All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2013 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 288 OF 2008 :­ APPLICANTS :­ RESPONDENTS :- Mr. Agnel Carneivo, i/b. M/s. Mulla and Mulla and CBC for the Applicants. Mr. Pravin Kamble, for Respondent Nos. 2A, 2C to 2E. Mr. Mohan B. Jadhav, for Respondent Nos. 3 to 6B. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JUNE 28, 2013 P.C. : Heard Mr. Agnel Carneivo, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants. Issue notice to the heirs of Respondent No. 2B, returnable on 12th July, 2013. In addition to service of notice through Court, the advocate for the Applicants may serve a private notice by Registered Post A.D. and/or by Courier service and/or by hand delivery to the heirs of Respondent No. 2B and shall file affidavit of service before the returnable date. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2013 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 288 OF 2008 Nozer Sheriyar Mazda and Ors. : Applicants versus Gulab Shankar Dangat and Ors. : Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 830 OF 2013 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 803 OF 2001 Mr. Agnel Carneivo, i/b. M/s. Mulla and Mulla and CBC, for the Applicants. Mr. Anup Lahoti, for Respondent Nos. 2(B1) to 2(B3). Mr. Pravin V. Kamble, with Mr. Sharan Patole, for Respondent Nos. 2A to 2E in Second Appeal. Mr. Samrat K. Shinde, i/b. Mr. Tejas Deshpande, for Respondent Nos. 7 and 8. Mr. S. P. Joshi, for Respondent No. 1 in Second Appeal. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JULY 19, 2013 P.C. : At the request of Shri. Lahoti appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2(B1) to 2(B3), adjourned to 23rd July, 2013. The parties to note that no further adjournment would be granted. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)

Order - Status 12: can-20-13.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.20 OF 2013 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO.288 of 2008 Nozer Shriyar Mazda & Ors. : Applicants versus Gulab Shankar Dangat & Ors. : Respondents Mr. Agnel Carneivo i/b Mulla & Mulla CBC for the Applicants Mr. Mohan Jadhav for the Respondent Nos.3 to 6(B) Mr. Pravin Kamble for the Respondent Nos.2A, 2C to 2E Mr. T. D. Deshmukh for the Respondent Nos.7 and 8 CORAM: R M SAVANT, J DATED : 23rd JULY, 2013. P.C. 1 The above Civil Application has been filed for bringing the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) on record who are the Respondent Nos.2B1 to 2B3. In so far as the said heirs are concerned, they are represented by Mr. Lahoti whose appearance is shown on the cause list. The above Civil Application had appeared on 1972013 when at the request of Mr. Lahoti it was specifically adjourned for today, however today Mr. Lahoti has not appeared though the matter has been called out twice. This Court had made it clear on the last occasion that no further adjournment would be granted. The cause for filing the above Civil Application so as to join the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) as party Respondent is to facilitate the execution of the cancellation deed for cancelling the sale deed dated 217 2006. The Respondent No.2(A) to 2(E) have executed the sale deed dated 2162006 in favour of the Respondent Nos.7 and 8 which according to the Petitioners in the above Contempt Petition is in breach and violation of the order dated 2812002 passed in the above Second Appeal, by which order the parties were directed not to create third party rights in respect of the suit property. When the above Contempt Petition had come up before a Learned Single Judge of this Court on 2642013, the Learned Judge was informed by the parties that the Respondent Nos.2(A) to 2(E) would execute a cancellation deed cancelling the said sale deed dated 2172006, the order passed on the said day discloses that a draft of the cancellation deed was also produced before the Court. Since the Respondent No.2(B) has expired after the said sale deed was executed, the cancellation deed cannot be effectively executed without bringing the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) on record. As indicated above inspite of the matter being adjourned at the request of Mr. Lahoti, no appearance is put up for the heirs today. The Civil Application is accordingly allowed, resultantly the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) i.e. Respondent No.2B1, 2B2 and 2B3 are allowed to be brought on record of the Contempt Petition. Amendment can-20-13.sxw to be carried out within one week. Amended copy to be served on the concerned Advocates. The Civil Application is accordingly disposed of. 2 The parties have also agreed to cancel the partition deed between the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2(A) to 2(E), it seems that an undertaking to that effect was given before this Court which has been recorded in the order dated 2232013. 3 Since the impediment of the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) being not on record has now been removed. It is expected of the parties that they would execute the deed of cancellation of the sale deed as well as the deed of cancellation of the unregistered partition deed within one week of the time elapsing for carrying out the amendment, and report to this Court on the next date. The Contempt Petition is adjourned to 13th August, 2013. (R M SAVANT, J)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.7624 of 2004 Shri Shankar Narsaiah Samala ..Petitioner vs. 1. Administrative Officer Municipal Education Board Bhiwandi, and ors. ..Respondents Shri M.S.Lagu for petitioner Shri R.M.Agrawal with Shri G.R.Agrawal for respondent no.1. Shri R.D.Rane, Addl.G.P. for respondent nos. 2 and 3. CORAM: A.P.SHAH AND S.C.DHARMADHIKARI JJ 23rd NOVEMBER, 2004 P.C. Heard Advocates. Shri Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and Shri Rane, Addl.G.P. appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 fairly conceded that the impugned directions were issued without affording to the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. It is obvious that there was violation of the principles of natural justice. It appears that respondent no.1 has suspended the payment of trained teacher to the petitioner solely on the basis of the directions given by the Deputy Director. At no stage the petitioner was heard by any of these authorities. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of recovery. We direct the Deputy Director to grant personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. All contentions on merits are left open to the parties. Petition is disposed of.

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5757 OF 2008 Mr.Baliram Namdev Wagh. ..Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. None present. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : AUGUST 6, 2008. P.C. : None appears. Dismissed for non-prosecution. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)

Order - Status 11: mptIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5757 of 2008 Mr.Baliram .. Namdev Wagh Petitioner versus State.. of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondents ... Mr.K.H. Holambe for the petitioner. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED : 5th September 2008 P.C.: 1.Issue notice returnable on 1st October 2008. 2.In addition, petitioners to serve the respondents by advocate's notice, either personally or by courier/speed post/e-mail/fax, and file an affidavit of service before the returnable date. 3.Status quo as of today be maintained with regard to the suit property. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)

Order - Status 13: ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5757 OF 2008 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Court's or Judge's Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.B.V.Holambe-Patil for the Petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Behere for Respondent No.2. CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED : 1st October, 2008. P.C. . By consent, adjourned for two weeks. Status-quo as ordered on 5th September, 2008 to continue till then. [ ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.]

Order - Status 16: ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5757 OF 2008 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Court's or Judge's Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.B.V.Holambe-Patil i/by Mr.K.H.Holame for the Petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Behere for Respondent No.2. CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED : 17th October, 2008. P.C. . By consent, adjourned to 24/10/2008. Meanwhile, status-quo to continue till then. [ ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.]

Order - Status 20: SPB FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. I IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5757 OF 2008 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders None for the Petitioner. Mr.S.A. Rayrikar, AGP for the State. Mr.Sameer D. Pendse i/by Rajesh Behere for the respondent no.2. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 04TH DECEMBER, 2008 P.C.: 1. None present for the petitioner again. Put on Wednesday, the 10th of December, 2008 as a last chance for dismissal. (Anoop V.Mohta,J)

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5757 OF 2008 Mr. Baliram Namdev Wagh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents None present for the Petitioner. Shri Sameer D. Pendse i/b Shri Rajesh Behere for Respondent No.2. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED: DECEMBER 10, 2008 P.C: As none appeared for the petitioner on 2-12-2008, the matter was adjourned to 4-12-2008 for dismissal. On 4-12-2008 as again none appeared for the petitioner, as last chance, the matter was ordered to be listed today under the same caption. Even today when the matter is called out, none appears for the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petition is dismissed for default. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) sjs/D8wp5757.8

Order - Status 27: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5757 OF 2008 Mr.Baliram Namdev Wagh ...Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Ganesh Nagargose i/b Mr.K.H.Holambe Patil for Petitioner. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.Pankaj Das for Respondent No.2. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. MARCH 20, 2009. P.C. ...... Request for adjournment is made on the ground that the Advocate on record for the Petitioner is unwell and has been hospitalised. In the circumstances, stand over to 30th April 2009. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Order - Status 32: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5757 OF 2008 Mr.Baliram Namdev Wagh .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.K.H.Holambe-Patil for the petitioner. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P for the State. Mr.Milind D. Parab for the respondent no.2. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 12th August 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2. The petitioner is the 1st defendant. The 2nd respondent is the original plaintiff. In a suit filed by the 2nd respondent, ex-parte decree has been passed against the petitioner. The petitioner has made an application for setting aside the exparte decree and has also prayed for stay. In the meanwhile, 2nd respondent filed execution application and applied for arrest and detention of the petitioner under Rule 30 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. An application was made by the petitioner in the execution application for stay of proceedings of the execution on the ground that his application for setting aside exparte decree was pending. By the impugned order the said application has been rejected. After having considered the submissions of the petitioner, I find no fault with the impugned order. The application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the exparte decree is still pending. If at all the petitioner is entitled to stay of execution of the decree, he has to apply for stay in application for setting aside exparte decree. Unless stay is granted in application for setting aside exparte decree, the executing Court was justified in not granting stay. Unless there is a stay granted to the execution by the competent Court in appropriate proceedings, the execution has to proceed. Therefore, no case for interference is made out. However, it will be open for the petitioner to apply for stay in the pending application for setting aside the exparte decree. To enable the petitioner to do so, ad-interim relief granted by this Court can be continued for a reasonable time. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) The petition is rejected. The rejection of the petition will not preclude the petitioner from applying for appropriate interim relief in the pending application for setting aside exparte decree. (b) To enable the petitioner to take steps, ad-interim relief granted by this Court on 17th October 2008 will continue to operate for a period of six weeks from today. (A.S.OKA,J)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1087 OF 2005 State of Maharashtra V/s Applicant. Khandu Mahadu Hake Respondent. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office ) Court's or Judge'sOrders Memoranda of Coram, appearances, ) - Court's orders or directions and ) Registrar's orders. ) ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Mr.A.M. Shringarpure, APP for the State. CORAM:V.G. PALSHIKAR AND R.C. CHAVAN, JJ. 20.7.2005 PC: Heard. Application for leave to file the appeal is granted. Appeal admitted. Record and proceedings be called for. 20.7.05

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUTION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Appeal From Order no.8l of 2006 with Civil Application No.88 of 2006 -------------------------------------------------- Office Notes,Office Court or Judge's Order Memorandum of Coram appearence,Court's Orders & Directors and Registrar's Order Mr P.S.Dani for appellants CORAM; A.M.KHANWILKAR J. DATED 2.2.2006 P.C. . Issue notice returnable on 2.5.2006 . In addition, the appellants shall serve the concerned respondents by advocate's notice, either personally or by courier/speed post/ e-mail/fax and file an affidavit of service before the returnable date. . Status quo with regard to the suit property to be maintained by the parties till 2.5.2006.

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.81 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.88 OF 2006 ------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memorandum Court's or Judge's of Coram appearance, court's Orders. orders or direction and Prothonotery's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : 18TH APRIL, 2006. P.C. : Matter was called out in the morning session when request for keeping back the matter is made at the instance of Mr.Dani. But due to paucity of time, it will not be possible to take up this matter today. Stand over to 8th June, 2006. Ad-interim order, if any, to continue till then.

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.81 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.88 OF 2006 Shri Katch Kadva Patidar Samaj Panvel ... Appellant Vs. Pen Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. P.S. Dani for the Appellant. Mr. G.S. Godbole for the respondent No.2. CORAM : : A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATED : : 8TH JUNE, 2006. P.C.: - Heard counsel for the parties. After hearing counsel for the parties, I was inclined to place this matter for final disposal. However, counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that instead of keeping the matter pending before this court, Respondent No.2 is willing to abide by the arrangement that he will not create any third party interest in the suit property or for that matter in the structure to be erected on the suit plot by him till the disposal of the suit pending before the trial court. Respondent No.2, however, submits through counsel that the construction of the structure may not be interdicted on condition that the same will be done by Respondent No.2 entirely at his risk, costs and consequences and Respondent No.2 shall not claim any equity whatsoever at the later stage of the proceedings. Respondent No.2 undertakes through counsel before this Court that in the event the Appellant succeeds before the trail court and if the trial court so directs, Respondent No.2 shall forthwith remove the structure at his own costs and consequences. Respondent No.2 is present in the court and has instructed his advocate to make this statement. The arrangement suggested by Respondent No.2, in my opinion, is a fair arrangement. In the circumstances, instead of going into the contentions which have been raised in the present appeal, in my opinion, it is in the interest of justice to accept the offer given by Respondent No.2 and direct the trial court to decide the suit expeditiously in any case by end of December, 2006. Parties through their counsel assure before this court that they will extend full cooperation for early disposal of the suit and will not seek adjournment on any count whatsoever. The order passed by the trial court stands modified to the above extent. Appeal and accompanying civil application is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. (A.M. KHANWILKAR, 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 7: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 9: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 10: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 12: 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: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MATTERS NOTIFIED AT SERIAL NOS.1 & 2 ON THE BOARD DATED 8TH AUGUST, 2008 CAUSE TITLES AND APPERANCES AS NOTIFIED .... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : AUGUST 8, 2008. P.C. : Both these matters are listed with office objection(s). I propose to pass common order in the following terms: (A) In cases where any of the Respondent(s) has/have not been served so far, for whatever reasons, the Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s) to take steps to serve the unserved Respondent(s) within EIGHT WEEKS from today by Advocate's notice, either personally or through speed post/courier/e-mail/fax and to file affidavit of service before that date, failing which, concerned Petition/Application to stand dismissed for non-prosecution, without further reference to the Court. (B) In case of any other office objection(s), the Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s) to take steps to remove the same within EIGHT WEEKS from today, failing which, the Petition/Application to stand dismissed for non-prosecution, without further reference to the Court. (C) If conditional order is complied in time in the above matters, the respective matter will be listed under appropriate caption on the following assigned dates. Sr.No. Assigned Date 1 & 2 18/11/2008 (D) Ad-interim order granted in any of the above said matters, if any, to continue till the next date of hearing. . Ordered accordingly. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)

Order - Status 9: dgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION MATTERS NOTIFIED AT SERIAL NOS. 52 TO 65 ON THE BOARD DATED 18.11.2008 CAUSE TITLES & APPEARANCES AS NOTIFIED OfficeCourt's Notes, Office Memoranda or Judge's ofOrders Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED : 18.11.2008 P.C. S. O. to 28.11.2008 Interim order, if any, to continue till then. [ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.]

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2137 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3355 OF 1998 Baban Laxman Motkari & Anr. ..Applicants. V/s. Eknath N. Motkari & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Anand Kulkarni i/b.Ms.Seema Sarnaik for applicants. Mr.M.M.Sathaye for Respondent Nos. 10A to 10K. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : JANUARY 23, 2009. P.C. : Although this application is opposed on the argument that delay is not properly explained, however, since no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent, in the interest of justice, Application deserves to be allowed. For, the main Writ Petition will nevertheless be proceeded by Petitioner No.1. Therefore, this application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (e) on condition that the Applicants shall pay cost to the Respondent Nos.10A to 10K quantified at Rs.1,000/- within one week, failing which Petition to stand dismissed for non-prosecution. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)

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

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 446 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3413 OF 2021 Siddharth Colony Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha and Ors. … Appellants V/s. The Municipal Corporation for Gr. Mumbai … Respondent Mr. Nilesh Pandey a/w Mr.Rahul Bhosale i/b. Equajuris for Appellants. Mr. Rajesh S. Patil a/w Smt. Madhuri More for Respondent-Corporation. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 8th DECEMBER, 2021. P.C. : By an Order dated 25th June 2021, on the basis of statement made by the learned counsel for the Appellants that, the Appellants shall maintain status-quo and shall not carry out any further construction, this Court directed the Respondent Corporation not to take coercive action till next date of hearing. The present Appeal was thereafter adjourned from time to time for various reasons as has been recorded in earlier Orders. On 22nd November 2021, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent – Corporation had made a grievance that, by taking undue advantage of ad-interim relief granted by this Court, the Appellants are carrying out construction on footpath abutting the suit property. In support of his contention, he relied on certain photographs annexed to the reply of Interim Application. The matter was thereafter adjourned on 30th November 2021, however, on that day, due to some reasons the present Appeal could not be listed on board. The Respondent-Corporation through their Advocate thereafter circulated the present praecipe dated 7th December 2021 seeking urgent hearing of the present Appeal. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Corporation again reiterated that, the Appellants by taking undue advantage of the Order dated 25th June 2021 are still carrying out construction on footpath attaching to the suit property. He drew my attention to the basic pleadings of the Appellants in the plaint of L.C. Suit (St.) No.4560 OF 2021 and in particular para No.10 thereof. It has been categoricaly pleaded by the Appellant that, the newly appointed developer started process of development activities at said plot of land and in order to redevelopment of the said plot of land the Plaintiffs/Appellants herein vacated the suit premises and handed it over to the Plaintiff No.1 for the purpose of site office as required to deal with occupants at large on site. It is further pleaded that, the Plaintiff No.1/Appellant No.1 herein has taken possession of the suit premises from its members being Plaintiff No.2 and 3 and Others. In this precise background, learned counsel for the Appellants had made a statement on 25th June 2021 and as noted earlier. Repeated grievances are made before this Court that by taking undue advantage of Order dated 25th June 2021, the Appellants are carrying out further construction on footpath. It is therefore necessary to direct the Assistant Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, M/W Ward, Mumbai to immediately visit the suit property today at 3.00 O'clock and inspect it. If it noticed that, the Appellants have carried out construction at the suit premises after 25th June 2021, to record a finding accordingly and submit a detailed report to this Court on next occasion i.e. on 17th December 2021. The present Order is passed in open Court in presence of learned counsel for the Appellants and learned counsel for the Respondent-Corporation. The Assistant Commissioner of Municipal Corporation therefore shall not wait for a copy of the present Order and shall inspect the suit premises today at 3.00 p.m. without giving any excuse. The Appellants are directed to maintain status-quo as of 12.00 noon of 8th December 2021. The Chairman of Appellant No.1 and Appellant Nos.2 and 3 along with their Advocate are permitted to remain present at the time of inspection by the Assistant Commissioner of Corporation, M/W Ward, Mumbai. The Senior Inspector of Police, Chembur Police Station is directed to provide necessary police protection to the Assistant Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, M/W Ward, Mumbai at the time of his inspection, to avoid any untoward incident or breach of law and order situation at the suit property. Stand over to 17th December 2021. [A.S. GADKARI, J.] MANOJ R TANDALE Digitally signed by MANOJ R TANDALE Date: 2021.12.08 14:19:06 +0530

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MOHAMMAD NAJEEB MOHAMMAD QAYYUM Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD NAJEEB MOHAMMAD Date: 2022.02.18 17:54:12 +0530 Appeal from Order No. 446 / 2021 Alongwith Interim Application No. 3413 / 2021 in Appeal from Order No. 446 / 2021 Siddharth Colony Vikas Seva Sang Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Through its Chief Promoter Mr. r. Waghmare and Ors. … Appellants Versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai … Respondent **** Mr. Nilesh R. Pandey i/by Equa Juris, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. Rajesh Patil, Counsel for MCGM. Mr. Ravindra Sirsikar, Advocate for MCGM. **** CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J. DATE : 18th FEBRUARY, 2022. P.C. Appellants shall implead the Slum Rehabilitation Authority as a party Respondent. Amendment shall be carried out forthwith. Learned Counsel shall serve amended copy of the appeal on Counsel for the Corporation and also to the newly added Respondent. Stand over to 11th March, 2022. Ad-interim relief to continue till the next date. (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 9: Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD NAJEEB MOHAMMAD OHAMMAD QAYYUM QAYYUM Date: 2022.03.11 18:38:02 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Appeal from Order No. 446 / 2021 Alongwith Interim Application No. 3413 / 2021 in Appeal from Order No. 446 / 2021 Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Chief Promoter. Mr. R. Waghmare ... Appellant Versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ... Respondent **** Mr. Nilesh R. Pandey i/by Equa Juris, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Rajesh Patil a/w Mr. Ravindra Sirsikar, Advocate for the MCGM/ Respondent No.1. Mr. Yogesh Patil i/by Mr. Vijay Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J. DATE : $11^{th}$ MARCH, 2022. P.C. Mr. Patil waives on behalf of the Respondent No.2 – Slum Rehabilitation Authority. He seeks time to file reply. Time granted. Appellant may file the rejoinder/ reply before the returnable date. Stand over to 26th April, 2022. Interim relief if any, shall continue to operate till the next date. (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 446 OF 2021 Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Cheif Promoter. Mr.r. Waghmare ....APPELLANT V/S The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 9907 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 446 OF 2021 Lahu Bapu Kamble ....PETITIONER V/S Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Cheif Promoter. Mr.r. Waghmare ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3413 OF 2021 In Appeal from Order 446 OF 2021 Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Cheif Promoter. ....PETITIONER Mr.r. Waghmare V/S The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN J DATE : 27th June, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 06/07/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 446 OF 2021 Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Cheif Promoter. Mr.r. Waghmare ....APPELLANT V/S The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 9907 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 446 OF 2021 Lahu Bapu Kamble ....PETITIONER V/S Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Cheif Promoter. Mr.r. Waghmare ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3413 OF 2021 In Appeal from Order 446 OF 2021 Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Cheif Promoter. ....PETITIONER Mr.r. Waghmare V/S The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 19th October, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 16/11/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 446 OF 2021 Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Cheif Promoter. Mr.r. Waghmare ....APPELLANT V/S The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 9907 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 446 OF 2021 Lahu Bapu Kamble ....PETITIONER V/S Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Cheif Promoter. Mr.r. Waghmare ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3413 OF 2021 In Appeal from Order 446 OF 2021 Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Cheif Promoter. ....PETITIONER Mr.r. Waghmare V/S The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 16th November, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 15/12/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )