All Cases

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3060 OF 2010 Mr.Vishwanath Vitthal Shetty ...Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Niranjan Mundargi i/b. Mr.Shonak Mehta for the Applicant. Mr.S.A. Shaikh, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JULY 8, 2010 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel for the applicant and APP for the State. 2 The applicant has filed this application for reduction of the amount of surety which is to be furnished by him. The Sessions Judge has directed that the applicant should furnish surety in the sum of Rs.30,000/-. Initially, the applicant was permitted to furnish cash surety of Rs.30,000/-. 3 It is submitted that it is not possible for the applicant to furnish surety for the said sum and therefore, the amount may be reduced. It is submitted that applicant is residing permanently in Kurla along with his mother. It is further submitted that after the death of his father, the flat now is transferred in the name of his mother. 4 Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the order passed by the Sessions Court is modified and the applicant is directed to execute P.R. Bond of Rs.10,000/- and furnish one or two sureties in the like amount. The remaining conditions imposed by the trial court are not altered or modified. After the surety is furnished, the amount of Rs.30,000/- deposited by the applicant may be returned to him. 5 Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 2

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Second appeal No. 1212 of 2005 with Civil Application No. 1680 of 2005 Shamrao Krishna Bhosale ..Appellant vs. Housabai Krishna Kasote ..Respondent Shri P.R.Arjunwadkar for appellant. Shri Amit Borkar for respondent. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 18th July, 2007 P.C. At the request of Shri Arjunwadkar and with a view to find out the extent of encroachment on the property which can be removed and some workable arrangement can be made at site, stand over for one week. No further adjournment will be granted. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE Second Appeal No.1212 of 2005 with Civil Application No.1680 of 2005 Shamrao Krishna Bhosale ..Appellant vs. Housabai Krishna Kasote ..Respondent Mr.P.R.Arjunwadkar for appellant. Mr.Amit Borkar for respondent. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 14th August, 2007 P.C. Heard Mr.Arjunwadkar appearing for the appellant and Mr.Borkar appearing for the respondents. The respondent/original plaintiff filed Reg.Civil Suit No.273 of 1994 which has been decreed by the Trial Court on 17th July, 1999. The decree is of permanent injunction restraining the present appellant/original defendant not to disturb the peaceful possession in respect of the suit property and to remove the construction described in para 2 of the plaint. That decree has been confirmed by the lower Appellate Court on 11th April, 2005 in Reg.Civil Appeal no.370 of 1999. The appellant/Original Defendant has preferred the present second appeal. The only contention urged on behalf of the appellant in support of the plea that the substantial question of law which arises is that the respondent/original plaintiff was aware of the construction. Once the plaintiff was so aware then she could not have filed the suit after considerable lapse of time. The principle of acquiescence would come into play and, therefore, the suit for permanent injunction should not have been decreed. The Courts below erred in decreeing the same and that is how this Court should entertain the second appeal. The Courts below have relied upon the deposition of the son of the respondent. He has specifically deposed that the city survey no.4 which is the suit property is the house surrounded by open space. C.S.No.3 is open space. Both the properties are situated within the limits of Municipal Council. After tracing the title of the respondents through the Gift Deed and sale deed, it is pointed out that these properties are entered in the name of the respondent/original plaintiff and she is paying the municipal taxes. Thus, the ownership and possession was proved. The Courts below also have relied upon Exh.81 which is a map. The map has been relied upon in addition to the oral deposition of the plaintiff's son and one witness Babu Ramu Mane. This is clear case where encroachment was made by the appellant on certain portion of the respondent's property thereby causing obstruction in the peaceful possession of the respondent/original plaintiff. The Courts below have concluded that the encroachment committed is a very recent one. In such circumstances and when the plea of adverse possession raised on behalf of the appellant/original defendant has been rejected through out, in my view, entertaining the present second appeal would mean reappreciating and reappraising the material on record which is impermissible in law. This is not a case where the plaintiff could be said to have acquiesced in the construction or acts of the respondent/tenant/original defendant. The construction has found to be recent one. It is not a case which is covered by the decision relied upon i.e. A.I.R.1981 Madras 220 (R.S.Muthuswami Gounder Vs. A.Annamalai and others). The said decision is clearly distinguishable on facts. There is no merit in the second appeal which is accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of the second appeal the civil application no.1680 of 2005 does not survive and is -3- disposed of accordingly. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1812 OF 2022 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1252 OF 2012 Mandakini Mohan Gangawane Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Ms. Meera Barge, Advocate i/b. C.P. Sengaonkar, for the Appellant. Ms. J.S. Lohokare, APP, for the Respondent-State. CORAM : M.G. SEWLIKAR, J. DATE : 19th JULY, 2022 P.C. : Learned A.P.P. seeks time to take instructions as regards the death of the original accused. List the matter tomorrow, 20th July, 2022. (M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1812 OF 2022 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1252 OF 2012 Mandakini Mohan Gangawane Applicant versus State of Maharashtra Respondent •• Ms. Meera Barge i/b. C. P. Sengonkar, Advocate for Applicant. Mrs. J. S. Lohokare, APP for the State/Respondent. CORAM : : M. G. SEWLIKAR, J. DATE : : 20th JULY, 2022 P.C. : On the last occasion, learned counsel for the Respondent filed an application stating therein that the original accused Mohan Gangawane passed away on 16/05/2020. Learned APP sought short time to take instructions in this regard. She has now filed xerox copy of death certificate of Respondent/accused. Appeal stands abated. Interim application stands disposed of. (M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.) MANUSHREE V NESARIKAR Digitally signed by MANUSHREE V NESARIKAR Date: 2022.07.20 16:42:28 +0530

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1 OF 2018 Vijay Ramdas Nikam And Ors ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Mr.Balkrishna D Joshi For Applicant Mrs.P.P. Shinde - APP for State CORAM : SMT. S.S. JADHAV, J DATE : 5th January, 2018 P.C. : Learned APP waives service and seeks time to take instructions. Time as prayed for is granted. Stand over to 10/01/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1 OF 2018 Vijay Ramdas Nikam And Ors ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Mr.Balkrishna D Joshi For Applicant Ms.Veera Shinde - APP for State CORAM : SMT. S.S. JADHAV, J DATE : 10th January, 2018 P.C. : Stand over to 29/01/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 01 OF 2018 Shri Vijay Ramdas Nikam & Ors. Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.Virendra Pethe i/b Mr. Balkrishna D. Joshi, for the applicant. Mr. S.R.Agarkar,APP, for the State. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV, J. DATE : 22nd January, 2018. P.C. : It is submitted that the applicant No.2 has been detected with malignant tumor. The report of Tata Memorial Centre dated 4.1.2018 indicates that the liver lesio biopsy was taken. Biopsy shows high grade malignant tumor. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that he would give the photocopies of the report to the learned APP during the course of the day. The learned APP to take instructions to that effect. The matter to be listed on 29.1.2018. (SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1 OF 2018 Vijay Ramdas Nikam And Ors ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Mr.Balkrishna Joshi for Applicant Ms.Veera Shinde - APP for State CORAM : SMT. S.S. JADHAV, J DATE : 29th January, 2018 P.C. : Stand over to 07/02/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1 OF 2018 Vijay Ramdas Nikam And Ors ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SMT. S.S. JADHAV, J DATE : 7th February, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Stand over to 12/02/2018. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1 OF 2018 Vijay Ramdas Nikam And Ors ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SMT. S.S. JADHAV, J DATE : 12th February, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Stand over to 27/02/2018. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1 OF 2018 Vijay Ramdas Nikam And Ors ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : P.N. DESHMUKH, J DATE : 27th February, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for 05/03/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 19: Sarnobat IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 01 OF 2018 Shri Vijay Ramdas Nikam & Ors.... Applicants.Vs.... Respondent. WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 03 OF 2018. Vijay Pundalik Patil. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. .. Applicant. .. Respondent. Mr. Balkrishna D. Joshi for the Applicants in ABA No. 01/18. Mr. Anoop U. Patil, for the Applicant in ABA No. 03/18. Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent/State. $frac{text{CORAM}}{text{DATE}} : underline{P. N. DESHMUKH, J.}$ P. C. : Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per telephonic instructions, applicant No. 1 is arrested on 1 st March, 2018. Learned counsel for applicants is not aware of the said fact. Learned counsel for applicant No. 3 submits that applicant has provided his bank accounts with the Investigating Officer and that applicant No. 2 is not arrested in view of oral directions of this Court being a Cancer patient. This statement is also made by Additional (13(14)ABA118 ABA318 Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the applicant in ABA No. 03/2018 submits that as per oral directions of this Court, applicant has submitted his accounts and that his bank accounts are freezed and therefore, submits that applicant be protected by interim protection. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor seeks time for want of instructions as I.O. is not present. Record reveals that notice is issued to Respondent on 5th January, 2018 and time was granted to file affidavit in reply which was further extended on 10th January, 2018 and 29th January, 2018 and thereafter on three occasions, application came to be adjourned for want of time. In these circumstances, as further time is granted to file affidavit in reply, following order is passed. ORDER (i) In the event of arrest of applicant Nos. 1 and 3 in ABA No.01/2018 and applicant in ABA No. 03/2018, in Crime No. 396/2017 registered with Sarkarwada Police Station, Nasik, they shall be released on bail on their executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety in the like amount. (ii) The above applicants shall attend Investigating Officer for a period of one week from 8th March, 2018. 2/3 (13(14)ABA118 ABA318 (iii) ABA No. 03/2018 be heard along with this application. (iv) Stand over to 19th March, 2018. [ P. N. DESHMUKH , J.]

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. 1 OF 2018 Vijay Ramdas Nikam & Ors. … Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. 3 OF 2018 Vijay Pundalik Patil … Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent *** Mr. Virendra Pethe i/b Balkrishna D. Joshi, for the Applicants in ABA. 1/2018. Mr. Anoop Patil, for Applicant in ABA. 3/2018. *** Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent – State. CORAM : P. N. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : MARCH 19, 2018 PC :- . Learned counsel for Applicants submits that Applicant / accused No.1 in ABA No. 1/2018 was arrested on 1st March, 2018. Learned counsel further submits that Applicant No. 3 for want of knowledge of order dated 5th March, 2018 since not communicated by his counsel has not attended investigating officer for a period of one week from 8th March, 2018. None appears for Applicant No. 1 in ABA. No. 3/2018. Applicant No. 3 in ABA. No. 1/2018 to attend Investigating Officer for a period of one week and shall co-operate with the investigation. S. O. to 2nd April, 2018. Interim order to continue till next date.

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTI.BAIL APPLICATION NO.01 OF 2018 Vijay Ramdas Nikam 2. Anil Navnath Shinde 3. Sarangdhar Yadav Pansare .. Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent with ANTI.BAIL APPLICATION NO.03 OF 2018 Vijay Pundalik Patil .. Applicant vs 1. State of Maharasjtra 2.The Sarkarwada Police Stn. Dist Nasik .. Respondents Nr.Balkrishna D.Joshi for Applicants in ABA NO.01/2018 Mr.Anoop U.Patil for Applicant in ABA No.3/2018 Mr.Sandeep Barve for Intervener Ms.Veera Shinde Addl.Public Prosecutor for State CORAM : P. N.DESHMUKH,, J. DATE : 2ND APRIL, 2018. P.C.: Learned counsel Mr.Sandeep Barve submits that he be granted one week's time to file an application to intervene in this application. In that view of the matter, stand over to 11.4.2018. Interim orders to continue till the adjourned date. (P.N.DESHMUKH, J.) rng

Order - Status 27: Sarnobat IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAL APPLICATION NO. 01 OF 2018 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 430 OF 2018 Vijay Ramdas Nikam & Ors. Applicants. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. Respondent. Mr. Virendra Pethe i/by Mr. Balkrishna D. Joshi, for the Applicants. Mr. Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent. CORAM : P. N. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 11th APRIL, 2018. P. C. : Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant No.1 Vijay Ramdas Nikam is already arrested and as such submits that application be allowed to be withdrawn against him as same is rendered infructuous and further contended that applicant No. 2-Anil Navnath Shinde has expired as he was suffering from Cancer. Learned APP on instructions from investigating officer confirms the same. Learned counsel submits that applicant No. 3-Sarangdhar Yadav Pansare do not want to prosecute this application and on his instruction seeks leave to withdraw the said application. In view of submissions advanced as aforesaid, application of applicant Nos. 1 and 2 stand disposed of, as application filed by applicant No.1 is rendered infructuous, since arrested, and applicant No. 2 is dead. Application of applicant No. 3 is allowed to be withdrawn as prayed for and as such stands dismissed. Anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of. In view of above, application No. 430/2018 for intervention is become infructuous and accordingly disposed of. [ P. N. DESHMUKH , J.]

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE. WRIT PETITION NO. 4961 OF 2006 ordersOrders. or directions and Registrar's orders. OfficeCourt's Notes, Office Memorada or Judge's Shri Sachin Manale for the petitioner None for the Respondent. CORAM; V.G.PALSHIKAR Acg.C.J.& V.M.KANADE, J. DTAED: 8TH AUGUST, 2006. P.C. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the respondent to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. His claim was rejected on the ground that the disease for which the petitioner's father retired was not the one of a serious nature. Hence appointment on compassionate ground cannot be granted. We see no fault in the reasoning. Hence petition is rejected. ...

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4558 OF 2005. IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1315 OF 2006. The State of Maharashtra. Applicant. Versus. Madhu Dhondiba Gadade. Respondent. Shri K.K.Tated for the Applicant. CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED : 15th June, 2006. P.C.: 2.Rule returnable on 14th February 2007. 3.In addition to service through Court, the Applicant is directed to serve private notice to the Respondent by Registered Post A.D. and/or Speed Post A.D. and/or by hand delivery. Hamdast allowed. 4.There will be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b), subject to condition that the Applicant shall deposit the entire amount due and payable as per the impugned Judgment and Award with the Reference court within a period of 12 weeks from today. If the amount is not deposited within the stipulated time, the ad-interim relief granted will stand vacated without further reference to the Court. 5.If the amount is deposited, the Claimant will be permitted to withdraw the said amount on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Reference Court.

Order - Status 9: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATESIDE C.A. No. 4558/05 in FA No.1315/06 with C.A.No.4561/05 in FA No.1318/06 with C.A. No.4562/05 in FA No.1319/06 with C.A. No.4563/05 in FA No.1320/06 with C.A.No.4564/05 in FA No.1321/06 with C.A.No.4565/05 in FA No.1322/06 with C.A. No.4566/05 in FA No.1323/06 with C.A. No.4567/05 in FA No.1324/06 with C.A. No.4568/05 in FA No.1325/06 with C.A. No.4569/05 in FA No.1327/06 with C.A. No.4571/05 in FA No.1329/06 with C.A. No.4572/05 in FA No.1330/06 with C.A. No.4573/05 in FA No.1331/06 with C.A. No.4575/05 in FA No.1333/06 with C.A. No.4576/05 in FA No.1334/06 with C.A. No.4577/05 in FA No.1335/06 with C.A. No.4578/05 in FA No.1336/06 with C.A. No.4579/05 in FA No.1337/06 with C.A. No.4580/05 in FA No.1338/06 with C.A. No.4583/05 in FA No.1326/06. Office Notes, Office Memorandum Court's or Judge's orders. of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrars orders. Mr. Y.M. Nakhwa, AGPfor the State. Mr. P.H. Potnis for Respondent. CORAM: A. S. OKA, J. DATE : 15th February, 2007 P.C: Heard the learned advocate for the parties. Adinterim relief granted earlier will continue to operate as an interim relief. Application is disposed of. (A.S. OKA, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.421 OF 2004 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL (ST.) NO.21881 OF 2004 ALONGWITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL (ST.) NO.21881 OF 2004 ------------------------------------:---------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court's or Judge's orders. coram, appearances, Court's orders : or directions and Registrar's : orders. : ------------------------------------:------------------------------------ None for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM: V.G.PALSHIKAR & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. DATED: 25TH OCTOBER, 2005 P.C. : . No plausible reason for condoning the delay is made out hence application for condonation of delay is dismissed and as a consequence thereof letters patent appeal is also dismissed. We may add that such appeal against the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court is certainly not maintainable. ...