All Cases

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6590 OF 2017 M/s. Ashirwad Nice Developers ....Petitioner V/S Mr. Chotelal Chunilal Yadav ....Respondent CORAM : B.P. COLABAWALLA, J DATE : 28th June, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is stand over to 07/07/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6590 OF 2017 M/s. Ashirwad Nice Developers ....Petitioner V/S Mr. Chotelal Chunilal Yadav ....Respondent CORAM : B.P. COLABAWALLA, J DATE : 7th July, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of tim, stand over to 22/08/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: 904.wp.6590.17 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6590 OF 2017 M/s ASHIRWAD NICE Developers ..Petitioner Vs. Mr Chotelal Chunilal Yadav ..Respondent Mr. Ranjit Bhonsale i/b Rakesh Agrawal, for the Petitioner. CORAM :- B. P. COLABAWALLA, J. DATE :- JULY 19, 2017. P. C.: The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this Writ Petition with liberty to canvas all contentions before the Trial Court. Leave is granted. 2 The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed. ( B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 1/1 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2273 OF 2021 … Mr.Ashok Rajaram Yadav ...Petitioner v/s. Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Siddharth Samantaray i/b Dimple Tejani for the Petitioner. Mr.Ashutosh Mishra for Respondent No.1. Mr.Zariv Bharucha a/w Rishi Thakur and Mr.Umang Thakur for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. … CORAM : A.A. SAYED & MADHAV JAMDAR, JJ. DATED : 29 JUNE 2021 (THROUGH V.C.) P.C.: Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 states that secured asset which is the subject matter of the present Writ Petition has been sold in a subsequent auction sale, which was conducted on 28-06- 2021. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the Petition, which is filed by the highest bidder in an earlier auction sale and seeking time to deposit the balance amount of consideration in respect of the earlier auction sale. The Petition is dismissed with liberty to the Petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. All contentions are kept open. (MADHAV JAMDAR,J.) (A.A.SAYED, J.)

Order - Status 7: SSK/33 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1904 OF 2009 Laxman Arjun Dongre ....Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents None for the Petitioner. Mrs. S. N. Gawade, APP. CORAM : D. B. BHOSALE & R. V. MORE, JJ. DATED : 20th APRIL, 2010. P.C.: None appears for the petitioner. This petition was filed in July-2009. With the passage of time, it appears that the petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting the petition and hence, nobody is appearing for the petitioner. We are therefore, constrained to dismiss this petition for non-prosecution. Order accordingly. (R. V. MORE, J.) (D. B. BHOSALE, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO. 6159 OF 2009 Deccan Education Society, Pune and Anr. ..Petitioners Vs. Shri.Ashutosh Nandkishore Ranade and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr. V.D.Borwankar Adv. for Petitioners Mr. A.I.Khemani AGP for Respondent No.2 CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 25, 2009 .... P.C.: Notice to respondent no.1 returnable on 9th September, 2009. In addition to that, the learned advocate for the petitioner to serve respondent no.1 by private service and file affidavit of service. Learned AGP waives service of notice for respondent no.2. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO.6159 OF 2009 Deccan Education Society Fergusson CollegeMr. and Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Shri.Ashutosh Nandkishore Ranade and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr.V.D.Borwankar Adv. for Petitioners Mr.A.I.Khemani AGP for Respondent No.2. Mr.S.M.Joshi Adv. for Respondent No.3. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 09, 2009 P.C.: The learned advocate for the Petitioner states that he will file affidavit of service by 17.9.2009. Time to complete the inquiry, is extended upto 30.9.2009. S.O. 23.9.2009. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6159 OF 2009 .... Deccan Education Society & Anr. ...Petitioners V/s. Ashutosh Nandkishore Ranade & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr.V.D.Borwankar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.A.M.Joshi, Advocate, for respondent no.1. CORAM : R.S.MOHITE, J. DATE : 13th NOVEMBER, 2009. P.C. The employee has filed a cross petition bearing Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 20904 of 2009, which is not on board today. By consent, these two writ petitions to be kept together for admission. Stand over to 19th November 2009. (R.S.MOHITE, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.2501 OF 2021 Sagar @ Sangpal Gulabrao Jamnik ] Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra ] Respondent Ms. Mayuri Hatle, for the Applicant. Smt.Rutuja Abmekar, APP for the State. CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE, J DATE : 12th OCTOBER, 2022. P.C. 1] Since the offences invoke against the Applicant are under the provisions of POCSO Act, let the complainant be added as party-Respondent No.2. 2] After necessary amendment is being carried out, Issue notice to Respondent No.2 returnable on 29.11.2022. 3] Let the learned APP intimate the complainant through the Investigating Officer about her impleadment in the application and also apprise her of her right of being represented through counsel of her choice or through legal aid. [BHARATI DANGRE, J]

Order - Status 6: Urmila Ingale IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Digitally signed by URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Date: 2022.11.30 10:52:53 +0530 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2501 OF 2021 Mr. Sagar @ Sang Pal Gulabrao Jamnik ..Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Ms. Mayuri D. Hatl,e for applicant. Ms. P.N. Dabholkar, APP for respondent-State. CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 29, 2022 P.C. : 1. The Learned APP submits that the complainant has been served and she wants to be represented through legal aid. Mr. Akshay Pai is requested to appear on behalf of the complainant and represent her. 2. List the matter on 06/12/2022. (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 2501 OF 2021 Sagar @ Sang Pal Gulabrao Jamnik APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 6th December, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 16/12/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 2501 OF 2021 Sagar @ Sang Pal Gulabrao Jamnik ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Ms. Mayuri D. Hatle for Applicant. Ms. G. P. Mulekar, APP for State. Mr. Akshay Pai for Respondent No. 2 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 16th December, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 20/12/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 2501 OF 2021 Sagar @ Sang Pal Gulabrao Jamnik APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 20th December, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 05/01/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.2501 OF 2021 SAGAR @ SANGPAL GULABRAO JAMNIK ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. ..RESPONDENTS ------------ Ms. Mayuri D. Hatle for the applicant. Mr. Akshay Pai for respondent No.2. Mr. N. B. Patil, APP for the State. ------------ CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 5, 2023. P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave to withdraw the application. A request is made to expedite the trial as the applicant is in custody since 22/09/2020. The FIR is lodged on 28/07/2020. Considering that the applicant is in custody for more than 2 years and 3 months, the trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of six months from today. In any case, considering that the applicant is incarcerated for this long a period, the trial Court is requested to record the evidence of the child within a period of one month from the date when this order is produced on record. 3. Liberty to apply for bail in case the trial does not substantially proceed during the period of six months from today. 4. Subject to what is observed hereinabove, the application is allowed to be withdrawn and disposed of. 5. I appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Pai, learned advocate, who was requested to appear on behalf of the victim. (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2501 OF 2021 Sagar @ Sang Pal Gulabrao Jamnik Versus...Applicant ...RespondentThe State Of Maharashtra...Respondent ____ None for the Applicant Ms. Anamika Mlahotra, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : $28^{text{th}}$ AUGUST 2023. P.C. : The letter dated 5 th July 2023 is received from District Judge-7 and Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, for extension of one year time for disposal of Special (POCSO) Case No. 506/2020. Considering the reasons mentioned in the letter, one year time is extended to dispose of Special (POCSO) Case No. 506/2020. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 594 OF 2021 …...... …...... Atul Hanumant Kale … Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent None for the Applicant. Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATED : 17 JANUARY 2023 P.C. :- . The Registry has received this application through jail. The notification which was issued to release under-trial prisoners on bail in view of Covid-19 pandemic has ceased to exist. The present application for bail on that ground thus does not survive and the same is disposed of. ( N.R. BORKAR, J. ) KANCHAN PRASHANT DHURI Digitally signed by KANCHAN PRASHANT DHURI Date: 2023.01.17 18:21:02 +0530 Kanchan P Dhuri 1 / 1

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.886 OF 2017 Dilip @ Deepak Shankar Karanjkar Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Avnendra Kumar i/by Rahul Tiwari for Applicant. Smt.J.S.Lohokare, APP, for State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 05th June 2017 PC : Learned advocate for Applicant states that he has not served copy of application to the office of Public Prosecutors. He, therefore, seeks a week's time. Request is accepted. Stand over to 12th June 2017. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) MST

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 886 of 2017 Dilip @ Deepak Shankar Karanjkar …Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Mr. Rahul Tiwari for the applicant. Mr. A. R. Kapadnis, APP for the respondentState. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 12 JUNE 2017 P.C. : This is an application for anticipatory bail in connection with C.R. No. 78 of 2017 registered with Kurar Police Station, Malad(E), Mumbai for the offences punishable under section 135 and 138 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003. The FIR was registered on 5 April, 2017. It is the prosecution case that the officers employed with Reliance Energy Ltd. has conducted raid on 5 April, 2017 and they noticed theft of electricity is being committed from Mini Pillar and seven cables found on terrace of Sai Medical which were running through drainage. It was noticed that electricity supply was being provided to 500 to 600 unauthorised hutment dwellers which are situated 700 to 800 meters within forest area. On enquiry, it was revealed that the applicant and the coaccused Satyawan Chavan and Manoj Jadhav had committed theft of electricity and supplied the same to the hutment dwellers. It was further revealed that theft of electricity was committed from 6 October, 2016 to 5 April, 2017 and around 467240 units worth Rs.79,43,086/ were utilized by the accused. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this crime. He has not committed the said offence. The prosecution has relied upon the hearsay evidence which was devoid of any merits. He submitted that there is no evidence to connect the applicant with the said crime. Learned APP submitted that the applicant is involved in the said crime. This fact is evident from the statements of hutment dwellers which were recorded during the course of investigation. The witnesses have stated that the applicant and the coaccused had provided them the electricity from the said cables. He further pointed out that two other accused are absconding. He also submitted that at the earlier point of time similar FIR was registered against the applicant with same police station vide C.R No.137 of 2016. He submitted that the accused/applicant is habitual offender and is involved in such activities repeatedly and therefore the anticipatory bail application should be rejected. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking into consideration the involvement of the applicant which is based on the statement of the witnesses and also looking into the fact that the applicant has earlier committed the similar offence, I am not inclined to grant this application. Hence I pass the following order; :: ORDER :: (i) Anticipatory Bail Application no.886 of 2017 is rejected. (ii) Application stands disposed of. [PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.]

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6504 OF 2004 Mohammed Maqbool Khan. .. Petitioner (Org.Defendant) Vs. Shaikh Riaysat Ali Driver. .. Respondent (Org.Plaintiff) -- Shri A.A.Mirza & N.Y.Shaikh for the petitioner. Shri P.S.Dani with Shri J.S.Yadav for the respondent. -- CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J DATED : 26th OCTOBER, 2004. P.C. Heard. The petitioner challenges the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte decree which was passed against the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that the matter was adjourned from 14th July, 2000 to 26th July, 2000. However, instead of taking up the matter on 26th July, 2000, it was taken up for hearing on 25th July, 2000, and thereafter it was adjourned to 20th September, 2000. But, the trial Court disposed of the matter on 11th August, 2000 itself i.e. much prior to the date fixed for hearing of the matter. The contention of the petitioner is that on 26th July, 2000, the petitioner's advocate appeared in the Court but having been informed by the clerk of the advocate that the matter was adjourned to 20th September, 2000, he did not attend the hearing of the matter which took place subsequent to the 26th July, 2000 i.e. much prior to 20th September, 2000. Both the Courts below have disbelieved the petitioner's contention in this regard while observing that the records do not disclose that the advocate for the petitioner himself having attended the Court either on 26th July, 2000 or any other date thereafter. Undisputedly, no steps were taken by the petitioner and his advocate to record their presence in the Court on 26th July, 2000, neither any application was filed for taking the matter on board on 26th July, 2000 if the matter was not listed for hearing on the same day on the board of the trial Court, nor attention was drawn of the trial Court regarding the appearance of the petitioner and his advocate in the Court on 26th July, 2000. It is not also the case of the petitioner that steps were taken to verify the adjourned date of hearing of the matter either on 26th July, 2000 or any time thereafter till 20th September, 2000. In case, the petitioner was genuinely interested in contesting the matter, certainly knowing well that the matter was adjourned from 14th July, 2000 to 25th July, 2000 or 26th July, 2000 as alleged by the petitioner, for regarding of evidence, he would have certainly verified as to what had happened on 25th July, 2000 in order to avoid the consequence of ex part proceeding against the petitioner. Apparently, the petitioner did not bother to know anything about the proceedings which had taken place on 25th July, 2000 even though he claims to have appeared in the Court on 26th July, 2004. In the circumstances, therefore, both the Courts below having arrived at the concurrent findings regarding failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose the reason for absence in the Court on the date when the matter was disposed of ex parte, no fault can be found with the said findings, nor the same warrant any interference in writ jurisdiction as it cannot be said that the Courts below have exercised their discretion either arbitrarily or illegally, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Being so, the petition is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. _____ 4 -