All Cases

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1463 OF 2022 Bherulal Govind Joshi ....APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT None for Applicant Smt. Anamika Malhotra, APP for State CORAM : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE BHARATI DANGRE J DATE : 6th June, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 04/07/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: Bherulal Govind Joshi .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Ms.Lalita L. Rajguru for the Applicant. Ms.Anamika Malhotra, A.P.P. for the State/Respondent. API Vinayak Jadhav attached to Nayanagar Police Station, present. ... … CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 04th JULY, 2022 P.C:- SALGAONKAR M M Digitally signed by SALGAONKAR M M Date: 2022.07.05 16:48:37 +0530 The learned counsel for the applicant states that, inadvertently two applications came to be fled by the same applicant. She, therefore, seeks permission to withdraw the present application. Permission granted. The application stands disposed off as withdrawn. ( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

Order - Status 4: Vishwanath S. Sherla Digitally signed by Vishwanath S. Sherla Date: 2021.01.25 17:06:01 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.194 OF 2021 Raju Paulas Pakhare … Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra & another … Respondents Mr.Aniket Vagal for the Petitioner Ms.A.S. Pai, Mr.J.P. Yagnik, Ms.S.D. Shinde, Mr.K.V. Saste, Additional Public Prosecutors for Respondent – State CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & MANISH PITALE, JJ. DATED: JANUARY 25, 2021 P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 2. Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 4 th February, 2021. 3. In addition to service of notice through Court, the Petitioner shall serve a private notice by Registered Post A.D. and/or by Courier service and/or by hand delivery or by e-mail/fax on the Respondents and shall file affidavit of service with tangible proof before the returnable date**.** 4. The learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent – State. (MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Appearances of the Advocates as per Board dated 04/02/2021. … CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & MANISH PITALE, JJ. DATED : 04TH FEBRUARY, 2021. P.C:- Matters from Sr. Nos.68 to 135 of the Board stands discharged. Following dates are assigned to the said matters: Sr. Nos. Due Date 68 to 75 09-02-2021 76 to 78, 81 and 83 to 84 10-02-2021 85 to 99 and 115 11-02-2021 100 to 105 15-02-2021 107 to 114 16-02-2021 117 to 130 17-02-2021 131 to 133 and 135 18-02-2021 79 08/02/2021 Ad-interim interim reliefs, if any, to continue till then. (MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 9: Vishwanath S. Sherla Digitally signed by Vishwanath S. Sherla Date: 2021.02.16 19:51:33 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.194 OF 2021 Raju Paulas Pakhare … Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & another … Respondents Mr.Aniket Vagal for the Petitioner Mr.Deepak Thakare, Public Prosecutor, for Respondent – State CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & MANISH PITALE, JJ. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: FEBRUARY 11, 2021 JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON: FEBRUARY 16, 2021 JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE, J.): 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and heard finally. 2. The Petitioner had applied for grant of emergency Covid-19 parole for 45 days in view of the Covid-19 pandemic and the amendment in the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. However, his application was rejected vide order dated 19th May, 2020 passed by Respondent No.2 – Superintendent of Jail, Yerwada Open District Prison, on the ground that the petitioner, in the past, during his stay in the jail, had availed of parole / fulough leave twice, however, reported to the prison late. The petitioner is a convict undergoing sentence of life imprisonment. The petitioner has been in jail since last 10 years. 3. Mr.Vagal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, relied upon the judgments of this Court in Kalyan s/o. Bansidharrao Renge vs. The State of Maharashtra & another (Criminal Writ Petition No.ASDB-LDVC-265 of 2020) and Uzair @ Hujer s/o. Rafiq Shaikh vs. The State of Maharashtra & Others (Criminal Writ Petition No.2989 of 2020) to contend that the ground stated in the impugned order was wholly unsustainable. It was, therefore, submitted that the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, opposed the petition for grant of emergency Covid-19 parole. It was submitted that the petitioner had reported late on both the occasions when he was released on parole/furlough. Now the situation in the Yerwada Open District Prison, Pune, has changed substantially. It was submitted that the number of inmates in the said prison are less than the capacity. It was submitted that there is no crowd in the jail and that the authorities have sufficient infrastructure now to immediately take care of any inmate or staff, who may suffer from Covid-19 virus. 5. We have perused the record forwarded by the respondents to the office of the Public Prosecutor of this Court. The petitioner was released twice in the past on parole/furlough, however, he had reported to the prison late. The facts and figures stated therein indicate that in pursuance of release of number of inmates due to Covid-19 pandemic, now the situation in the Yerwada Open District Prison, Pune, has changed substantially. There can be no doubt about the fact that the petitioner is justified in relying upon the aforesaid judgments of this Court to claim that the reason assigned in the impugned order is unsustainable. 6. At the same time, the fact situation on ground as on today, cannot be ignored and, therefore, there is substance in the contention raised on behalf of the learned APP that the request of the petitioner for grant of emergency Covid-19 parole needs to be considered afresh. 7. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is granted liberty to apply afresh for grant of emergency Covid-19 parole within one week from today. Upon filing such an application, the respondent No.2 shall decide the same on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible, however, within two weeks from the date of such filing of the application in accordance with the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 and keeping in view the factors like the extent of spread of Covid-19 virus and conditions in jail. 8. Rule is partly made absolute to the above extent. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.730 OF 2009 IN CIVIL SUIT NO.10 OF 2002 A N D APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.731 OF 2009 IN CIVIL SUIT NO.1 OF 2006 Gold's Gym. Licensing LLC & Ors. ..Appellants V/s M/s.Gold Gym, through its sole proprietor Mr.K.K.Ashar ..Respondents Mr.Ravi Kadam ASG, Mr.V Dhond & Ms.Nisha Wallani, Mr.Manav Shah & Mr.Kamlesh Patel i/by Deven Dwarkadas & partners for the appellants. Mr.Himanshu Kane with Kailas S. Dewal for the respondents. C oram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 7th September, 2009. PC 1 Parties agree that both the appeals may be disposed off in terms of the Minutes of Order. The Minutes of Order duly signed by the Advocates are tendered. The same are taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Both the appeals are disposed off in terms of the Minutes of Order. (R.S.MOHITE,J)

Order - Status 2: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL ST. NO.14685 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders None Present. CORAM : A.N. MARE REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 08th August, 2016 3 weeks time granted for removing office objections. sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 08.08.16

Order - Status 3: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL ST. NO.14685 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders None Present. CORAM : AJIT N. MARE, REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 29th August, 2016 3 weeks time granted for removing office objections. ­ sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 29.08.16

Order - Status 4: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL ST. NO.14685 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders None Present. CORAM : AJIT N. MARE, REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 19th September, 2016 S.O. 3 weeks as a last chance for removing office objections. ­ sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 19.09.16

Order - Status 10: (FCA 7 of 2017) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL No. 7 OF 2017 Sarika Badal Shinde ….Appellant Vs. Shri Badal Vijay Shinde ….Respondent *********** None for the Appellant Abhijit Patil i/b. Sushant Prabhure for Respondent *********** CORAM : V.M. KANADE & P.R. BORA, JJ DATE : FEBRUARY 07, 2017 P.C. : None for the Appellant. Heard the learned counsel for the Respondent. Perused the appeal memo and the impugned order. Admit. The learned counsel for the Respondent waives service of the notice on behalf of the Respondent. The impugned order is stayed. [ P.R. BORA, J.] [ V.M. KANADE, J.] Vaishali Tikam 1/1 vat

Order - Status 14: 1/9 903-FCA-7-17.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.7 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.271 OF 2019 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.7 OF 2017 . . . . . . . Sarika Badal Shinde versus Badal Vijay Shinde .... Appellant .... Respondent • Mr.Sugandh B. Deshmukh, Advocate for Applicant. • Mr.Sushant Sudhakar Prabhune, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : K. K. TATED & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : 09 th JANUARY, 2020. P.C. : Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By this Family Court Appeal, Appellant/Wife is challenging the judgment and decree dated 08/12/2015 passed by the Family Court, Kolhapur in Petition No.A 33 of 2015 allowing Respondent husband's Petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The main contention of the Appellant is that the said order was passed by the Family Court as ex-arte because no one appeared on behalf of her when the matter was called out for hearing. Both the counsel submit that for last several years, Appellant as well as Respondent are staying separately. Therefore, now it is not possible for them to reconcile the dispute and start living together. Hence, both of them have decided to take divorce by consent before the Family Court at Kolhapur. They further submit that the impugned order passed by Family Court dated 08/12/2015 be set aside. Both the Counsel submit that the matter is settled out of Court. They have tendered Consent Terms dated 09/01/2020 duly signed by the Appellant as well as Respondent along with their parents who are present before this Court. The Appellant as well as the Respondent entered into the witness box. They admitted the contents of Consent Terms as well as the execution thereof. Hence same is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification, which reads thus; "IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2017. DISTRICT – KOLHAPUR IN THE MATTER BETWEEN SARIKA BADAL SHINDE, Age – 30 years, Occu. Service, C/o. Shri. VishwasDattatrayDeshmukh 203,2nd Floor,Atmaram Complex, Near Deshmukh Petrol Pump, At & Post:Asthami, Tal. Roha, Dist. Raigad. …APPELLANT .......(ORG. RESPONDENT) VERSUS BADAL VIJAY SHINDE, Age – 31 years, Occu. Service, 217/7, A Ward, Atharv Apartment, Flat No.8 & 9, Dudhali, Tal. Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur. … RESPONDENT (ORG. PETITIONER) CONSENT TERMS Whereas the Respondent and the Appellant are husband and wife, their marriage having been solemnised at Kolhapur, on 17th of February, 2014 according to the Hindu religion, vaidic rites and ceremonies. Whereas the Respondent and the Appellant have, therefore, without carrying any ill feeling about each other in the future decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent on amicable terms and conditions. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED THAT the Appellant and the Respondent have decided amicably with free consent to dissolve their marriage by virtue of fling a Divorce Petition by mutual Consent. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED THAT the Respondent shall pay to the Appellant an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh only) towards one time lump sum full and fnal settlement of their matrimonial dispute, and on the basis of the aforementioned settlement amount, the parties have agreed to dissolve their Marriage dated 17.2.2014 by Mutual Consent. Out of the settlement amount of Rs.20, 00,000/-, the Respondent shall deposit Rs 5 lakh in the Learned Family Court, Kolhapur on the date of fling of the divorce petition by mutual consent in the Learned Family Court, Kolhapur on 31/1/2020. Both the parties shall appear before the Learned Family Court, Kolhapur on 31/1/2020 and shall fle the divorce petition by mutual consent in the said Court. The remaining amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- (rupees seven lakh ffty thousand only) shall be deposited by the Respondent before the Learned Family Court, Kolhapur on or before 2/3/2020 and the last remaining amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- (rupees seven lakh ffty thousand only) shall be deposited by the Respondent before the Learned Family Court, Kolhapur on or before 10/4/2020 towards the full and fnal settlement for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent and the Appellant shall not claim any amount in future . The Appellant agrees to withdraw the said amount unconditionally from the Learned Family Court, Kolhapur after the grant of decree of divorce in the Divorce Petition by mutual consent. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED THAT the parties have not initiated any other complaint or legal proceedings against each other in any Court and shall end and settle all the disputes without flling any further complaints or legal proceedings against each other. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED THAT the parties will / shall not demand, claim anything cash, Jwellery or in kind or any other claim of whatsoever nature from each other and/or from our family members/relatives apart from the settlement amount mentioned herein above. It is agreed that Appellant will not claim any share in the moveable or immoveable property of Respondent and his parents. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED THAT whereas Respondent is not liable to give anything to the Appellant or to her family at present and in future apart from the settlement amount. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED THAT the parties after divorce will be at liberty to remarry with our any new life partner as per their sweet will and both parties have no any objection for the same against each other. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED THAT the parties after seeking the divorce shall not lodge/fle any 7 / 9 903-FCA-7-17.odt complaint in any police station and not fle any case in any court against each other to harass, fortune, blackmail and for recovery of any claim of whatsoever nature. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED THAT after the divorce, the Appellant will be known by her maiden name i.e. Sarika Deshmukh and she will not use, raise, call or address the name and surname of the Respondent in future. Similarly, the Respondent will not raise call or address the name of the Appellant as his wife in future. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED by the parties that they will abide by all terms and conditions of this Consent Terms and in case if anyone of the parties breaches any terms or conditions, then the other party will have full right to initiate legal actions against the other party. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED by the parties that all the above terms and conditions this Consent Terms are prepared with full understanding and willingly and without any undue infuence or pressure. Dated the 9th day of January, 2020 Appellant: Sarika Badal Shinde Advocate for the Appellant Respondent: Badal Vijay Shinde Advocate for the Respondent Witnesses: 2." Both the Counsel submit that they are filing their consent Petition before the Family Court at Kolhapur for divorce by mutual consent. Both the Counsel and Family Court may be directed to entertain the same immediately without waiting for cooling period i.e. six months as the parties are residing separately for last six years. If the Petition for divorce by consent is filed before the Family Court at Kolhapur, Family Court to decide the same without waiting for cooling period i.e. six months as both the parties are residing separately for last more than six years. Undertaking given by both the parties in Consent Terms is accepted. Hence following order: (a) Family Court Appeal No.7/2017 is disposed of in terms of Consent Terms by setting aside the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 08/12/2015 passed by learned Family Court, Kolhapur in Petition No.A 33 of 2015. (b) Registry is directed to draw the decree accordingly. (c) No order as to costs. (d) In view of the disposal of Family Court Appeal in terms of Consent Terms, nothing survives in Civil Application. Hence the Civil Application stands dismissed as infructous. (e) Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.961 OF 2005 IN REJECTED CASE NO.1154 OF 2017 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri H.G. Misar, Advocate for Appellant Present. CORAM : URMILA S. JOSHI­ PHALKE REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 15th June, 2017 In view of the dismissal of Civil Application No.960/2005 vide Court's order dated 04/08/2007 and First Appeal Stamp numbered as Rejected Case, this Civil Application Stamp does not survive. sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 15.06.17

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1835 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders None present for the petitioner Mr.S.N.Gawade A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 26th NOVEMBER 2009 P.C. : None present for the petitioner when called. Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1835 of 2009 Kiran Dhondopant Thakur ....Petitioner v/s. State of Maharashtra & anr. ....Respondents Mr. D.V. Sutar for the petitioner. Ms. A.T. Jhaveri-APP for the State. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 18th July, 2011 PC: Issue notice for final disposal, returnable on or before 16th August, 2011. Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b). (B.R. GAVAI, J)

Order - Status 16: rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1835 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or orders or directions & Judge's orders. Registrar's orders. None present. ..... ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 12, 2011. P.C.: None for the petitioners. Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. (A.S.OKA, J.)

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1835 OF 2009 Kiran D. Thakur and anr. ...Petitioners v/s The State of Maharashtra and anr. ...Respondents None for Petitioners. Mrs S.V. Gajare Dhumal, APP for Respondent State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL J. DATED : 3RD DECEMBER 2013. P.C. : The learned counsel for petitioners is again called, absent. S.O. to 19th December 2013. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL J.)

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1835 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 358 OF 2013 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1835 OF 2009 Kiran Dhondopant Thakur and another .....Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra & another ....Respondents Mr. D. V. Sutar Advocate for Petitioner Mr. Y. M. Nakhwa APP for the State. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATED : JANUARY 16, 2014 PC : Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co-accused had filed a petition seeking quashing of the proceedings. This Court (Coram : A. S. Oka, J.) by an order dated 13/07/2009, has issued Rule and granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause 'b'. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioners are similarly situated, hence : Rule. Interim relief in terms of prayer clause 'b'. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 25: Ghuge IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1835 OF 2009 Kiran Dhondopant Thakur and Anr … Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra and Anr … Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.358 OF 2013 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1835 OF 2009 Kiran Dhondopant Thakur and Anr … Applicants V/s. State of Maharashtra and Anr … Respondents Ms. Kavita Vijapure i/b D.V. Sutar for the petitioners. Smt. M.R. Tidke, APP for the State. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : APRIL 26, 2023 P.C.: Learned advocate for the petitioners has filed praecipe for withdrawal of the petition. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. In view of dismissal of the writ petition, Criminal Application stands disposed of accordingly. (AMIT BORKAR, J.)