All Cases

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE. WRIT PETITION NO. 4503 OF 2006 ... ordersOrders. or directions and Registrar's orders. OfficeCourt's Notes, Office Memorada or Judge's Mr. A.K.Abhyankar , P.S.Dani with H.N.Vakil i/b. M/s. Mulla & Mulla for the petitioners. Shri R.D.Rane GP for Respdt.5. CORAM; V.G.PALSHIKAR Acg.C.J.& V.M.KANADE, J. DTAED: 11TH AUGUST, 2006. P.C. To Rule. 1. be heard with W.P. of 2003. No.2697 . Status Status-quo wi continued be with liberty to get ers in interim or appropriate interim orders in in this case.

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4503 OF 2006 TATA MOTORS LIMITED )...PETITIONER V/s. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD MUNICIPAL CORP. ) AND ORS. )...RESPONDENTS Mr.H.N.Vakil i/b. M/s.Mulla & Mulla and Craigie Blunt and Caroe, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.S.B.Kalel, AGP for the Respondent State. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA & A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 14th JULY 2017 P.C. : 1 Issue fresh notice to respondent nos.1 to 4, returnable on 11th August 2017. The learned AGP appears for respondent no.5. (A. M. BADAR, J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA), J.)

Order - Status 11: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4503 OF 2006 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Rushi Mathur instructed by M/s Mulla and Mulla Co. and Craige Blunt and Caroe is present. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI REGISTRAR (JUDL­I) Date : 13 SEPTEMBER 2017 Await service to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for four weeks i.e. 11.10.2017. S.O. to 12.10.2017. REGISTRAR (JUDL­I) RJ I gpj / 13.09.2017

Order - Status 13: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4503 OF 2006 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. H.W. Vakil a/w Ms. S.M. Vakil and Mr. Andre Shah instructed by Mulla and Mulla CBC, Advocate for Petitioner is present. CORAM :A.N. MARE REGISTRAR (JUDL­I) Date : 12 OCTOBER 2017 Await service to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for four weeks (excluding diwali vacation) i.e. 23.11.2017. S.O. to 24.11.2017. REGISTRAR (JUDL­I) RJ I gpj / 12.10.2017

Order - Status 31: VAI IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4503 OF 2006 Tata Motors Limited …Petitioner Versus Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation And Ors. ..Respondents Mr P. S. Dani, Senior Advocate , a/w Mr. H. N. Vakil a/w Mr. Samkit Shah i/by Mulla and Mulla and Craigie Blunt & Caroe for the Petitioner. Ms S. S. Bhende , A.G.P. for the Respondent – State. CORAM: M.S. Sonak & Kamal Khata, JJ DATED: 27th August 2024 PC:- 1. Place this matter along with Writ Petition No.2697 of 2003 on 19th November 2024. If full Bench has decided earlier, liberty to apply. (Kamal Khata, J) (M.S. Sonak, J) VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2024.08.30 12:04:10 +0530

Order - Status 33: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4503 OF 2006 _______ _______ Tata Motors Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation & Ors. ...Respondents None for Petitioner. Ms. M. P. Thakur, AGP for State. CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & ARIF S. DOCTOR, JJ. DATE: 27 JUNE 2025 P.C. None for the petitioner. As a matter of last chance, stand over to 04 July 2025. In the event, the petitioner is not represented on the adjourned date of hearing, there shall be no alternative but to dismiss the petition for want of prosecution. (ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

Order - Status 36: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4503 OF 2006 _________ __________ Tata Motors Limited ...Petitioner Vs. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation & Ors. ...Respondents None for the Petitioner. Ms. S. A. Prabhune, AGP for the Respondent-State. CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & ARIF S. DOCTOR, JJ. DATE: 04 JULY 2025. MUGDHA MANOJ PARANJAPE Digitally signed by MUGDHA MANOJ PARANJAPE Date: 2025.07.07 12:09:33 +0530 P.C. On 27th June 2025 we had passed the following order :- "1. None for the petitioner. As a matter of last chance, stand over to 04 July 2025. In the event, the petitioner is not represented on the adjourned date of hearing, there shall be no alternative but to dismiss the petition for want of prosecution." Today again the Petitioner is not represented. Considering our aforesaid order, it clearly appears that the Petitioner is not interested in prosecuting this Petition. It is accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution. (ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.190 OF 2018 ..... .... The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant V/s. Shri.Mithun Balaso Sawant & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.S.V.Gavand, APP for the Applicant/State. CORAM : A.M.BADAR J. DATED : 20th JULY 2018. P.C. : 1 Issue notice to respondents returnable on 14th September 2018. (A.M.BADAR J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.190 OF 2018 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...APPLICANT V/s. MITHUN BALASO SAWANT AND ANR. )...RESPONDENTS Mrs.M.R.Tidke, APP for the Applicant – State. Mr.Sharad Mulik, Advocate for the Respondent State. CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J. DATE : 15th OCTOBER 2018 P.C. : 1 This is an application for condonation of delay in preferring an application for leave to appeal. What is sought to be challenged is acquittal of the respondents in Special Case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2 Heard the learned APP appearing for the State as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. He argued that carelessness of the State is reflected from the fact that neither the name of the court nor the other particulars are properly mentioned in the instant application. The same is therefore liable to be rejected. 3 I have considered the submissions so advanced. The delay occurred is that of 21 days. Leaving apart the misdescription of the court and other particulars in the application, sufficient cause is shown for the short delay of 21 days in filing the application for leave to appeal. Hence, the order : ORDER i) The application is allowed. ii) The delay in filing the application for leave to appeal is condoned. iii) The application is accordingly disposed off. (A. M. BADAR, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2444 OF 2007 Maya Niranjandas alias Waghmare .. Applicant v/s. State of Maharashtra (Through the Vithalwadi P.Stn., Ulhasnagar) .. Respondent Mr.Rupesh K. Bobade for the applicant. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. DATED : 14TH AUGUST, 2007 P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No. I98/2006 registered at Vithalwadi Police Station, Ulhasnagar. The said case is registered under section 171, 364A, 384, 385, 504, 506 IPC It is the prosecution case that one Niranjan Das and the complainant were proceeding to Antop Hill on motorcycle. The complainant was driving the motorcycle. At that time the motorcycle skidded, due to this Niranjan sustained injuries. The wife of Niranjan and the friends of Niranjan including the applicant said that the complainant is responsible for the injuries and made him to pay Rs.21,000/ for medical expenses. It is further the case of the complainant that on 1.9.2006 the applicant alongwith others came to the house at the complainant stating that Niranjan and his wife had called him and they took him to the house of Niranjan. At that time, Niranjan and his wife Maya were present. It is further case of the complainant that in the house of Niranjan, he was assaulted by fist blows and Rs.2 lacs was demanded from him. The complainant told them that he was unable to pay the said amount whereupon they took document from him stating that the complainant would give an amount of Rs.50,000/ towards expenses to Niranjan Das. The said document has already been seized by the police. So far as the present applicant is concerned, her presence is shown together with certain circumstances given by her. Considering the role of the present applicant and the fact that the investigation is complete and chargesheet has been filed, all necessary documents have already been seized and that she is a woman who is also required to look after her children, I am inclined to grant her bail subject to the following conditions: (a) The applicant arrested in connection with C.R.No.I-98/2006, registered with Vithalwadi Police Station, Ulhasnagar, shall be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/ with one or two sureties to make up the said amount. (b) The applicant shall report to Vithalwadi Police Station, Ulhasnagar once in a week i.e. on every Saturday between 03.00 p.m. to 05.00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial. (c) The order of bail will be given effect only after the applicant furnishes to the investigating officer the details about his place of residence and address where he proposes to stay after he is enlarged on bail. The applicant will not change his residential address thereafter till the conclusion of trial without prior intimation to the investigating officer. (d) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement or threat or pressurise any prosecution witnesses and shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution evidence. (e) The applicant shall cooperate with the inves agency for disposal of the case. It is needless to mention that breach of any of the conditions by the applicant shall result in cancellation of bail. (f) Any observation made in this order shall not be construed as finding or expression on merits of the case at the time of trial. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (V.C. DAGA, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5203 OF 2011 Solapur Zilla Dekhrekh Sahakari Saunstha Maryaditt ..Petitioner V/s. Malkari Banappa Whanmane & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Surel Shah for the Petitioner CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 20TH AUGUST, 2011. P.C. :- 1 Heard Shri Surel Shah for the Petitioner. Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable in two weeks. Apart from the Court notice private service through Courier / Email / Registered post A.D. is permitted. Parties are put to notice that the Petition may be heard and disposed of finally at the admission stage. The Learned AGP waives service on behalf of Respondent No.2-District Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies. (R.M.Savant, J.)

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL AND CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : JULY 3, 2013 P.C. On account of paucity of time rest of the matters on Daily Board are adjourned to dates fixed as per the CMIS (Court Management Information System) which read as under : Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 14 30/07/2013 44,46 22/07/2013 49 TO 52 23/07/2013 54 TO 56 24/07/2013 57, 58 29/07/2013 59, 60 30/07/2013 61 31/07/2013 62 TO 66 07/08/2013 67 TO 76 12/08/2013 77 TO 96 13/08/2013 If in any of the above matters, ad interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If adinterim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. If there is any extreme urgency, the parties can get the papers produced before this Court. ( K.K. TATED, J )

Order - Status 25: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5203 OF 2011 Solapur Zilla Dekhrekh Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit ... Petitioner V/s. Malkari Banappa Whanmane & Ors. ... Respondents None for the Petitioner and Respondent. CORAM : K.K. TATED *, J. 7th August, 2013.* P.C. : Twice the matter is called out no one appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. Writ Petition is dismissed for default. (K.K. TATED, J.) katkam k

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 867 OF 2010 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2393 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 867 OF 2010 Rajendra Vitthal Bahirat. Appellant. Versus Prakash Ramchandra Girme. Respondent. Mr. A. B. Tajane for the Appellant. Mr. Mandar Limaye for the Respondent. CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR and A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 14TH JULY, 2010. P. C. : By consent, S. O. to 22nd July, 2010. Sd/ Sd/ (A. A. SAYED, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 867 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2393 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.867 OF 2010 Rajendra Vitthal Bahirat & ors. ....Appellants. Vs. Prakash Ramchandra Girme. ....Respondent. Mr.A.B.Tajane for appellants. Mr. Mandar Limaye for respondent. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.A.SAYED, JJ DATED:- JULY 22, 2010 P.C. Not before the Bench of which one of us(A.M.Khanwilkar,J) is a member. (A.A.SAYED, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)

Order - Status 11: Shri Rajendra Vitthal Bahirat & Ors. ..Appellants Vs. Shri Prakash Ramchandra Girme ..Respondent Shri P.B.Jagtap i/b Shri Ashok Tajane for the Appellants Shri Mandar Limaye for the Respondent Coram: P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ Date: 16th August 2010 P.C. mmj The Learned Counsel for the Appellants fairly states that this Appeal is not maintainable as the order is passed by the Trial Court under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants further states that he would like to file Revision Application. The permission is granted to take out appropriate proceedings as deem fit in accordance with law. The Certified copy and other papers annexed with the said First Appeal to be returned back to the Learned Counsel for the Appellants by giving simple copy of the same. Refund of Court fees as per rules. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR,J.)

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2513 OF 2014 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.16008 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or orders or directions & Judge's orders. Registrar's orders. – Shri U.J. Makhija along with Roshan Pinto i/by Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt and Caroe for the Applicant. CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ DATED : 20TH MARCH 2015 P.C.: . Rule, returnable on 6th May 2015. In addition to the service through Court, private service is permitted. (A.P.BHANGALE, J) (A.S.OKA, J)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2513 OF 2014 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.16008 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Advocate for the R.No.2 Present. CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, REGISTRAR (JUDL ­ II) Date : 06th May, 2015 Await Service for 6 weeks. sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­ II) dsm – R(J­II) – 06.05.15

Order - Status 9: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2513 OF 2014 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.16008 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Advocate for the Applicant Present. CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, REGISTRAR (JUDL ­ II) Date : 17th June, 2015 Re­issue Notice to Respondent No.1, returnable after 6 weeks. sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­ II) dsm – R(J­II) – 17.06.15

Order - Status 11: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2513 OF 2014 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.16008 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Advocate for the Appellant Present. Advocate for the Respondent Present. CORAM : R.M. JOSHI REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 29th July, 2015 Await Service for 4 weeks. 67 Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm ­ R(J­II) – 29.07.15

Order - Status 12: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2513 OF 2014 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.16008 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Advocate for the Appellant Present. Advocate for the Respondent No.2 Present. CORAM : R.M. JOSHI REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 26th August, 2015 S.O. to 4 weeks for taking steps as against unserved Respondent No.4. sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 26 .08.15

Order - Status 14: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2513 OF 2014 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.16008 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Advocate for the Petitioner Present. Advocate for the Respondent No.2 Present. CORAM : R.M. JOSHI REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 23rd September, 2015 Both Ld. Counsel submits that there is error in office remark about Respondent No.4 instead of Respondent No.1. Order dated 26/08/2015 corrected. S.O. to 4 weeks. sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 23.09.15

Order - Status 16: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2513 OF 2014 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.16008 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Advocate for the Appellant Present. Advocate for the Respondent No.2 Present. CORAM : R.M. JOSHI REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 21st October, 2015 S.O. to 4 weeks for taking steps as against unserved Respondent No.1. sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 21.10.15

Order - Status 18: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2513 OF 2014 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.16008 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Advocate for the Appellant Present. CORAM : R.M. JOSHI REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 19th January, 2016 Advocate for the Appellant makes statement that he has already filed Affidavit alongwith copies of Newspapers regarding service of Respondent No.1. Office to verify and matter to proceed. sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 19.01.16

Order - Status 22: Shephali IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2513 OF 2014 IN FIRST APPEAL ST NO. 16008 OF 2014 The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay …Applicant Versus Madanlal Shah & Co & Anr …Respondents Mr UJ Makhija *, i/b Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe, for the Appellant.* Ms Naseem Sumnani *, for Respondent No. 2.* CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 12th July 2017 PC:- 1. There is a delay of 103 days in filing the First Appeal. The delay is sufficiently explained in the Civil Application. It is condoned. 2. The Civil Application is made absolute and disposed of accordingly. No costs. (G. S. PATEL, J) Page 1 of 1 12th July 2017

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.450 OF 2014 Smt. Bhagirathi Haribhau Yadav & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Vishnu Kate & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. R.B. Raghuvanshi i/b. Miss Rutuja Ambekar for the Applicants. Mr. S.G. Kudle for Respondent No.10. CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 08, 2014. P.C. : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the rival parities. 2 For the present, the controversy is only about Survey No.119/2/B. I quote paragraph 42 from the judgment of the lower appellate Court which reads thus : " From this purpose entries in 7/12 extract of land survey no.119 at Exh.265 for the year 194344 is also material to consider. This entry shows that land was acquired by military and Mahadu and Vishnu had taken the land for cultivation from military. Anyhow one thing is clear that land gat no.119 was acquired by the government and Mahadu and heirs of Vishnu had received that compensation as per their respective shares. If this is the position then it has to be said that tenancy rights of the family came to an end and land gat no.119 became the property of the government." 3 The observation made in paragraph 41 and paragraph 42 shows that the land had vested in the Government in its military department. The finding is based on the basis of mutation entries but there it is not clear as contended by Mr. Kudale nor it is substantiated by the documentary evidence that the Government had released the land after it had vested in it. The parties are at liberty to place the documents of release, if any, on record, since Second Appeal No.450 of 2014 is admitted for final hearing. However, looking at the finding in paragraph 42 as above, it appears prima facie that neither the appellant nor the respondent would be able to claim any right to go ahead with the construction on the said land or as the case may be without hearing the concerned Government. Hence I make the following order : ORDER i) The appellant to join the concerned Government as a party to the present Civil Application as well as Second Appeal and effect service before the next date. ii) Issue notice to the newly added party in both Second Appeal as well as Civil Application, returnable after vacation for hearing on this application. iii) Till the decision of the application finally the earlier order granting statusquo shall continue in operation. iv) S.O. for 6 weeks. (A. B. CHAUDHARI, J.) waghmare.

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION No.1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.450 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr.Ratnesh Dube i/b Ms.Rutuja Ambekar for the applicants Mr.S.G.Kudle for the respondent No.10. CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATED : 26/11/2014 PC : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 Liberty granted to the respondents to file their additional AffidavitinReply and serve copy on the other side. 3 Liberty granted to the applicants to file reply to the said affidavit, if they so desire and serve copy on the other side on or before the next date. 4 Stand over for two weeks. 5 Interim protection, if any, granted earlier to continue till next date. (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 12: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 450 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. Ratnesh Dube i/b Rutuja Ambekar for the applicant. Mr. S.G. Kudle for respondent no.10. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATED : 15/12/2014. P.C.: . Not on board. At the request of Advocate for the respondent no.10, matter is taken on board for urgent orders. 2 Liberty granted to the applicant to serve unserved respondent by private notice either by registered post A.D. and/or by hand delivery and file Affidavit of Service to that effect. 3 Matter to appear on board on 23.12.2014. (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 14: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 450 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders r Jud ge's or ders Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. R.P. Mr. R.P. Raghuvanshi i/b R.A. Ambekar for the i/b R.A. Ambekar for the applicant. Mr. S.G. Kudle for the respondent no.10. Ms. Jyotsna Pandi & P.S. Gujar for Union of India. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATED : 23/12/2014. P.C.: . Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 The learned counsel for the appellant submits that Appellant no.1 Smt. Bhagirathi Haribhau Yadav expired yesterday i.e. 22.12.2014. Hence, he requires some time to take appropriate steps for bringing her legal heirs on record. 3 On his request, matter adjourned to 19.01.2015. 4 Interim protection, if any, granted earlier to continue till next date. (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 450 OF 2014 Smt. Bhagirathi Haribhau Yadav and Ors. Applicants : V/S : Dnyaneshwar Vishnu Kate and Ors. Respondents * * * * * Mr. R.B. Raghuvanshi a/w. Mr. Ratnesh Dube i/by. Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. S.G. Kudle, Advocate for respondent no.10. Mrs. Jyotsna Pandhi with Mr. P.S. Gujar, Advocate for respondents no.21 to 25. Mr. Rajan Pawar, AGP for respondents no.26 and 27. * * * * * * Coram :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 11th February, 2015. P.C. :- 1). Adjourned for reply of the Government to 25th February, 2015. Copy of the affidavit-in-reply shall be furnished in advance to the appellant and other respondents. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J)

Order - Status 23: Chittewan 1/5 C.A.1021-14 O.O. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.450 OF 2014 Smt. Bhagirathi Haribhau Yadav and ors. .. Applicants/ Appellants (Org.Plaintiffs) V/s Dnyaneshwar Vishnu Kate and Ors. .. Respondents. (Org.Defendants) AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 170 OF 2015 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.450 OF 2014 R.N. Yadav @ Dhariya .. Applicant (Org.Respondent No.10) In the matter between Smt. Bhagirathi Haribhau Yadav and ors. .. Applicants/ Appellants (Org.Plaintiffs) V/s Dnyaneshwar Vishnu Kate and Ors. .. Respondents. (Org.Defendants) Mr. R.B. Raghuvanshi a/w Ratnesh Dube i/b Ms Rutuja Ambekar, for Applicants. Mr. S.G. Kudle, for Respondent No.10. Mrs. Jyotsna Pandhi with Mr. P.S. Gujar, for Respondents No.21 to 25. Mr. Rajan Pawar, AGP for Respondents No.26 and 27. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 25th March, 2015 P.C. This is a common order on the above two Civil Applications. Civil Application No.1021 of 2014 is taken out by the appellants for interim injunction to restrain respondent No.1 from dealing with or developing one of the suit properties i.e. the land at Survey No.119/2B of Pimple Saudagar, pending the disposal of the Second Appeal. Civil Application No.170 of 2015 is taken out by respondent No.10 for clarification that the adinterim order dated 08th October, 2014 passed on the Civil Application of the appellants is no more in operation in view of the subsequent order dated 12th December, 2014. The other relief sought by respondent No.10 is to direct the appellants to file an undertaking in the form of bank guarantee to the effect that in the event respondent No.10 succeeds in the appeal, the appellants will compensate him for the losses suffered on account of delay in the decision in the Second Appeal. The Second Appeal arises out of the suit filed by the appellants for partition of the joint family properties. The appeal was admitted on 06th August, 2014 with observations that prima facie it appears that there was no reason for the Appellate Court to exclude properties at Survey No.119/2B and 18/7 from partition and separate possession. These two properties are claimed to have been purchased by respondent No.10 from respondent No.1 by the sale deed dated 09th June, 1983. The Lower Appellate Court has recorded a finding that the properties had been owned jointly by Vishnu, Laxman and Mahadev. Respondent No.1 is the son of Vishnu. In view of this factual position, the Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law : Whether the appellate Court was right in excluding Survey No.119/2B and 18/7 from the partition and separate possession ? Whether learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.10 waives service of the notice ? It appears that during pendency of the proceedings, some portion of the properties came to be acquired by Government of India. Therefore, by order dated 08th December, 2014, the appellants were directed to amend the Civil Application to implead the concerned parties. Accordingly, amendment was carried out and seven persons were impleaded to the Civil Application. They are (1) Union of India, (2) Director General, Defence Estate, (3) Principal Director, Defence Estate, (4) Defence Estate officer, Southern Command, (5) Commanding Officer, Southern Command, (6) State of Maharashtra and (7) The Collector of Pune. The interim relief in operation during pendency of the suit was direction to respondent No.10 to maintain statusquo in respect of the properties at Survey No.119/2B and 18/7. This order has been continued with observation that if respondent No.10 is allowed to deal with the properties or carry out the construction, the same would lead to further complication which should be avoided. Mr. Kudgle, the learned advocate for respondent No.10 submits that the order dated 23rd December, 2014 passed this Court, is no longer in operation since the same has not been specifically continued. He also submits that respondent No.10, who had purchased the properties as far back as in the year 1983 is unable to enjoy the properties purchased by him. Considering the nature of the substantial questions of law framed, properties in question need to be preserved in the same condition during pendency of the Second Appeal. Hence, the Civil Application No.1021 of 2014 is allowed and Civil Application No.170 of 2015 is dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)

Order - Status 7: Vidya Amin IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.384 OF 2014 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 691 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1267 OF 2015 Sudhakar Lobhaji Ghaitadkay ... Appellant Vs. Madhukar Lobhaji Ghaitadkay & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Atul S. Tungare, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Girish M. Joshi, Advocate for respondent No. 1. CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE: 29th January, 2018. P.C.: This Appeal is pending for admission since 2014. In between, Civil Application No. 1264 of 2015 was moved by the appellant for bringing legal heirs of deceased respondent No. 1-Madhukar Lobhaji Ghaitadkay. In the Application, it is prayed that respondent nos. 1A to 1E are the legal heirs of deceased respondent No. 1. Another Civil Application No. 691 of 2015 was preferred by the appellant in February, 2015 praying that respondent nos. 6A and 6B are to be brought on record in the event of death of respondent No. 6-Usha Ashok Sonawane. The learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submitted that in bringing the legal heirs of deceased respondent No. 6, i.e., 6A and 6B, there is delay of 211 days in filing the Application because he had mistaken belief that legal heirs of deceased respondent no.6 -Usha Ashok Sonawane are already on record and hence delay is caused. The learned counsel for original respondent No. 1 is present. He submitted that one of the legal heirs of deceased respondent No. 1 is dead, however, he wants to verify. In view of this, for the reasons mentioned in Civil Application No. 691 of 2015, delay is condoned. Civil Application Nos. 1267 of 2015 and 691 of 2015 for bringing their respective legal heirs on record are allowed. The legal heirs of deceased respondent No. 1 and deceased respondent No. 6 are to be brought on record. Amendment to be carried out within one week. Place the Appeal from Order for admission on 26th February, 2018. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2096 OF 2004 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5204 OF 2004 Subhan Mohamed Yusuf Parkar and another ... Petitioners versus Dastgir Mohamed Sathe and ors. ... Respondents ... Mr. H.A. Solkar, for the Petitioners. Mr. S.S. Pakale, for Respondents Nos. 1 to 5. Mr. M.A. Solkar, for Respondents Nos. 6 and 10. Mr. A.H. Palekar, for Respondents Nos. 25 and 26. ... CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. 3rd September 2004 P.C.: . Preliminary objection is raised on behalf of the Respondents that the main writ petition is finally disposed of. It is contended that if the grievance of the Petitioners is about the correctness of the order passed by the Inspector of the office of the Charity Commissioner, appointed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, the appropriate remedy is to question that decision by substantive proceedings and not by way of civil application in a disposed of writ petition. To over come this objection, Mr. Solkar, for the applicants, contends that the grievance of the applicants is about the inappropriate understanding and misapplication of the directions given by this Court in the disposed of writ petition. Even so, to my mind, there is substance in the preliminary objection taken on behalf of the Respondents about the maintainability of the civil application. The appropriate course is to permit the applicants to withdraw this application with liberty to resort to such other substantive remedy as may be available and permissible by law. That be done within one week from today. In the meantime, the parties shall maintain status quo as of today. Civil Application disposed of accordingly. . Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.)