All Cases

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Amk FIRST APPEAL NO. 449 OF 2016 Mr. Farogh Ahd. Zahor Ahd. Ansari Appellant Vs. M/s. Kataria Transport Co. Ltd. & Anr. Respondents Mr. Abhay A. Jadhavar i/b Ashok B. Tajane for the Appellant. CORAM : DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J. DATE : 26th AUGUST, 2016. P. C. : Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Admit. The appellant to furnish the private paper book within one year from the date of this order. Copy thereof be served on the respondents. After the private paper book is filed, the appeal be fixed for hearing as per CMIS date. [DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.]

Order - Status 7: Vidya Amin FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL No. 449 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, inces, Court's Court's or Judge's orders orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. Ashok B. Tajane, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED: 26th September, 2017. P.C.: The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondent No. 1 is served by publication. He further prays to extend the time to file paper book. Time to file private paper book is extended by one month from today. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 449 OF 2016 Mr. Farogh Ahd. Zahoor Ahd. Ansari V/S Appellant Adv.Y.G.Thorat i/by Ashok B. Tajane For Appellant Rupam Ghosh For Respondent No. 2 (vp Filed Before Admission) R.no.2 Is Duly Served Through Court Notice For Respondent CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J DATE : 21st March, 2018 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the Appellant, Stand 28/03/2018 and tagged with caa(st)8671/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.449 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Advocate Kavita Shinde i/by Advocate A.B. Tajane Present for Appellant. CORAM : V.R. KACHARE REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 24th September, 2018 3 weeks time is granted to supply copy of Newspaper. sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 24.09.2018

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 449 OF 2016 Mr. Farogh Ahd. Zahoor Ahd. Ansari … Appellant V/s M/s Kataria Transport Co. Ltd. And Anr. … Respondents Mr. Sharad Bhosale i/b Mr. Ashok B. Tajane, for the Appellant. CORAM : V. G. BISHT, J. DATED : 13TH JANUARY, 2020. P.C. Place this matter under the caption of " For Final Hearing" on 27th February, 2020. ( V. G. BISHT, J.)

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 449 OF 2016 Mr. Farogh Ahd. Zahoor Ahd. Ansari ....Appellant V/S M/s. Kataria Transport Co. Ltd. And Anr. ....Respondent Mr Y G Thorat h/for Mr Ashok B Tajane, Advocate For Appellant CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J DATE : 27th February, 2020 P.C. : Mentioned at 2.00 p.m. At the request of the Advocate for the Appellant, place the matter on Board for hearing on 05/03/2020. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 449 OF 2016 Mr. Farogh Ahd. Zahoor Ahd. Ansari ....Appellant V/S M/s. Kataria Transport Co. Ltd. And Anr. ....Respondent CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J DATE : 5th March, 2020 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 02/04/2020 . In case any ad-interim/interim relief is operating till today, the said order will continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 19: Shailaja IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.449 OF 2016 Farogh Ahd. Zahoor Ahd. Ansari ] Appellant Vs. M/s. Kataria Transport Co. Ltd. ] and another ] Respondents ..... Mr. Akshay Kashid i/b Mr. Ashok B. Tajane, for Appellant. None for the Respondents. CORAM : PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. DATE : 4th FEBRUARY. 2021. P.C. This is an appeal for enhancement of the claim awarded by M.A.C.T, Mumbai. ….. It is contended that despite a claim to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-, the learned Tribunal has granted only an amount of Rs.5,93,487/-. The appeal has already been admitted on 26th August, 2016. The appellant had also filed a paper book. In that view of the matter, list the appeal on the board of "Final Hearing" in the week commencing from 15th March, 2021. [PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.]

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 449 OF 2016 Mr. Farogh Ahd. Zahoor Ahd. ….Appellants Ansari V/s. M/s. Kataria Transport Co. Ltd. and another …..Respondents Mr. Y. G. Thorat i/b Mr. Ashok Tajane for the Appellants None for Respondents CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE: JULY 14, 2021. P.C.: 1] None for the appellants. Prayer for listing the appeal for fnal hearing will be considered once the physical hearing commences. [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]

Order - Status 23: SALGAONKAR M M Digitally signed by SALGAONKAR M Date: 2022.03.30 20:37:46 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.449 OF 2016 Farogh Ahd. Zahoor Ahd. Ansari .. Appellant Versus M/s. Kataria Transport Co. Ltd. & Anr. .. Respondents … ... Mr.Y.G.Thorat i/b Mr.Ashok B. Tajane for the Appellant. CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 29th MARCH, 2022 P.C:- The appeal, being admitted on 26/08/2016, is ready for final hearing. The Registry has notified that R & P is reeeieed, but without paper-book. The learned Adeoeate for the appellant has already filed a prieate paper-book on 13/10/2017. Sinee the respondents are duly sereed and respondent No.2 is represented by Adeoeate Rupam Ghosh, list the appeal for final hearing on 04/05/2022 at 2.30 p.m. ( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

Order - Status 25: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.449 of 2016 Farogh and Zahoor and Ansari .. Appellant Versus M/s.Kataria Transport Co.Ltd and Anr .. Respondents … Mr. Ashok Tajane for the appellant. None for the respondent. CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 4 th MAY 2022. P.C:- 1 Appeal is slated for final hearing. However, none appear for the contesting respondents. As far as Insurance Company is concerned, vakalatnama is filed by Rupam Ghosh, but Mr.Tajane, learned counsel for the appellant state that when he had telephonic talk with her, she had specifically informed that she had returned the papers to the Insurance Company. 2 In wake of the above, issue fresh notice to respondent no.2, intimating that the Appeal shall be taken for hearing on 4/7/2022 at 2.30 p.m in wake of the urgency expressed on behalf of the appellant. 3 Mr.Tajane is also at liberty to inform about the said order to any counsel of Oriental Insurance Company who normally represent the Company. ( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

Order - Status 28: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BEFORE THE NATIONAL LOK ADALAT CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.449 OF 2016 Mr. Farogh Ahmed Zahoor Ahmed Ansari … Appellant Versus M/s. Kataria Transport Co. Ltd. and Anr. … Respondents .... None for the Appellant and for the Respondents. .... CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. (HEAD OF THE PANEL) Y.A. GOSWAMI, REGISTRAR (CPC), MEMBER H.V. KULKARNI, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, MEMBER DATE : 13th AUGUST, 2022 P.C. : None appears for the parties. Transfer to the Regular Court. (H.V. KULKARNI) (Y.A.GOSWAMI) (SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J)

Order - Status 29: Ghuge IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.449 OF 2016 Farogh Ahd. Zahoor Ahd. Ansari … Appellant V/s. Kataria Transport Co. Ltd and Anr … Respondents Mr. Ashok Tajane for the appellant. Ms. S.S. Dwivedi for respondent No.2. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : JANUARY 25, 2023 P.C.: List the first appeal "for final hearing" on the board commencing from 6 th February, 2023. (AMIT BORKAR, J.)

Order - Status 32: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 449 OF 2016 Mr. Farogh Ahd. Zahoor Ahd. Ansari, Age, - 48 years, Resident of F/8, 666 Tenements Compound Mumbai – 400011 ) ) ) ) Appellant Versus 1. M/s. Kataria Transport Co. Ltd., ) A-28, Suvidha Estate, ) Gandhinagar, bavla Highwa, ) Surkhej, Ahmedabad, Gujarat. ) 2. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ) 7, J. T. Road, Churchgate, ) Mumbai – 400 020. )Respondents (Policy No. 141700-2007/8927) ) Valid from 31/02/2007 to 20/03/2008 ) Mr. Ashok B. Tajane for the Appellant. Ms. Sneha Dwivedi for the Respondent No.2. CORAM : S. G. DIGE, J. DATE : 17th FEBRUARY 2023. JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. Shantanu Dhudum 228-FA449-2016.doc Both learned counsel submits that both the parties have settled the matter. The respondent no. 2-insurance company is ready to pay Rs. 34 Lakh as compensation to the appellant excluding the amount already deposited before the MACT, Mumbai in MACP No. 3476 of 2007 as per the order dated 19/07/2014. This amount of Rs.34 Lakh would be without interest, it excludes the compensation awarded by the MACT, Mumbai. Learned counsel for appellant agrees for it. The claimant who is present in the Court also agrees for the same. In view of the submission of both learned counsel and the appellant/claimant, I pass the following order: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed. ii. The respondent no. 2-insurance company shall deposit amount of Rs. 34 Lakhs before the Tribunal within two weeks from today. iii. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the respondent no. 2 insurance company as award amount granted by the tribunal along with accrued interest thereon and the amount of Rs. 34 Lakhs. The Appeal stands disposed of. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order. (S. G. DIGE, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 118 OF 2015 Mr. Amit Dipak Nachankar ....Appellant V/S Mrs. Rakhee Amit Nachankar ....Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FCA NO. 140 OF 2017 In FAMILY COURT APPEAL 118 OF 2015 Smt.rakhee Amit Nachankar Alias Rakhee Shrikrishna Moharir ....Applicant V/S Shri.amit Deepak Nachankar ....Respondent Ms Shaila Mukesh Joshi For Appellant Shri Vaibhav Prakash Patankar For Respondent For Respondent CORAM : R.M. SAVANT. & SMT. S.S. JADHAV, JJ DATE : 3rd July, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 10/07/2017. To be listed under caption "For Settlement/Filing Consent Terms". ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 118 OF 2015 Mr. Amit Dipak Nachankar ....Appellant V/S Mrs. Rakhee Amit Nachankar ....Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FCA NO. 140 OF 2017 In FAMILY COURT APPEAL 118 OF 2015 Smt.rakhee Amit Nachankar Alias Rakhee Shrikrishna Moharir ....Applicant V/S Shri.amit Deepak Nachankar ....Respondent Ms Shaila Mukesh Joshi For Appellant Shri Vaibhav Prakash Patankar For Respondent For Respondent CORAM : R.M. SAVANT. & SMT. S.S. JADHAV, JJ DATE : 10th July, 2017 P.C. : By consent Stand over to 14/08/2017 with liberty to move preceipe if occasion so arises. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: (903)-CAM-140-17.doc*.* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.140 OF 2017 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.118 OF 2015 Smt. Rakhee Amit Nachankar alias Rakhee Shrikrishna Moharir Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Appellant Respondent Shri. S. C. Wakankar i/by Shri. Vaibhav P. Patankar for the Applicant/ Respondent. Ms. Shaila M. Joshi for the Appellant/Respondent. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, JJ DATE : 19th JULY, 2017 P.C. The above Civil Application has been filed seeking withdrawal of the amount of Rs.5,00,000/ deposited in this Court by the original Appellant/husband. The Learned Counsel appearing for the original Appellant/husband has no objection to the said withdrawal. The Civil Application is accordingly allowed and made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The Civil Application is accordingly disposed of. [SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J] [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Order - Status 8: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2008 OF 2016 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.1 OF 2013 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's orders Coram, Appearances, court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr.A.R.Patil, A.G.P. for the applicant CORAM : K. K. TATED, J DATE : AUGUST 14, 2019 P.C.: . Heard. 2 By this Civil Application, Applicant is seeking stay of the operation and implementation of the judgment and award dated 19.12.2011 passed by Reference Court in L.A.R.No.295 of 2003 holding that Respondent original Claimants are entitled sum of Rs.1,49,085/- by way of additional compensation in respect of acquired land. 3 The learned A.G.P. submits that in the present proceedings, Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 16.7.1998 for acquiring Respondent's land admeasuring 0H. 39R. land from Gut no.52 situated at village Sheri Digar, Taluka Kalwan, District Nashik for the purpose of construction of Sule Unai Submergence Project. 4 The learned A.G.P. submits that after following due process of law, Special Land Acquisition Officer declared award under section 11 of the said Act dated 15.11.2000 holding that Respondent original Claimants are entitled compensation in respect of acquired land @ Rs.27,197/- per Hector. 5 The learned A.G.P. submits that, being aggrieved by the said award, Respondent original Claimant preferred reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the said Reference, Reference Court awarded enhanced compensation in respect of acquired land @ Rs.2,50,000/- per Hector and also claimed Rs.2.0 lac towards compensation of Mango and Jambhul trees. He submits that Reference Court without considering the evidence on record, particularly sale instance, held that Claimants are entitled additional compensation of Rs.1,49,085/-. 6 The learned A.G.P. submits that they have good chance of success in the present proceeding. He submits that if entire compensation is recovered by Respondent original Claimant by filing execution Application, then nothing will survive in the present proceeding. He submits that pending the hearing and final disposal of the First Appeal, this Hon'ble court be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned judgment and award. 7 Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Applicant and the impugned judgment and award passed by Reference Court holding that Claimants are entitled additional compensation of Rs.1,49,085/- I am satisfied that the Applicant has made out a case for allowing the Civil Application, but they have to deposit entire awarded amount with interest in the Reference Court on or before 19.10.2019 failing which the Civil Application shall stand dismissed without referring back to the court. Hence, following order is passed: a. Operation and implementation of the impugned judgment and award dated 19.12.2011 passed by Reference Court in LAR No. 295 of 2003 is stayed till the hearing and final disposal of the First Appeal, on condition that Applicant to deposit entire awarded amount with interest in the Reference Court on or before 19.10.2019, failing which Civil Applications shall stand dismissed without referring back to the court. b. Reference court is directed to invest the said amount in fixed deposit of any nationalized bank initially for a period of one year and same be continued till further orders. c. Liberty granted to the Respondents/Claimants to prefer an appropriate Application for withdrawal of amount, if they so desire, which will be decided on its own merits. d. Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly. e. No order as to costs. (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2395 OF 2018 Nilesh Natvarlal Bhayani : Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra and anr. : Respondents. Mr. Aaditya A Gore for the Petitioner. Mr. K V Saste, Addl. PP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. DATE : 26th JUNE 2018 P.C. 1 The Petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the FIR which has been registered under Sections 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The said FIR has been registered by the Competent Authority i.e. Assistant Supply Officer exercising powers under the Essential Commodities Act. 2 The Petitioner is the partner of the firm M/s. Mahavir Gas Services which is a distributor of LPG Cylinders. The gravamen of the allegations against the said firm is in respect of the alleged malpractices in respect of the cylinders which are meant for commercial purposes. The deficiency as regards the number of cylinders found at site has been recorded in the FIR. The Petitioner's other two brothers one Mahendra N Bhayani and Virendra N Bhayani are also the accused along with the Petitioner. 3 In his endeavour of seeking quashing of the FIR on behalf of the Petitioner, the learned counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the Petitioner in fact as a whistle blower has brought to the notice of the authorities the alleged malpractices being committed in the said M/s. Mahavir Gas Services. It was further the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act would not be attracted as the said M/s. Mahavir Gas Services does not fit the requirements of the said Section 10. 4 We are unable to accept the said contentions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner implicit in the first contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is the fact that there seems to be a dispute between the Petitioner and his brothers as a result of which the Petitioner it seems made a complaint to the authorities. In so far as the second contention is concerned, the same cannot be accepted in view of the Explanation to the said Section, which clarifies that a "Company" would include a "Firm", which the said M/s. Mahavir Gas Services undoubtedly is. Apart from Section 10, the offences alleged against the Petitioner are also under Sections 3, 7, 8 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act. The contentions which were sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner as regards nonactive participation of the Petitioner in running of the business of the said M/s. Mahavir Gas Services, at best can be the defences of the Petitioner which would be available to him for being urged at the appropriate time. We therefore do not deem this a fit case to exercise our writ jurisdiction at this stage. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless to state that the trial would be proceeded with on its own merits and in accordance with law. [PRAKASH D. NAIK, J] [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.5167 OF 2005 Om-Satnam Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Anr. : Petitioners V/s. ... The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society & Ors. : Respondents Mr.Bharat Joshi with Mr.Rajesh Singh for the petitioners. Mr.A.H.Palekar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader, for the respondent nos.1 to 4. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. August 25, 2005. P.C.: Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr.Palekar, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, appears and waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 4. Head by consent. The only grievance made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and, in my view, rightly is that the Divisional Joint Registrar took cognizance of the petitioners' application for stay, but has not passed any order on the said application. The learned Divisional Joint Registrar has not even assigned any reason for not passing any order. In the circumstances, the learned Divisional Joint Registrar is directed to decide the petitioners' application for stay on merits within a period of four weeks from the date the parties appear before the learned Divisional Joint Registrar. The parties are directed to appear before the Divisional Joint REgistrar on 31.8.2005. All contentions of both the parties are kept open. Status quo shall continue till the learned Divisional joint Registrar decides the petitioners' stay application. Thereafter, the order passed by the learned Divisional Joint Registrar shall be in force. The rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Sd/- S.A. BOBDE, J. 2

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2745 OF 2019 Radha Venkatesh Shetty … Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and anr. … Respondents Mr. Satyavrat Joshi i/by Mr. Sunil Kamble for the petitioner. Smt. A.S. Pai, APP for the respondent State. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & NITIN R. BORKAR, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 30, 2020 P.C. : Issue notice to respondent returnable on 10/03/2020. Learned APP waives notice for respondent no.1. RPAD/humdast for respondent no. 2. In the meanwhile, petitioner to remove all office objections. If office objections are not removed, petition stall stand dismissed automatically without reference to the court. (NITIN R. BORKAR, J.) (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2745 OF 2019 Radha Venkatesh Shetty ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ....RESPONDENT MR. SATYAVRAT JOSHI i/by MR. SUNIL SHIVAJI KAMBLE for Petitioner. MR. A. S. Pai, PP for Respondent/State. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.S. SHINDE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATE : 12th August, 2021 P.C. : Wrongly on board. Remove from the Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2668 OF 2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2745 OF 2019 with INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2669 OF 2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2745 OF 2019 with WRIT PETITION NO. 2745 OF 2019 Radha Venkatesh Shetty....Applicant/Petitioner.Versus...Applicant/Petitioner.The State of Maharashtra & Another....Respondents. Mr. Somay Pawar i/b Sunil S. Kamble for the Applicant/Petitioner. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & ANIL S. KILOR, JJ. Date : January 7, 2022. [Video Conferencing Mode] P. C. : Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant/ Petitioner submitted that due to certain bonafide reasons, he was unable to remove office objections within the stipulated period and as the office objections were not removed, the petition stood dismissed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submitted that he is desirous of removing all office objections during the course of day. He further submitted that as such the delay occurred in preferring the application for restoration is also for bonafide reasons and the same was not intentional. In view of the submissions of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant, both the applications are allowed. Delay is condoned. Writ petition is restored to the file. Petition is taken up for hearing. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashment of subject FIR; the petition is filed on 20th May 2019 and post filing of petition, the matter proceeded further in the trial Court; and in the ultimate decision of trial Court by the judgment and order, the Petitioner has been acquitted. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that as such the grievance of Petitioner, as raised in the present writ petition, no more survives. In view of the above fact-situation, petition is disposed of. [Anil S. Kilor, J.] [Prasanna B. Varale, J.]

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.524 OF 2006 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.)NO.27425 OF 2005 Popat Jaysingh Awale. ..Applicant. V/s. Shamrao Dattu Landage & Ors. ..Respondents. Ms.Manda Loke for S.S.Kulkarni for applicant. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : FEBRUARY 14, 2006. P.C. : Heard counsel for the applicant. Rule, returnable on 14th March, 2006. Applicant to serve the respondent(s) by advocate's notice either personally and/or by courier and/or by speed post and/or by RPAD and/or by email and/or by fax and file affidavit of service before the returnable date.

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO.524 of 2006. IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.27425 OF 2005. Office notes, office memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or Judge's orders. orders or directions and Registrar's orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ms.Manda Loke for Shri S.S.Kulkarni for the Applicant. CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED : 14th MARCH, 2006. P.C.: 1.Await service till 7th April 2006. 2.Till next date the order of stay granted in Civil Application No.687 of 2006 will continue to operate. If the Respondents are not served on or before the next date, ad-interim relief will not be continued. Judge.

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET CIVIL APPLICATION NO.524 OF 2006 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.27425 OF 2005 ............................................................. Office Notes,Office memorandum of Coram, appearances,Court's Court's or orders or directions Judge's orders & Registrar's orders. ............................................................. Mr.Sachin Chavan i/b Mr.S.S.Kulkarni for the Applicant Mr.Amit Sale for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. DATED: APRIL 21, 2006. P.C.: Heard Advocates for the parties. The prayer is for waiver of the requirement of the deposit under sub section 1 of section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On plain reading of the proviso to sub section 1 of section 173, it is clear that the requirement of deposit of Rs.25,000/ is mandatory and the court has no power to grant exemption. Hence, Application is rejected. Time of six weeks is granted to deposit the amount of Rs.25,000/-. If the amount is not deposited within stipulated period, First Appeal and all pending Civil Applications will stand dismissed for want of prosecution. Ad-interim relief granted in Civil Application No.687 of 2006 will continue to operate only for a period of six weeks from today. Civil Application is disposed of in above terms. Judge.

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.38 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1750 OF 2006 State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Applicants Vs. Mr. Ramesh Vaja Rabari & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. D.S. Mhaispurkar, A.P.P. for the applicants-State. None for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & D. B. BHOSALE, JJ. DATED : 12TH APRIL, 2007. P.C.: - Heard Mr. Mhaispurkar, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the applicants. As a last chance, time to complete the investigation is extended by three weeks from today i.e. till 3/5/2007. Criminal application is disposed of. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [D. B. BHOSALE, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1083 OF 2002 Gulab Shivsharanappa Nippani ...Petitioner vs. Smt.Tangemma ...Respondents Gulab Nippani Ms A.S.Malvankar for the Petitioner Ms M.M.Deshmukh,A.P.P. for State CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 15,2005 P.C.: Heard Advocate for the Petitioner. The Petitioner is the husband of the Respondent No.1. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the children of the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1. On the application made by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3, the learned Magistrate granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.300/ p.m. in favour of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. The Revision Applications preferred by the Petitioner and the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were heard together. The Revision Application preferred by the Petitioner was dismissed and the one preferred by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 was partly allowed by enhancing the maintenance amount to Rs.500/- p.m. each payable to the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. After having heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner I find no merit in the Petition. The Courts below have accepted the evidence of the Respondent No.1 and her witnesses and have come to the conclusion that the marriage of the Respondent No.1 with the Petitioner has been established. In so far as quantum of maintenance is concerned, on the basis of salary certificate it was found that gross salary of the Petitioner is Rs.11,767/- p.m. and even after deductions, he is getting Rs.5937/- p.m.. The total maintenance payable by the Petitioner is only Rs.1500/- p.m. Hence, no case is made out for interference. Petition is rejected. JUDGE