All Cases

Order - Status 9: Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3096 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20874 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Surendra Dhanji Shah & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3098 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20878 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Hansa Jayendra Shah & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3100 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21020 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Bindu Kiran Sampat & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3102 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20891 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Pramila Dhirajlal Parekh & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3104 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20881 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Surendra Dhanji Shah & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3108 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21002 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Tersih Keshavji Raigoga & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3115 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21007 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Bindu Kiran Sampat & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3117 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21013 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Kumud Tersih Raigoga & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3119 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21016 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Sangeet Vinay Raigoga & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3121 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20869 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Jayendra Dhanji Shah & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Vimal Chandrakant Shah, Applicant, present in person. Mr.Ramesh Jain, Advocate, for the Respondents. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 21ST JANUARY, 2008. P.C.: In view of averments made in the application, sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. Accordingly, delay is condoned. Applications are allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a). [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 596 OF 2018 Seema Hariom Sharma ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....Respondent None For Applicant Neeta S. Jain, APP for state. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 12th June, 2018 P.C. : None For Applicant. Stand Over to 03/07/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 596 OF 2018 Seema Hariom Sharma ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....Respondent Bhavesh Maheshchandra Thakur For Applicant H.S.Venegaonkar,APP Mrs.N.S.Jain,APP CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 18th June, 2018 P.C. : At the request of Mr.H.S.Venegaonkar, Stand over to one week i.e. 26/06/2018 on supplementary board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 596 OF 2018 Seema Hariom Sharma ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....Respondent Bhavesh Maheshchandra Thakur For Applicant H.S.Venegaonkar,CBI P.H.Gaikwad,APP CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 29th June, 2018 P.C. : Stand over to 02/07/2018 High on board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 701 OF 2017 Mrs. Seema Hariom Sharma … Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 596 OF 2018 Mrs. Seema Hariom Sharma … Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents Mr. Bhavesh Thakur for the applicant. Mr. P.H. Gaikwad for the RespondentState. Mr. H.S. Venegaonkar for the RespondentCBI CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 02nd JULY, 2018. P.C. The applicants have preferred these applications for return of the cash amount of Rs.2,79,000/ and Fixed Deposit Receipts seized during the course of investigation. ... Mr. Venegaonkar learned counsel for CBI on instructions submits that case for disproportionate assets against the husband of applicant is not made out during the course of inquiry and therefore CBI has no objection for allowing these applications. It is further submitted that amount of Rs.2,79,000/ has been deposited in the Bank of BaradaCBI account. The cheque to the tune of the said amount will be issued in favour of the applicant instead of cash. In view of aforesaid statements, both these applications are allowed. RespondentCBI is directed to return the amount of Rs.2,79,000/ by cheque to the applicant within a period of four weeks from today. RespondentCBI is also directed to return Fixed Deposit Receipts which are subject matter of the application to the applicant within four weeks from today. Both these applications are disposed of. ( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. )

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

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : P. N. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 20nd JULY 2016. P.C. : On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on daily and supplementary board stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. S.N. Case No. CMIS DATE 2 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1583/2015 07/09/2016 3 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1748/2015 07/09/2016 4 BAIL APPLICATION NO.69/2016 07/09/2016 5 BAIL APPLICATION NO.291/2016 07/09/2016 6 BAIL APPLICATION NO.331/2016 07/09/2016 8 BAIL APPLICATION NO.750/2016 07/09/2016 9 BAIL APPLICATION NO.907/2016 07/09/2016 10 BAIL APPLICATION NO.916/2016 07/09/2016 11 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1084/2016 07/09/2016 12 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1085/2016 07/09/2016 13 BAIL APPLICATION NO.41/2016 07/09/2016 14 BAIL APPLICATION NO.316/2016 07/09/2016 15 BAIL APPLICATION NO.427/2016 07/09/2016 17 BAIL APPLICATION NO.841/2016 07/09/2016 18 BAIL APPLICATION NO.952/2016 07/09/2016 19 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1027/2016 07/09/2016 20 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1029/2016 07/09/2016 21 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1037/2016 07/09/2016 22 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1090/2016 07/09/2016 24 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1158/2016 07/09/2016 25 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1394/2016 07/09/2016 26 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.687/2016 07/09/2016 In the above matters, adinterim relief or interim relief, if any, is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. (P. N. DESHMUKH, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1029 OF 2016 Kamlesh Parsram Balani Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. Satyavrat Joshi Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. R.M. Gadhvi, A.P.P. for the Respondent State. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J. DATED : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2016. P.C. : 1 This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for bail in C.R. No.I/222/2015 dated 02.07.2015 registered with Vitthalwadi Police Station, District Thane, under sections 363, 366, 376 (2)(j), (2)(n) of Indian Penal Code and under sections 3, 4, 5(l) and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2 The First Information Report is lodged by the mother of victim girl Smt. Ambica Mane, on 02.07.2015. On the basis of the said report, the aforesaid First Information Report is lodged by the Police. During the course of investigation, the statement of the victim girl, who was at that relevant time about 16 years of age is recorded on 08.07.2015. That the statement of the victim girl, under section 164 of Cr.P.C. is also recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 6th Court, Ulhasnagar, on 27.07.2015. The applicant was arrested on 5th July 2015. That after completion of the investigation, the police have submitted chargesheet on 14.09.2015. 3 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. also perused the entire chargesheet annexed to the present application. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that a bare perusal of the statement of the victim girl recorded under section 161 so also under section 164 of Cr.P.C. would reveal that the alleged act has contemplated under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was a Consensual act. Prima facie I find substance in the said submission. It is to be noted here that the victim girl who was at the relevant time aged about 16 years, had stayed with the applicant at the place of the aunt of the applicant for about 18 to 20 days. It prima facie appears form the evidence available on record that the victim girl had attained the age of understanding on the date of registration of offence and at her free will had accompanied the applicant at various places. 4 In view of the above, the applicant has made out a case for his release of bail. 5 Hence the following order : (i) The applicant be released on bail in C.R. No.I/222/2015 registered with Vitthalwadi Police Station, District Thane, on his furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/ with one or more local sureties in the like amount. (ii) After his release from the jail, the applicant shall not enter the jurisdiction of Vitthalwadi Police Station except for marking his presenty as is directed herein below. (iii) After his release from the jail, the applicant shall attend the Vitthalwadi Police Station once in three months on every 1st Monday of the said month between 11.00 a.m.to 1.00 p.m. (iv) Before his release from the jail, the applicant shall provide the documents pertaining to the address where he intends to reside after his release from jail. (v) Any two consecutive defaults in complying with the aforestated conditions, shall attract the provisions of cancellation of bail. (vi) Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.134 OF 2016 IN REVIEW PETITION ST NO.8312 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2425 OF 1984 Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer (deceased) & Ors ..Applicants Vs. Smt. Sitabai Vyanku Taur (deceased) ..Respondents Mr. V. V. Ugle for the Applicants CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 20th DECEMBER, 2016 P.C. 1 The hearing of the above Civil Application is deferred to 722017. The Petitioner to file additional affidavit giving the ages of the sons of the original Petitioner Bhagwan Bapu Veer and their avocation in life. [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CA IN OTH.(MCA/TXA/CA/FERA) NO. 134 OF 2016 In REVIEW PETN. IN WP STAMP NO. 8312 OF 2016 Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer (decd) And Ors. Applicant V/S Smt. Sitabai Vyanku Taur (decd) Respondent Shri Vaibhav V Ugle For Applicant CORAM : R.M. SAVANT., J DATE : 7th February, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 09/02/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: (904)-CAO-134-16.doc*.* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.134 OF 2016 IN REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO.8312 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2425 OF 1984 Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer (Deceased) Mr. Subarao Bhagwan Veer and others Applicants IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Smt. Sitabai Vyanku Taur (Deceased) Versus Petitioner Bhagwan Bapu Veer (Deceased) and others Respondents Mr. V. V. Ugale for the Applicants. CORAM : CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 9th FEBRUARY, 2017 P.C. 1 The affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicants by one Pradip Panditrao Veer is not in terms of the directions as contained in the order dated 20.12.2016. The Applicants therefore to file a proper affidavit giving details as mentioned in the said order dated 20.12.2016. To facilitate the same, adjourned to 09.03.2017. [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CA IN OTH.(MCA/TXA/CA/FERA) NO. 134 OF 2016 In REVIEW PETN. IN WP STAMP NO. 8312 OF 2016 Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer (decd) And Ors. Applicant V/S Smt. Sitabai Vyanku Taur (decd) Respondent Shri Vaibhav V Ugle For Applicant CORAM : R.M. SAVANT., J DATE : 9th March, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 16/03/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CA IN OTH.(MCA/TXA/CA/FERA) NO. 134 OF 2016 In REVIEW PETN. IN WP STAMP NO. 8312 OF 2016 Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer (decd) And Ors. Applicant V/S Smt. Sitabai Vyanku Taur (decd) Respondent Shri Vaibhav V Ugle For Applicant CORAM : R.M. SAVANT., J DATE : 16th March, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 23/03/2017. To be placed on "Supplementary Board." ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.134 OF 2016 IN REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO.8312 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2425 OF 1984 Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer (Deceased) Applicants/ Mr. Subrao Bhagwan Veer and others Review Petitioners IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Smt. Sitabai Vyanku Taur (Deceased) Petitioner Versus Bhagwan Bapur Veer (Deceased) others Respondents Mr. Vaibhav V. Ugle for the Applicants/Review Petitioners. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 23rd MARCH, 2017 P.C. 1 The above Civil Application has been filed in the above Review Petition seeking condonation of delay of 18 years and 122 days in filing the above Review Petition. The Review Petition is filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 15.10.1997 passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.2425 of 1984 by the said judgment the above Writ Petition was allowed. The judgment and order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal ("MRT" for short) in so far as it dismissed the Revision Application on the ground of delay was set aside however the part of the judgment of the MRT by which the orders passed by the Tahsildar and the Sub Divisional Officer were set aside was sustained by the Learned Single Judge of this Court by the said judgment. The record discloses that none had appeared for the Respondent in the said Writ Petition i.e. Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer whose heirs are the Review Petitioners and also the Applicants herein. 2 The condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition is sought principally on the round that the Applicants were not aware of the above Writ Petition filed in this Court wherein their father Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer was the Respondent, and which Writ Petition he was prosecuting. It is their case that only when they made inquiries with the Revenue Authorities in respect of the land in question in the second week of January 2016 that they became aware of the judgment and order dated 15.10.1997 passed in the said Writ Petition. Save and except the said reason, there is no other reason mentioned in the above Civil Application in justification of the said delay of 18 years and 122 days. This Court by order dated 20.12.2016 had directed the Applicants to give details as regards the ages of the sons of the original Respondent i.e. Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer and their avocations in life. Accordingly an affidavit affirmed on 02.03.2017 has been filed in support of the above Civil Application. In the said affidavit, it has been stated that Mr. Bhagwan Bapur Veer has expired on 10.12.1986 and that he had four sons, namely Mukund, Shivaji, Pandit and Subrao. It has further been stated that Mukund has expired on 22.10.2013, Shivaji has expired on 28.06.1990, Pandit has expired on 22.10.1985 i.e. he is predeceased his father and Subrao i.e. present Applicant No.1 is about 65 years of age and was about 45 years old when the judgment and order dated 15.10.1997 came to be passed. It therefore appears that Subrao i.e. the Applicant No.1 is the youngest son of the Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer and therefore all of them were major when the said judgment and order dated 15.10.1997 came to be passed. 3 It would be relevant to refer to the proceedings under the Tenancy Act which resulted in the filing of the said Writ Petition No.2425 of 1984. The Petitioner therein Smt. Sitabai Vyanku Taur was the wife of Vyanku Taur who had filed an application under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, for declaration that he is the tenant. The said application was allowed by the Tenancy Authorities and declaration came to be issued that the said Vyanku Taur was a tenant as on 01.04.1957 tillers day. The said declaration of tenancy became final and binding. It seems that the Tahsildar in the proceedings filed for fixation of the purchase price held that the said Vyanku Taur was not a tenant on 01.04.1957 and therefore Section 32O of the said Act would be applicable. The lands were therefore directed to be restored to the landlord resorting to the provisions of Section 32P of the said Act. Against the said order, the Petitioner filed an Appeal which came to be dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer by order dated 21.11.1981. The Petitioner carried the matter by way of a Revision before the MRT. The MRT having regard to the earlier adjudication whereby the application filed under Section 70(b) filed by Vanku Taur was allowed and he was declared as tenant as on 01.04.1957 held that the Tahsildar and the Sub Divisional Officer i.e. Lower Authorities had erred in recording a finding that Vyanku Taur was not a tenant, when the said issue was barred by resjudicata. However the MRT on the ground that the Revision was belated by 545 days, had therefore after recording findings in favour of the tenant i.e. Vyanku Taur had dismissed the Revision on the ground of delay. The said judgment and order dated 20.01.1984 of the MRT was the subject matter of the above Writ Petition. As indicated above, a Learned Single Judge having regard to the earlier adjudication found fault with the order of the MRT dismissing the Revision on the ground of delay when according to the Learned Single Judge there was merit in the Revision Application filed by the tenant. The Learned Single Judge accordingly set aside the dismissal of the Revision on the ground of delay however affirmed the order passed by the MRT in so far as the setting aside of the order passed by the Tahsildar and Sub Divisional Officer is concerned, hence the said issue of Vyanku Taur being a tenant was also concluded by the Learned Single Judge by the judgment and order of which review is sought. This fact implies that the heirs of the original tenant are in possession of the land in question as tenants. 4 Now, coming to the ground on which condonation is sought namely that the Petitioners were not aware of the proceedings as also the ground which is urged across the bar that the heirs of the said landlord Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer were not brought on record and therefore the judgment is against a dead person. In my view, it is not impossible to accept that the Applicants who were all major in the year 1997 being between the ages of 18 and 30 were not aware of the proceedings which were pending in respect of the tenancy claimed by the said Vyanku Taur. In so far as the second ground is concerned, it was for the Advocate for the Respondent i.e. Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer to inform the Advocate for the original Petitioner as regards his death as also inform the names of heirs of the said Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer. This admittedly has not been done and the same is sought to be justified on the ground that the Applicants were not aware of the pending Writ Petition. Hence, there is no merit in the second ground also. In my view, having regard to the aforesaid facts and considering that a period of about 20 years has elapsed since the passing of the judgment and order dated 15.10.1997 the delay cannot be condoned. Reliance placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Smt. Gangadevi Vs. Union of India and another delivered on 01.10.1996 , in my view, would not aid the case of the Applicants having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. No relief can therefore be granted to the Applicants in the above Civil Application. The same is accordingly rejected. 5 In view of the rejection of the Civil Application, the Review Petition which suffers from the delay of 18 years and 122 days would not survive and to accordingly stand disposed of as such. [R.M.SAVANT, J]