authority. The revisional authority has referred to Section 143 of the M.L.R. Code and has observed that the Tahsildar does not have power to pass any order in respect of a road leading to a plot which was not an agricultural land. To that extent, I do not find any infirmity in that order. However, the fact remains that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to make her submissions. Therefore, only to that extent and in the interest of justice, the petitioner deserves some hearing before any adverse order was passed by the revisional authority in the petitioner's own revision application. In such a case, the petitioner could have come up with other factual aspects of the matter and some solution could have been found between the parties. Some workable consequential relief could have been considered. The Judgment relied on by learned counsel for the 1 2009 (3) Mh.L.J. 467 Respondent No.5 also supports the reasoning given by the revisional authority. Therefore, legally, I do not see that the revisional authority had committed any error. The only difficulty is that the petitioner was not heard when an adverse order was passed in her own revision application. She was not put to notice that such order was contemplated. Therefore, only because of that, I am inclined to remand back this revision proceeding before the revisional authority. Except for the power of the Tahsildar U/s.143 of the M.L.R. Code referred to herein above, the other contentions of the petitioner, as well as, of the respondent No.5 are left open. It is also necessary to take care of the consequences of cancellation of the order passed by the Tahsildar which can be decided by the revisional authority and for that purpose it is also necessary to remand back the revision application to the revisional authority. Hence, the following order: O R D E R i) The Writ Petition is allowed. ii) The Revision Application filed by the petitioner is remanded back to the Revisional Authority. iii) It is made clear that, all other contentions of both the parties, except with reference to Section 143 of the M.L.R. Code, are left open. iv) The Revision Application shall be decided within a period of three months from today. v) The Writ petition is disposed of. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Order - Status 4: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 6: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6628 OF 2022 Sudhir Sadashiv Jawale ••• Petitioner Versus District Collect, Pune & Ors. ••• Respondents Mr. Manoj Badgujar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA & MADHAV J. JAMDAR,JJ. DATED : JUNE 8, 2022 P.C. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is armed with a decree of civil Court. The suit for partition and separate possession was filed and the suit is decreed. The petitioner is awarded 1/5th share. The petitioner is not concerned with the loan availed by the present respondent No.6. The property in respect of which the decree is passed in favour of the petitioner is sought to be attached under the impugned order passed under Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. Notice to respondents returnable on 6 th July 2022. The learned AGP waives notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Till next date, the respondent shall not take further coercive steps regarding the share of the petitioner in CTS No.672 i.e. the suit property of Special Civil Suit No. 1727 of 1997 and decree dated $2^{nd}$ May 2008. (MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) Gaikwad RD

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6628 OF 2022 Sudhir Sadashiv Jawale ....PETITIONER V/S District Collector, Collectorate Office, Pune And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ DATE : 6th July, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 25/08/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6628 OF 2022 Sudhir Sadashiv Jawale ....PETITIONER V/S District Collector, Collectorate Office, Pune And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ DATE : 6th July, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 25/08/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: Amol IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6628 OF 2022 Sudhir Sadashiv Jawale V/s.PetitionerDistrict Collector, Collectorate Office, Pune & Ors.Respondent. .... Mr. Manoj Badgujar a/w. Sagar Kukreja for petitioner. Mr. A. I. Patel, AGP a/w. A. P. Vanarse, AGP for respondent-State. .... Mr. Hemnat Ghadigaonkar for respondent nos. 3 and 4. CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & RAJESH S PATIL, JJ. DATED : 23 rd FEBRUARY 2023 P.C.: Petition be listed on $15^{th}$ March, 2023. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)

Order - Status 10: Amol IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6628 OF 2022 Sudhir Sadashiv Jawale Petitioner V/s. District Collector, Collectorate Office, Pune & Ors. Respondent. Mr. Manoj Badgujar a/w. Sagar Kukreja for petitioner. Mr. A. I. Patel, AGP a/w. A. P. Vanarse, AGP for respondent-State. .... Mr. Hemnat Ghadigaonkar for respondent nos. 3 and 4. CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & RAJESH S PATIL, JJ. DATED : 23 rd FEBRUARY 2023 P.C.: Petition be listed on $15^{th}$ March, 2023. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)

Order - Status 11: Amol 1/5 suo moto IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3053 OF 1999 Union of India & Anr Appellants V/s. Shri. L. P. Netare and 8 Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 202 OF 2010 IN LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO.144 OF 2010 Union of India & Anr Appellants V/s. Shri. L. P. Netare and 8 Ors. Respondents WITH LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO. 158 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3061 OF 1997 Union of India & Anr Appellants V/s. A. V. Bonde & Others Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 201 OF 2010 IN LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO. 158 OF 2010 Union of India & Anr Appellants V/s. A. V. Bonde & Others Respondents AND Amol 2/5 suo moto WRIT PETITION NO. 3146 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1301 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3146 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 4655 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3146 OF 2022 Miss Rekha Premchand Safari & Anr. Petitioners V/s. Upnibandha Sahakari Sanstha & Anr Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO. 6628 OF 2022 Sudhir Sadashiv Jawale Petitioner V/s. District Collector, Collectorate Office, Pune & Ors. Respondent. AND LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO. 203 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4647 OF 2011 Mahapalika Kamgar Sabha Appellant V/s. Sangli Miraj Kupwad Cities Municipal Corporation Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1805 OF 2017 Shri Sunil Shankar More & Ors. Petitioners V/s. Amol 3/5 suo moto The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12373 OF 2019 Shri. Arvind Kashinath Kore Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondent. WITH LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO. 316 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4647 OF 2011 Sangli Miraj Kupwad Cities Municipal Corporation Appellant V/s. Mahapalika Kamgar Sabha Respondent. AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 19542 OF 2022 In FIRST APPEAL 78 OF 2014 Thane Municipal Corporation Through Its Commissioner,Thane ....PETITIONER V/S Dr. Dilip Mansukhlal Shah And Ors. ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 246 of 2014 in FIRST APPEAL NO. 78 of 2014 Shri. Dilip Mansukhlals Shah And Ors. ....APPLICANT V/S Shri. Chandrakant Kantilal Shah And Ors. ....RESPONDENT 4/5 suo moto WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1132 of 2019 in FIRST APPEAL NO. 78 of 2014 .... Shri. Sebastian J. Sequeiraand Ors. ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Dilip Mahasukhlal Shah And Ors. ....RESPONDENT AND LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO. 337 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6216 OF 2011 .... Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Appellant V/s. Petroleum Employees Union & 24 Ors. Respondents. CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & RAJESH S PATIL, JJ. (In Chamber) DATED : 2 nd March 2023 P.C.: Suo moto called for Speaking to the Minutes of orders dated 23 rd February 2023. 2 In the cause title of orders dated 23 rd February 2023 the words "ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION" be substituted with "CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION" . Amol Amol 5/5 suo moto 3 Rest of the orders remain unaltered. 4 Original orders to be corrected accordingly. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6628 OF 2022 ALONGWITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17606 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6628 OF 2022 Sudhir Sadashiv Jawale ….Petitioner V/s. District Collector, Collectorate Office, Pune and Ors. …Respondents Mr. Manoj Badgujar a/w Mr. Sagar Kursija for Petitioner. Mr. Hemant Ghadigaonkar for Respondent No.3. Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl. G.P. a/w Mr. A.P. Vanarse, AGP for State. CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ. DATED : 15 th MARCH 2023 P.C. : At the outset Mr. Ghadigaonkar appearing for Respondent No.3 submitted that Rule 107 (19) of The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 provides for an alternative remedy in the sense if any objection is to be made by any party to the attachment to any property, the party may apply to the Recovery Officer who in this case is Respondent No.4 and Recovery Officer shall investigate the claim or objection and dispose it on merits. Mr. Badgujar for petitioner states that petitioner will file objection before Respondent No.4 within one week to the order of attachment. Mr. Ghadigaonkar states that the Recovery Officer will pass appropriate order within four weeks of receiving the objections and if petitioner requests for a personal hearing, a personal hearing can also be granted. In view of the statement made by Mr. Badgujar and Mr.Ghadigaonkar as above, we dispose the petition. We clarify that we have not made any observations on the merits of the matter. Petition disposed. Mr. Ghadigaonkar states until the objections are decided, it is quite obvious Respondent No.4 will not take any further coercive steps. Consequently, all Interim Applications also stand disposed. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....Petitioner V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....Respondent None For Petitioner CORAM : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J DATE : 28th August, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 11/09/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena …Petitioner Versus Umesh Chandra Tiwari and ors. …Respondents ---------- None for the petitioner. Mr.Brijesh Shukla for the respondents. CORAM : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER 2019. P.C. : The respondent's counsel informs the Court that the petitioner has filed this writ petition to avoid the execution proceedings, but has not been prosecuting it. According to him, on the last occasion, too, none represented the petitioner. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has, so far, not served the case papers on him. Post the matter on 20th September 2019 under the caption for "dismissal". [DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.]

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. NO.14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena vs. Petitioner. Ms. Manisha Prajapati for the petitioner. CORAM : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. DATE : 18th September, 2019 PC : Petitioner's counsel seeks time. Post the matter on 25.9.2019. ( DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena …Petitioner Versus Umesh Chandra Tiwari and ors. …Respondents Ms.Manisha Prajapati for the petitioner. Mr.Brijesh Shukla for the respondents. CORAM : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. DATE : 25th SEPTEMBER 2019. P.C. : Shri Brijesh Shukla waives notice and informs the Court that he is appearing for the respondents. The petitioner's counsel assures the Court that she will serve the case papers on the respondents' counsel forthwith. Post the matter on 10th October 2019. [DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.] Vina A. Khadpe Digitally signed by Vina A. Khadpe Date: 2019.09.26 17:15:04 +0530

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gauraqv Saxena …Petitioner Versus Umesh Chandra Tiwari and ors. …Respondents ---------- Mr.Samji Joseph i/b. Ms.Manisha Prajapati for the petitioner. Mr.Brijesh Shukla a/w Ms.Devika Mehra for the respondents. CORAM : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. DATE : 10th OCTOBER 2019. P.C. : The petitioner's counsel fairly submits that there is a dispute about the quantum of damages/rent due from the petitioner to the respondents-landlord. He submits that the admitted amount comes to Rs.2,25,000/-. Status quo in relation to the recovery of rent/damages shall be maintained subject to the petitioner's depositing Rs.2,25,000/-, the admitted amount, with the Registry in 4 weeks. If petitioner fails to deposit the amount in 4 weeks, the stay stands vacated without further reference to this Court. Vina A. Khadpe Digitally signed by Vina A. Khadpe Date: 2019.10.11 21:04:14 +0530 [DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.]

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena …..Petitioner. Vs. Umesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors. …..Respondents. Mr. Siraj Khan i/by M. B. Prajapati for the Petitioner. Mr. Brijesh Shukla a/w Devika Mehra for the Respondents. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 11th NOVEMBER, 2019. P.C.:- It is submitted that, the Advocate on record for the Petitioner is in personal difficulty and is unable to attend the Court today. 2 At his request of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, stand over to 20th December, 2019. (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....Petitioner V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....Respondent Adv. Ramji Kotali For Petitioner Adv.Brijesh Shukla Res 1 For Respondent CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 20th December, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 07/02/2020 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 20: 54-wp-14372-2018.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ••• Petitioner V/s. Umesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors. ••• Respondents Mr.Sudhir V. Sadavarte i/b. Manisha Prajapati for Petitioner. Mr.Vaibhav R. Gargade for Respondent No.1. Ms.V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent No.2. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 7 th February 2020. P.C. : 1] Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in pursuance of Order dated 10 th October 2019, the petitioner has deposited the said amount of Rs.2,25,000/- in the Registry of this Court. 2] The issue involved in the present Petition is with respect to the quantum of compensation to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents-landlord pertaining to a period of 12 months as per Order dated 11 th April 2017. 3] In view thereof, Admit. 4] Ad-interim relief, granted by Order dated 10 th October 2019, is confirmed as interim relief. [A.S. GADKARI, J.]

Order - Status 21: TAUSEEF LAIQUEE FAROOQUI Digitally signed by TAUSEEF LAIQUEE FAROOQUI Date: 2023.03.13 11:02:46 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena … Petitioner V/s. Umesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors. … Respondents ***** None for the Petitioner. Mr. Brijesh Shukla for Respondent No.1. Mrs. V. s. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent (State). ***** CORAM : S.G. DIGE, J. DATED : 8 MARCH, 2023 P.C.: None present for the Petitioner. Heard learned counsel for Respondent No.1, stand over to 12 April 2023. (S.G. DIGE, J.)

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....PETITIONER V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....RESPONDENT None for Petitioner Mr. S. V. Sadavarte i/by Brijesh Shukla for Respondent No. 1 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHIVKUMAR DIGE J DATE : 12th April, 2023 P.C. : None present for the petitioner/s, stand over to 14/06/2023. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 26: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ...PETITIONER V/s. Umesh Chandra Tiwari and Ors ...RESPONDENTS Mr. Rushikesh Patil i/b Mr. S.V. Sadavarte, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Brijesh Shukla, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 14th JUNE, 2023 P.C. : Mr. Rushikesh Patil holding for Mr. S.V. Sadavarte, submits that Mr. Sadavarte will be filing Vakaltnama on behalf of the petitioner and some time may be granted. At his request, list on 28th June, 2023. In the meanwhile, let the Counsel for the petitioner take instructions on the payment plan for the outstanding payments to be made to the landlord. (ABHAY AHUJA, J.) KSG 1/1

Order - Status 28: WRIT PETITION NO.14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena … Petitioner Vs. Umesh Chandra Tiwari and ors. … Respondents ------- Mr.Saurabh M. Railkar h/f Mr.S.V.Sadavarte i/by Ms.Manisha B. Prajapati, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr.Brijesh Shukla, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 28 JUNE, 2023. P.C. : On 14th June, 2023, the following order was passed:- "1. Mr. Rushikesh Patil holding for Mr. S.V. Sadavarte, submits that Mr. Sadavarte will be filing Vakaltnama on behalf of the petitioner and some time may be granted. At his request, list on 28th June, 2023. In the meanwhile, let the Counsel for the petitioner take instructions on the payment plan for the outstanding payments to be made to the landlord." Today this court is informed that Mr.Sadavarte has filed a leave note. On the last occasion, the learned counsel for the Petitioner was to take instructions on the payment plan for the outstanding payments to be made to the landlord. Let instructions with respect to the payment plan be taken by the next date. List on 19th July, 2023. It is made clear that if instructions are not obtained by the next date, this court will proceed to pass appropriate orders. (ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

Order - Status 30: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....PETITIONER V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION STAMP NO. 18038 OF 2023 In Writ Petition 14372 OF 2018 Umesh Chandra Tiwari ....PETITIONER V/S Gaurav Saxena ....RESPONDENT None for Petitioner Mr Brijesh Shukla Advocate for Respondent No. 1. [ MENTIONED AT 5.15 P.M. ] CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ABHAY AHUJA J DATE : 19th July, 2023 P.C. : Mentioned out of turn. At the request of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Respondent, stand over to 21/08/2023. Ad-interim relief, if any, to continue till the next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 31: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2024.01.11 16:09:58 Digitally +0530 INTERIM APPLICATION NO.14387 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO.14372 OF 2018 Umesh C. Tiwari ...Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN : Gaurav Saxena ...Petitioner V/s. Umesh C. Tiwari & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Brijesh Shukla with Ms.Siddhi Mahambre and Mr.Harshil Gandhi for the Applicant. Mr.Sudhir Sadavarte for the Petitioner. Mr.P.P. Pujari, AGP for the State - Respondent. CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE : 9 TH JANUARY , 2024. P.C. :- This Interim Application is filed by the Original lessor. This Interim Application seeks withdrawal of the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- deposited by the lessee (Petitioner) pursuant to vai the directions given by this Court on 10 October 2019. For ease of reference, the order dated 10 October 2019 is reproduced herein below :- "1. The petitioner's counsel fairly submits that there is a dispute about the quantum of damages/rent due from the petitioner to the respondents-landlord. He submits that the admitted amount comes to Rs.2,25,000/-. Status quo in relation to the recovery of rent/damages shall be maintained subject to the petitioner's depositing Rs.2,25,000/-, the admitted amount, with the Registry in 4 weeks. If petitioner fails to deposit the amount in 4 weeks, the stay stands vacated without further reference to this Court." According to the Respondent (lessor) as per the impugned order, the amount payable by the lessee till the date of handing over possession i.e. 25 May 2019, would be Rs.5,23,600/-. Mr.Shukla, advocate appearing for the Applicant (Umesh Chandra Tiwari) submits that however on 10 October 2019, as the sum of Rs.2,25,000/- was admitted by the Petitioner, the Writ Petition was admitted. Mr.Shukla further submits that in such a situation, if the amount less than 50% is deposited in this Court, the Respondent / lessor should be allowed to withdraw the said amount with accrued interest. After hearing both the sides, I am of the view that suffice will be the purpose if the Applicant (Umesh Chandra Tiwari) is allowed to withdraw the said sum of Rs.2,25,000/ deposited in this Court along with accrued interest thereon. Before withdrawal of the said amount, the Applicant (Umesh Chandra Tiwari) should file an undertaking before this Court within a period of one week from today that in case after hearing the Writ Petition, the Writ Petition is answered against the Applicant Umesh Chandra Tiwari), the Applicant will comply with the directions given by this Court. The Interim Application is accordingly disposed of. 7. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.14372 OF 2018 Both the parties agree that the Writ Petition can be disposed of, since small issue is involved in this matter. 3/4 Place the Writ Petition on board for hearing and final disposal on 8 February 2024, at 2:30 p.m. The parties agree to file a compilation of documents, short synopsis along with their preposition of law and authorities relied upon by them before the next date of hearing. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 33: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.14372 OF 2018 ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Gaurav Saxena … Petitioner V/s. Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors … Respondents Mr. Saurabh R h/f Mr. Sudhir Sadavarte, Advocate for the Petitioner. Adv. Bijesh Shukla a/w Mr. Harshil Gandhi & Ms. Siddhi Mahambre, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri. P. P. Pujari – AGP for Respondent-State Nos. 2 & 3. CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J . DATED : 8 FEBRUARY 2024 P.C.: This Writ Petition is filed by licensee challenging the impugned Judgment and Order dated 11 April 2017 and as confirmed by Judgment and Order dated 19 June 2018. Mr. Shukla appearing for the Respondent No.1 submits that the possession of the suit premises has been already received by them. He submits that the only dispute is now regarding the payment of compensation to be made by the petitioner. He further points out to Order dated 14 June 2023 passed by this Court. On 14 June, 2023 there was a request made by the advocate appearing for the Petitioner seeking time so that he will furnish a "Payment Plan" with regard to the outstanding payment to be made to Respondent / Landlord. Mr. Shukla submits that from 14 June 2023 till today, the said so called payment plan has not been furnished by the Petitioner. Mr. Saurabh appearing for the Petitioner seeks a short accommodation on the ground that the advocate appearing for the Petitioner due to personal reasons is not present in this Court. As a matter of last chance, stand over to 13 February 2024. To be listed "High On Board". (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 36: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2024.02.17 11:50:13 +0530 Writ Petition NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ..Petitioner Versus Umesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Sudhir Sadavarte for the Petitioner. Mr.Brijesh Shukla with Adv.Siddhi Mahambre for Respondent No.1. Ms.Kajle, AGP for the State - Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE : 13 TH FEBRUARY , 2024. P.C. :- This Writ Petition is filed as regards quantum of damages payable by the Petitioner to the Respondents, since the possession of the suit premises has already been hand over. Mr.Shukla appearing for Respondent No.1 / Owner submits that as per his calculation the amount as of today payable would be Rs.2,98,600/-. vai Mr.Sadavarte appearing for the Petitioner disputes the said figure payable. Mr.Sadavarte submits that the total outstanding amount is Rs.4,86,000/-. However, a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- was deposited in this Court and by an order of this Court, Respondent No.1 has already withdrawn the said amount. Therefore, the amount now payable by the Petitioner to Respondent No.1 according to him would be Rs.2,61,200/-. Be that as it may, in the present Writ Petition on 10 October 2019 an order was passed. The said order dated 10 October 2019 reads as under :- "The petitioner's counsel fairly submits that there is a dispute about the quantum of damages/rent due from the petitioner to the respondents-landlord. He submits that the admitted amount comes to Rs.2,25,000/-. Status quo in relation to the recovery of rent/damages shall be maintained subject to the petitioner's depositing Rs.2,25,000/-, the admitted amount, with the Registry in 4 weeks. If petitioner fails to deposit the amount in 4 weeks, the stay stands vacated without further reference to this Court." Thereafter on 7 February 2020, this Court recorded that a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- had been deposited by the Petitioner with the Registrar of this Court. Therefore, the Writ Petition was "Admitted" and ad-interim relief granted on 10 October 2019 was confirmed. The said order dated 7 February 2020 reads as under :- "1] Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in pursuance of Order dated 10th October 2019, the petitioner has deposited the said amount of Rs.2,25,000/- in the Registry of this Court. 2] The issue involved in the present Petition is with respect to the quantum of compensation to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents-landlord pertaining to a period of 12 months as per Order dated 11th April 2017. 3] In view thereof, Admit. 4] Ad-interim relief, granted by Order dated 10th October 2019, is confirmed as interim relief." Mr.Sadavarte submits that thereafter the matter came up before this Court on 14 June 2023 when the colleague of Mr.Sadavarte sought time to file Vakalatnama on behalf of the Petitioner. He submitted that on 14 June 2023, Vakalatnama to appear on behalf of the Petitioner was not there. Therefore, the said statement was made on behalf of the Petitioner. On 14 June 2023, this Court granted two weeks time to Mr.Sadavarte to file the Vakalatnama on behalf of the Petitioner. So also it was recorded that the advocate appearing for the Petitioner to take instructions about payment plan as regards outstanding payment to be made. The said order dated 14 June 2023 reads as under :- "1. Mr. Rushikesh Patil holding for Mr. S.V. Sadavarte, submits that Mr. Sadavarte will be filing Vakaltnama on behalf of the petitioner and some time may be granted. At his request, list on 28th June, 2023. In the meanwhile, let the Counsel for the petitioner take instructions on the payment plan for the outstanding payments to be made to the landlord." Mr.Sadavarte submits that the Petitioner had challenged the quantum of amount payable as the rent to Respondent No.1 / Landlord and whatsoever was admitted amount by the Petitioner was already deposited as per the directions of the Court on 10 October 2019, and the said amount has been withdrawn by Respondent No.1 pursuant to the order dated 9 January 2024 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.14387 of Mr.Sadavarte submits that since he could not appear on 14 June 2023, his colleague had appeared in the matter only for seeking two weeks time to file Vakalatnama on behalf of the Petitioner, no statement could be made as regards payment plan towards the outstanding amount, as according to him as of that date, there was no outstanding amount payable as a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- admitted by them was already deposited. Thereafter the matter appeared on 28 June 2023, although Mr.Sadavarte had personal difficulty and he had filed the leave note, therefore, his colleague Mr. Railkar appeared on his behalf and sought time. According to Mr.Sadavarte, again on the said date, it was recorded that the Petitioner would be filing payment plan towards the outstanding amount. This Writ Petition involves only the dispute as to the quantum payable by the Petitioner to Respondent No.1 / Landlord. The Petitioner had admitted that only a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- is payable by Respondent No.1, however, Respondent No.1 has disputed this figure. The Petitioner has already deposited the said amount of Rs.2,25,000/- in this 5/6 Court. The said amount has been withdrawn by Respondent No.1. The Petition is already admitted by an order of this Court on 7 February 2020. The Writ Petition to come up on board for hearing and final disposal as per its turn. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 37: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....PETITIONER V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE J DATE : 30th August, 2024 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 04/10/2024 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 39: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....PETITIONER V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE J DATE : 4th October, 2024 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 13/12/2024 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 41: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....PETITIONER V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....RESPONDENT Mr. Sudhir Sadavarte for Petitioner Smt. Madhubala Kajale 'B' Panel for Respondent-State CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE J DATE : 13th December, 2024 P.C. : Stand Over to 16/12/2024. List the matter under the caption of For Circulation. Interim relief,if any,to continue till the next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 44: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ….Petitioner : Versus : Umesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors. ….Respondents None for the Petitioner. Mr. Brijesh Shukla, for Respondent No.1. Mr. Hamid Mulla, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3/State. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. Dated : 16 DECEMBER 2024. _____________ _____________ P.C. : None appears on behalf of the Petitioner. It appears that the Petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting the petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Respondent No.1 would be at liberty to execute the order passed by the Competent Authority. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2024.12.17 08:54:47 +0530

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5610 OF 2021 Somnath Baburao Mayrane. … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. … Respondent. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP for the Respondent- State. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND N.R. BORKAR, JJ. DATE : 29 July 2022. P.C. : The learned APP informs that the Petitioner was released on emergency (Covid-19) parole but he has not returned back and is absconding. As per the Government Resolution dated 4 May 2022, the said policy is discontinued. Therefore, no relief can be granted. Writ petition is rejected. (N.R. BORKAR, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 7: ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.8 OF 2011 Pradip Shankar Rao @ Shervegar. ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr. ....Respondents None for petitioner. Mr. K.V.Saste, APP for State. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED: JANUARY 31, 2011. P.C. None appears for the Petitioner. Office note indicates that office objections have not been removed. We grant one week's time to the Petitioner by way of indulgence to remove office objections, failing which the Writ Petition to stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the court. Subject to above, Writ Petition to proceed as per its turn under appropriate caption. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5538 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr.Sagar Kasar, for the petitioners. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 18/08/2009 PC: When the petition was called out, the learned counsel for the petitioners was not in a position to argue the petition. Stand over to 29.9.09. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5538 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. Sagar Kasar, for the petitioners. Mr Prakash M. for the respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 10/11/2009 PC: Mr.Kasar, learned Advocate, submits that he has instructions to appear for the sole respondent. Hence, service is complete. The petition to come up for admission on 1.12.09. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)

Order - Status 15: MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.5538 OF 2009 Shashikant B. Kamble & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. The Bharat Cooperative Bank Ltd. ...Respondents Mr.S.K.Shinde i/b. Mr. Sagar Kasar, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr.Prakash Mulky i/b. Gopal C. Poojary & Co. Advocate for the Respondents CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 20TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C. : Heard both sides. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The impugned orders relate to refusal of condonation of delay in filing an application for setting aside the Exparte Award passed by the Cooperative Court on 29th February 2008. The application has been filed since 10th October 2008. The delay was of 193 days. The case for condonation of delay was that in view of the Writ Petition filed concerning the Bank's powers under Multi State Cooperative Bank, the dispute was adjourned sine die. After the decision was rendered the Dispute was taken on board for hearing. At that time no notice was issued upon the Petitioners. They did not know of the Award passed. Hence, the application. Their case is that the case has been adjourned sine die and is reflected in the noting dated 24th October 2002 of the learned Cooperative Court, Mumbai. Though a date is mentioned against the noting it shows that the case was adjourned sine die. The fact remains that the substance of the noting shows that it was indeed adjourned sine die. It would have been prudent for the Bank to issue notice upon the Petitioners when the dispute reached hearing. The Petitioners were not represented by Advocates. Hence no Advocate could appear or be informed. Consequently, the duty of the Court as well as the Disputant would be doubled. The fact remains that an Exparte decree was passed which is open to challenge. The challenge is not seen to be completely devoid of merits. The Petitioners would be required to be heard on merits. The cause shown is justifiable. Hence both the orders of the Cooperative Court and the Cooperative Appellate Court which refused to condone the delay are required to be interfered with. Both the orders are set aside. The dispute shall be heard on merits. The Petitioners shall forthwith file their written statement, give inspection of the documents, produce copies of their documents and get themselves ready for trial. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)