All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3387 OF 2017 Shri. Laxman Arjun Hudekar And Ors. ....Petitioner V/S Shri. Shivaji Vithoba Patil And Ors. ....Respondent G. N. Salunke For Petitioner CORAM : RAJESH G. KETKAR, J DATE : 22nd March, 2017 P.C. : Not on board. Taken on production board. Matter to be placed on 29/03/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3387 OF 2017 Shri. Laxman Arjun Hudekar & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Shri. Shivaji Vithoba Patil & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. G.N. Salunkhe for petitioners. CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 28 JANUARY 2019. P.C:- . Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner/original plaintiff is challenging the order dated 27.09.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gadhinglaj below Exhibit-38 in Regular Civil Suit No.14 of 2013 recasting the issues. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the next date before the trial Court is 05.02.2019. He submits that in view of these facts, further proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No.14 of 2013 to be stayed. It is to be noted that though the petition was filed on 21.12.2016, till today the respondents are not served. Therefore, there is no question of granting any ad-interim relief at this stage without hearing the respondent. Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the impugned order, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out case for following order : a) Registry is directed to issue notice before admission to the respondents stating that if time permits matter be decided finally at the stage of admission, returnable on 29.04.2019. b) In addition to the usual mode of service petitioner is permitted to serve the respondents by private notice along with entire proceedings either by RPAD and or by hand delivery and file Affidavit of Service to that effect on or before 18.04.2019. c) Stand over to 29.04.2019. d) At present no ad-interim relief. (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3387 OF 2017 Shri. Laxman Arjun Hudekar And Ors. ....Petitioner V/S Shri. Shivaji Vithoba Patil And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J DATE : 13th September, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 11/11/2019 . 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 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3387 OF 2017 Laxman Arjun Hudekar & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Shivaji Vithoba Patil & Ors. .. Respondents ................... Mr. G.N. Salunke for the Petitioners Mr. Amar Bodke i/by Mr. M.V. Thorat for Respondent No. 1 ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 7, 2020. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Mr. Bodke informs the Court that Advocate Mr. M.V. Thorat representing for respondent No. 1 has taken discharge and given NOC to respondent No. 1. Hence, he seeks time for respondent No. 1 to take necessary steps. 3. Mr. Salunke, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is very old. However, he accedes to the request of Mr. Bodke and does not make any issue out of it. He submits that fair chance is required to be given to the contesting parties to appear before the Court. This stand of Mr. Salunke is appreciated by the Court. 4. Petitioners are directed to serve respondent No. 1 by private notice and to file affidavit to that effect on or before the next date. Hamdust granted. 5. Mr. Salunke submits that prima facie it appears that strategy of respondent No. 1 is to prolong and delay the proceedings of the trial Court which are at the stage of evidence. He, therefore, submits that the Court should consider grant of interim relief and stay the trial Court proceedings. 6. On perusal of order dated 28.1.2019 passed by this Court, I am not inclined to grant ad-interim relief as of today in absence of respondent No. 1 considering that the present advocate of respondent No. 1 has sought discharge. However, this Court shall consider grant of ad-interim relief on the next date subject to Mr. Salunke placing on record the affidavit of service. 2 of 3 7. S.O to 6.3.2020. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ravindra M. Amberkar Digitally signed by Ravindra M. Amberkar Date: 2020.02.10 11:14:51 +0530

Order - Status 2: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 3: 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 APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2414 OF 2024 Baban Undrya Kathara ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....RESPONDENT Mr. Aniket Vagal aw Mr. Sanket Bhavad aw Mr. Kunal Pednekar for Petitioner Mr. Pradip Rajput for Resp 2 Mr. Vinod Chate, APP for the State CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.S. GADKARI & HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE, JJ DATE : 18th June, 2024 P.C. : At the request of the learned APP for the Respondent - State, S.O. to 20/06/2024 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 2: 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 APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 757 OF 2025 Beatrice Antony ....PETITIONER V/S M/s Concretech India Through Mr Sagar B ....RESPONDENT Kamble And Anr WITH CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2569 OF 2024 Slesha Ghosh ....PETITIONER V/S M/s Concretech India And Anr ....RESPONDENT WITH CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 5819 OF 2024 Slesha Ghosh ....PETITIONER V/S M/s Concretech India And Anr ....RESPONDENT WITH CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 759 OF 2025 Beatrice Antony ....PETITIONER V/S M/s Concretech India And And ....RESPONDENT WITH CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 758 OF 2025 Slesha Ghosh ....PETITIONER V/S M/s Concretech India And Anr ....RESPONDENT WITH CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 847 OF 2025 Beatrice Antony ....PETITIONER V/S M/s Concretech India And An ....RESPONDENT WITH CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 848 OF 2025 Beatrice Antony ....PETITIONER V/S M/s Concretech India And Anr ....RESPONDENT WITH CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 1114 OF 2025 Slesha Ghosh ....PETITIONER V/S M/s Concretech India And Anr ....RESPONDENT WITH CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 1113 OF 2025 Slesha Ghosh ....PETITIONER V/S M.s Concretech India And Anr ....RESPONDENT WITH CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 1107 OF 2025 Slesha Ghosh ....PETITIONER V/S M/s Concretech India Through Its Autho. Person Sagar B Kamble And Anr ....RESPONDENT WITH CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 1200 OF 2025 Slesha Ghosh ....PETITIONER V/S Concretech India And Anr ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 16th June, 2025 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 07/07/2025. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 3620 OF 2016 Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. J. Shekhar i/b J. Shekhar & Co., for the Petitioner. Mr. P. P. Kakade, AGP for the Respondent State. Mr. M. S. Topkar, for Respondent Nos. 6 & 7. Mr. Rampal Kohli, for Respondent No. 5. CORAM : V. M. KANADE, M. S. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : MARCH 28, 2016 PC. Issue notice before admission returnable on 25.4.2016. Sd/- [V. M. KANADE, J.] Sd/- [M. S. KARNIK, J.] Vinayak Halemath [1VI. 3. KAKINIK, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3620 OF 2016 Nashik Municipal Corporation •••• Petitioner vs State of Maharashtra and others •••• Respondents Mr. Shekhar Jagtap a/w Akshay Kapadia i/b J. Shekhar & Co. for the petitioner. Mr. S. A. Sawant a/w Mr. Ketan Joshi for respondent no. 3 o. 3 Mr. R. S. Kohli for Respondent no. 5. Ms. Pavitra Manesh i/b Mr. M. S. Tapkar for respondent nos. 6 & 7 t nos .6&7 CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA AND SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 29 MARCH , 2016 ORDER: Not on board. In view of the urgency expressed, matter is taken on board today. Pending the other writ petitions, this Court in Writ Petition No. 337 of 2016, have passed workable order wherein this Court has observed in para 5 as under: **"**5 However, considering the emergent situation in question and so also the obligations of the "Local Authority" to provide various services in the city of Nashik through or by appointing agents/contractors and to avoid further complications, as such sudden revocation of registration itself rendered the Petitioner helpless for want of power and authority to appoint the Licensed Contractor or agents for providing essential services, therefore, by way of interim arrangement, we are inclined to observe that the position as of 31 December 2015 requires to continue in all respect, qua the subject matter of impugned notice dated 1 January 2016 i.e. no revocation of registration, so that the people at large should not be made to suffer because of the stated inaction on the part of the Corporation of non compliances, so referred in impugned order dated 1 January 2016. The Petitioner to continue with their obligations to provide amenities and/or facilities and services to the citizen of Nashik City." A statement is made that this arrangement is still continuing. By impugned tender notice dated 29/02/2016, four contractors whose issue with regard to their black listing, are pending in the Court i.e. Writ Petition No. 379 of 2016, 380 of 2016, 11630 of 2015 & 11631 of 2015. The issue is also pending with the State Government in view of the appeal under section 451 of Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 filed by respondent no. 5. After going through the orders passed by this Court in the petition filed by those contractors, who are at present black listed and as their applications for stay and/or related issues are not yet finalized in their favour, the resolution and decision taken by respondent no. 3 i.e. Standing Committee of Municipal Corporation, permitting them to participate in the tender process, in our view, at this stage, required to be stayed. This is to avoid further complications and specifically in view of the fact of pendency of writ petitions so referred above. By keeping all points open, including maintainability of writ petitions as alternative remedy is available, and the other petitions are pending in this Court for final decision as recorded above, we are inclined to pass the order as under. O R D E R (i) Adinterim relief in terms of prayer clause (C) which reads thus: "C. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Writ Petition, this Hon'ble High Court may kindly stay the effect, implementation, execution and operation of the impugned Resolution No. 822 dated 29/02/2016 passed by the Respondent no. 3 and thereby permitting the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 to participate in the tender process due on 29/03/2016." Parties to act upon the authenticated copy of this order. The learned counsel for respondent no. 5, on instructions, seeks stay of this order passed in Court today. Considering the reasons so recorded above, the said request is rejected. Stand over to 12/04/2016. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3620 OF 2016 Nashik Municipal Corporation -Versus F Petitioner State of Maharashtra & Ors. R Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.882 OF 2016 D.882 OF 20 16 Sayyed Asif Ali A Applicant In the matter between: Nashik Municipal Corporation P Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. R Respondents Mr.Shekhar Jagtap with Akshay Kapadia i/b. J. Shekhar & Co. for petitioner Mr.Ketan Joshi for respondent No.3 Mr.S.R.Ranghe for respondent No.4 and for applicant in CAW 882 of 2016 Mr. Rampal S. Kohli for respondent No.5 CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA & A.A.SAYED, JJ § DATE : 13th April 2016. 2016. P.C. 1] In view of the earlier order dated 5th April 2016 after considering the civil application as well as the submissions so made, we have specifically ordered as under:- "5. On 29 March, except Respondent No. 4, all other Respondents were duly heard. Based upon the orders passed in Writ Petitions, which are mentioned in para 4 of the order dated 29 March 2016 and considering the urgency so expressed, ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) of the Petition has been granted. As the matter itself is directed to be listed on 12 April, 2016, we are inclined to list this matter on 12 April 2016 so that all the Respondents will be heard on merits of the matter, including the submissions revolving around the order so passed on 29 March, 2016. In view of the above, no case is made out for interim relief and/or recalling any order at this stage in this Civil Application. The Petitioner to file Reply to the Civil Application. The submission is made that in other Writ Petitions (Writ Petition No. 379 of 2016, 380 of 2016, 11630 of 2015 & 11631 of 2015) directions are given to list the said Petitions after two weeks for final disposal and it is also observed that further process of the tender shall be subject to the final outcome of the Writ Petitions. Therefore, it is also necessary for the parties to file common precipe so that all these matters can be heard together by one Bench. Parties to take steps accordingly. Place the Petition on 12 April 2016 for hearing before the appropriate Bench." 2] We are informed that a precipe is already filed in pursuance of the above order on 11th April 2015 before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. 3] Let the matter be placed before appropriate bench in view of the above. (A.A.SAYED, J) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J)

Order - Status 12: mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3620 OF 2016 Nashik Municipal Corporation ...Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Akshar Kapadia i/b. J. Shekhar & Co. Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Ketan Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No.3 Mr. Mohammed Ashraf, Advocate for Respondent No.5 Mr. P.P. Kakade, AGP for the State Ms. Pavitra M. i/b. Mr. M.S. Topkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 CORAM : V.M.KANADE & M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : 20TH APRIL, 2016 P.C. : Not before the Bench in which Mr. Justice M.S. Karnik is a member. Matter be placed before the appropriate Bench. Application is made for speaking to the minutes of our order dated 28th March, 2016. In fact the order was passed that the matter should not be placed before the Bench in which Mr. Justice M.S. Karnik is a member. However, inadvertently an order is passed " issue notice before admission returnable on 25.4.2016 ". The said order is accordingly modified and it is clarified that on 28th March, 2016 order which was passed was "The matter should not be placed before the Bench in which Mr. Justice M.S. Karnik is a member". The order is accordingly modified and shall be read as follows: "The matter should not be placed before the Bench in which Mr. Justice M.S. Karnik is a member" . (M.S. KARNIK, J.) (V.M.KANADE, J.)

Order - Status 14: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 15: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11630 OF 2015 M/s Samiksha Construction Company ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary, Industry, Energy And Labour Dept. And Ors. ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP STAMP NO. 23039 OF 2017 In Writ Petition 11630 OF 2015 M/s Samiksha Construction Company ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary, Industry, Energy And Labour Dept. And Ors. ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11631 OF 2015 M/s Vishal Services ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary, Industry, Energy And Labour Dept. And Ors. ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 379 OF 2016 M/s. Sayyed Asif Ali Through Proprietor Shri Sayyed Ali ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 380 OF 2016 M/s. Watergrace Products Through Proprietor, Shri. Chetan Bora ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 293 OF 2016 In Writ Petition 474 OF 2016 M/s. Sayyed Asif Ali Through Proprietor Shri Sayyed Ali ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 292 OF 2016 In Writ Petition 473 OF 2016 M/s. Watergrace Products Through Proprietor, Shri. Chetan P. Bora ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Ors WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3620 OF 2016 Nashik Municipal Corporation ....PETITIONER V/S State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 1064 OF 2016 In Writ Petition 11631 OF 2015 M/s Vishal Services ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary, Industry, Energy And Labour Dept. And Ors. ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 473 OF 2016 M/s. Watergrace Products Through Proprietor Shri. Chetan Bora ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 334 OF 2016 In Writ Petition 379 OF 2016 ....RESPONDENT M/s. Sayyed Asif Ali Through Proprietor Shri Sayyed Ali V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 336 OF 2016 In Writ Petition 380 OF 2016 M/s. Watergrace Products Through Proprietor, Shri. Chetan P. Bora ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 640 OF 2016 In Writ Petition 379 OF 2016 M/s. Sayyed Asif Ali Through Proprietor Shri Sayyed Ali ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 474 OF 2010 Tain Constructions ....PETITIONER V/S Vilas Shankar Shelar And Ors. ....RESPONDENT ....APPLICANT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NITIN JAMDAR & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. M. SATHAYE, JJ DATE : 19th March, 2024 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 07/08/2024 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 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3620 OF 2016 Nashik Municipal Corporation ....PETITIONER V/S State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....RESPONDENT Mr. Mithchelle Almeida i/b Rompal Singh Kohli for Respondent Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP for State-Res Nos. 1 & 2 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NITIN JAMDAR & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. M. SATHAYE, JJ DATE : 29th April, 2024 P.C. : Stand over to 08/07/2024 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 4: 18-wp-2257-2022.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2257 OF 2022 Dawood Samad Kunda and Anr. … Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. … Respondents Ms.Misbaah Solkar a/w Ms. Neha Thakkar, for the Petitioners. Mr. J. P. Yagnik, APP for the Respondent – State. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : 10th JANUARY, 2023. P. C. : 1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2 Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 1 st March, 2023. Learned A.P.P waives notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State. 3 In addition to Court notice, petitioners to serve the respondent No.2 by private notice and file an affidavit of service before the returnable date. Rekha Patil 1/2 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners to supply spare copy in the Registry within two weeks from today, so as to enable the Registry to issue notice to the respondent No.2, failing which, petition to stand dismissed for non-prosecution, without further reference to the Court. 5 Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, in the meantime, till the next time, investigation to continue, however, charge-sheet not to be filed, without the leave of the Court. 6 Stand over to 1 st March, 2023. PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2257 OF 2022 Dawood Samad Kunda And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE JUSTICE REVATI MOHITE DERE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ DATE : 1st March, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 08/06/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 3: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 268 OF 2018 Dinkar Shankar Borhade ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : R.M. SAVANT. & SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, JJ DATE : 14th March, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 11/04/2018. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3736 OF 2021 M/s.Sovereign Tech } Engineering Services Private } Limited and Anr. } Petitioner versus Maharashtra Industrial } Development Corporation } and Ors. } Respondents Mr.P.S.Dani-Senior Advocate i/b. Mr.E.A.Sasi for the petitioner. Mr.B.V.Samant-AGP for respondent nos. 4 to 8 (State). Mr.Jitendra jagtap for respondent no.9. CORAM :- DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & G. S. KULKARNI, J. DATE :- AUGUST 5, 2021 PC :- 1. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 2nd September 2021. Mr.Samant, learned AGP waives notice for respondent nos. 4 to 8 and Mr.Jagtap, learned advocate waives notice for respondent no.9. 2. Reply affidavit may be filed by the respondents within 3 (three) weeks; rejoinder thereto, if any, may be filed by 1 (one) week thereafter. SALUNKE J V Digitally signed by SALUNKE J V Date: 2021.08.06 10:48:04 +0530 (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISIDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3736 OF 2021 M/s. Sovereign Tech Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) & Ors. .. Respondents Ms. Meghna Khatri i/by Mr. E. A. Sasi for petitioners. Ms. Tanvi Doshi i/by Little & Co. for respondent nos.1 to 3 (MIDC). Mr. B. V. Samant, AGP for respondent nos.4 to 8-State. Mr. Jitendra P. Jagtap for respondent no.9. Mr. R. V. Govilkar a/w Mr. Anil D. Yadav for respondent nos.10 & 11. C0RAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 9, 2021 PC : Registry to verify and place the writ petition before the appropriate Bench. (M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) PRAVIN DASHARATH PANDIT Digitally signed by PRAVIN DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2021.09.09 19:58:31 +0530

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1664 OF 2003 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's Orders Orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Ashutosh Kulkarni h/f.Shri A.A.Kumbhakoni for the petitioners. Shri. Prathamesh Bhargude for the Respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 29TH FEBRUARY,2008. P.C. : The Sole petitioner has expired. Her heirs were permitted to be brought on record but that amendment is not carried out till date. The amendment was permitted for all on 18.8.2005, but, the same has not been carried out till date. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner assures the court that the Amendment would be carried out within a period of one week from today. If the same is carried out, the office to proceed and place the petition for hearing. If the same is not carried out, the petition to stand dismissed for want of prosecution and thereupon all interim orders stand vacated without any reference to the court. No request for extension will be granted. *********