All Writ Petition (Civil)

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

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

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

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

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO.7046 OF 2004 Khimjibhai Keshavji Patel, .. Petitioner Vs Jaswant Kumar Hassanand Bhatia & ors. Respondents Mr Rajiv Patil, for the petitioner. Mr P.D.gharge, for respondent no.1. Mr Uday Warunjikar, for respondent no.3. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 4th November, 2004. PC: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.7.2004 by which the warrant of possession was issued in respect of shop no.16 in dispute in the suit. I am informed that the warrant of possession has already been executed and respondent no.3 has taken possession thereof. In view thereof, respondent no.3 has filed the undertaking stating that he will not create third party interest nor will part with possession of shop no.16 and that he will hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the decree holder within a period of 30 days from the date of decree subject to his right of appeal. Similarly respondent no.1 - Builder has also filed an undertaking stating that shop no. 6 which, according to him was allotted to respondent no.3, is still vacant and he will keep it vacant till the disposal of the suit. The undertakings given by respondent no.3 and respondent no.1 are taken on record and marked "X-I" and "X-II" for identification. The undertakings are accepted. Keeping that in view, in my opinion, I need not examine the merits of the case and the proper course would be to dispose of this petition with directions to the trial Court to dispose of the suit within timeframe. Hence, the following order. (i) The trial Court shall dispose of Spl.Civil Suit No.27 of 2004 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today. (ii) The petitioner to communicate this order to the learned Judge within four weeks from today. (iii) The trial Court will decide the suit uninfluenced by the observations made in the orders passed at interlocutory stage. The writ petition is disposed of. . An authenticated copy of this order may be made available to the parties. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7046 OF 2004 Khimjibhai Keshavji Patel .. Petitioner Vs. Jaswant Kumar Hassanand Bhatia & Ors. ..Respondent None for the parties CORAM : S.U.KAMDAR, J DATED : 2ND DECEMBER, 2005 P.C.: . Time to dispose of the matter pending before the Civil Judge, S.D.Panvel, Dist; Raigad is extended by 4 months. Civil Judge, S.D.Panvel, Dist: Raigad is directed to ensure that the matter is disposed of within the said time.

Order - Status 6: srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1874 OF 2011 Jogindar Rikai Paswan Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents Mr.D.G.Khamkar for petitioner. Dr.F.R.Shaikh, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. July 27, 2011. P.C. Heard. The learned APP seeks further time of two weeks. Time granted by way of last chance. S.O. for two weeks. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)

Order - Status 11: 10WP.1874-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1874 OF 2011 Jogindara Rikai Paswan. ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another. ..Respondents. .......... Mr.D.G. Khamkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs.M.H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR AND P. D. KODE, JJ. .......... DATED : 22nd AUGUST, 2011. P.C. Learned APP, on instructions, states that the petitioner's case for premature release was duly considered by the appropriate authority and the petitioner has been categorized under Category No.4(d). That decision has been taken on 4th August, 2011. If the said decision is not communicated to the petitioner, we hope and trust that the appropriate authority will do the needful in that behalf. In view of the above, nothing survives for consideration in the matter. Accordingly, Petition is disposed of. (P. D. KODE, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.) 1

Order - Status 2: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 21884 OF 2018 Tarash Sunil Budhrani Through Guardina Sunil Santumal Budhrani ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary Senior Secondary Dept. And Ors ....Respondent Mr Abhijeet Desai for petitioner. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI HARISH DANGRE, JJ DATE : 2nd August, 2018 P.C. : Mentioned at 11.00 a.m. Place the matter on board for admission on 23/08/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9095 OF 2018 Tarash Sunil Budhari Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. Respondents Ms.Vrushali Maindad i/b. A.A.Desai for the Petitioner. Mr.Kiran G. i/b. Little and Company for Respondent No.2. CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 13TH JUNE, 2019 P.C.: The learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner on instructions seeks to withdraw the above Writ Petition on the ground that the same has become infructious. In view thereof, the above Writ Petition is disposed off as infructous. ( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ) ( AKIL KURESHI, J.)

Order - Status 5: Sequeira IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2082 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or Judge's Orders order or Directions and Registrar's Orders Mr.Shriram Kulkarni for the Petitioner. None for Respondents. CORAM : N.M.Jamdar, J. Thursday, 22 September 2016. P.C. : Place the Petition on board on 17 October 2016. If the Petitioner makes an application for adjournment, the learned Civil Judge, Daund, Pune will grant the same. (N.M.Jamdar, J.)

Order - Status 7: dik IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2082 OF 2016 Raghunath Sahebrao Konde ...Petitioner vs Ramakant Dattatraya Deshpande & Ors. ...Respondents ..... Mr S.S.Kulkarni for the Petitioner None for the Respondents CORAM : N. M. JAMDAR, J. 17 OCTOBER, 2016 P.C. : None for the Respondents. S.O. to next CMIS date i.e. 2 March 2017. The Petitioner will give notice of the next date to the Respondents and file an affidavit of service. Earlier liberty to continue till the adjourned date. ..... ( N.M.JAMDAR J. )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2082 OF 2016 Raghunath Sahebrao Konde .. Petitioner V/s. Ramakant Dattatraya Deshpande ... Respondent Mr.Shriram Kulkarni a/w Ms.Madhura Deshmukh for the petitioner CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATED : MAY 2, 2018 P.C. : 1 Heard. 2 By this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner plaintiff is challenging the order dated 19.11.2015 passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune rejecting Petitioner's Application below Exhibit 53 in Regular Civil Suit No.193 of 2010 for amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3 In the present Writ Petition, Petitioner plaintiff initially filed Regular Civil Suit No.193 of 2010 for an order of injunction restraining Respondent original defendant from disturbing his possession in respect of suit property as described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. In that Suit, Respondent defendant filed written statement as well as counter claim. Thereafter Petitioner plaintiff filed Application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on 25.10.2012 for allowing him to carry out amendment and claimed specific performance of agreement dated 06.08.1996 on payment of court fees and also for joining Sou.Chinga alias Kunda Suresh Deshpande as defendant no.5. 4 Bare reading of the Application filed by the plaintiff for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 dated 25.10.2012 shows that though the Suit was filed in 2010, amendment Application was filed on the basis of document executed in the year 1996. Not only, that plaintiff wanted to carry out amendment by converting suit for injunction in Suit for specific performance. 5 It is to be noted that even Apex Court in the matter of North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur vs. Bhagwan Das (D) by Lrs., 2008(8) SCC 511 held that the principles governing the question of granting or disallowing the amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are well settled. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 postulates amendments of pleadings at any time of the proceedings. All amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy two conditions (a) of not working any injustice to the other side; and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real question of controversy between the parties. Amendment should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleadings had been originally corrected, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be Mohite 2/3 compensated in costs. In the case in hand, the original Plaintiff – Petitioner filed simplicitor suit for injunction inspite of having entire knowledge about the earlier agreement dated 06.08.1996 and by way of amendment he wants to convert the same for specific performance of the said agreement dated 06.08.1996. On delay a reference can be made to the Apex Court judgment in the matter of Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. Ramesh Chander (2010) 14 SCC 596. 6 Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned order. 7 Hence, Writ Petition stands rejected. 8 At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner may be permitted to make appropriate application before the Trial Court for joining Sou.Chinga alias Kunda Suresh Deshpande as defendant no.5. 9 Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, liberty granted to the petitioner to make application in the Trial Court for joining Sou.Chinga alias Kunda Suresh Deshpande as party defendant no.5 in Suit within 8 weeks from today. 10 If such application is filed, Trial Court to decide the same on its own merits, after hearing both the sides. ( K.K. TATED, J. )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1621 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1622 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1623 OF 2011 Global Trade Finance Limited ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. ... Respondents Mr. Yashpal Thakur i/by M/s. Paras Kuhad & Associates, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Pednekar, A.P.P. for State in Cri.W.P. No. 1621 of 2011. Mr. A.S. Shitole, A.P.P. for State in Cri.W.P. No. 1622 of 2011. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, A.P.P. for State in Cri.W.P. No. 1623 of 2011. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 P.C. Heard. Issue notice to respondents returnable on 17.11.2011. The learned A.P.P. waives service on behalf of State. To be heard finally at admission stage along with W.P. No. 1620 of 2011. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)

Order - Status 14: WP 1621 OF 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1621 OF 2011 Global Trade Finance Limited (now known as SBI Global Factors Limited) .. Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and anr .. Respondents Mr. Yashpal Thakur i/b M/s Paras Kuhad & Associates, for the petitioner. Mrs. P. P. Shinde, APP for the Respondent - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 18th October, 2012 P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since Respondent No.2 was reported to have died, this petition may be disposed of. This petition is disposed of accordingly. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)