All Cases

Order - Status 10: Ashokkumar Rogiprasad Sahani .. Applicant -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr. A. B. Tajane, for the Applicant. Mrs P. P. Shinde, APP for the respondent State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 7th October, 2010 P.C. This is an application for bail by accused in Crime No.7 of 2010, registered at Saswad Police Station, Pune, for the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant was arrested in connection with murder of one Keshav Bhagat. The allegations are that Keshav used to press the applicant to perform unnatural intercourse with the applicant and the applicant ultimately killed the victim. Investigation in the matter initially proceeded in different direction on account of recitals in F.I.R. But ultimately since the applicant used victim's mobile phone, applicant was traced out. In any case, recovery of mobile phone from the applicant on the day of his arrest which is linked to the offence would have to be considered by the Trial Judge at the trial. The application is, therefore, rejected. Considering the age of the applicant and the fact that he is in jail for 4 to 5months, learned Judge shall expedite the hearing of the case and shall of the same as early as possible and preferably within one year. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3158 OF 2010 Ashokkumar Rogiprasad Sahani ..Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Ms Yogita Mayekar i/b.Mr.A.B.Tajane, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 22ND OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. . A precipe has been filed by the applicant for Speaking to the Minutes of the Order dated 7th October, 2010. On page No.2 in the second line from the bottom after the word shall the word dispose of should be typed. Office to issue a certified copy accordingly. The precipe for Speaking to the Minutes of the Order is accordingly disposed of. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J/CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : A. S. OKA AND REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ. DATED : 22nd JUNE, 2015 P.C. : On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on Daily and Supplementary Board stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 183 to 189, 191, 197, 209, 211, 217, 220 to 228, 251 (A.S) 02/07/2015 192 (A.S), 231, 232, 243, 276 (O.S) 03/07/2015 195 (O.S.) 19/08/2015 198, 229 (A.S) 16/07/2015 199, 200, 230 (A.S) 30/07/2015 201 to 204 (A.S.) 03/08/2015 205, 206, 249 (A.S.) 04/08/2015 207 (O.S.) 03/09/2015 208 (O.S.) 16/09/2015 210, 212 (O.S.) 30/09/2015 213 to 216, 219 (O.S.) 05/10/2015 233 to 235 (O.S.) 06/10/2015 236, 252 to 256 (O.S.) 07/10/2015 237 (A.S.) 06/08/2015 239 (A.S.) 13/07/2015 240, 242, 282, 286 (O.S.) 06/07/2015 241 (A.S.) 07/08/2015 244, 273 (A.S.) 10/08/2015 245, 246, 274 (O.S.) 07/07/2015 Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 247, 257, 259 to 268, 271, 272, 280, 281, 283, 284, 295, 299 to 304 (A.S) 24/07/2015 248, 275 (O.S.) 08/07/2015 258, 285, 287, 288 (O.S.) 09/10/2015 269, 270 (A.S.) 11/08/2015 277, 278 (O.S.) 09/07/2015 279 (A.S.) 23/07/2015 289 to 291 (O.S) 13/10/2015 292 to 294, 296 to 298 (O.S) 14/10/2015 305 to 308, 311, 316 (A.S) 27/07/2015 313 (A.S) 28/07/2015 314, 315 (A.S) 29/07/2015 317 (A.S) 30/07/2015 If in any of the above matters, adinterim 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. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.) (A. S. OKA, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : A.S. OKA & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ. DATE : JULY 2, 2015 P.C. On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on Daily and Supplementary Board stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 55 05/10/2015 56 to 63, 84, 85, 91, 94, 95, 97, 98, 903, 905 30/07/2015 64 12/08/2015 65 to 75, 96 21/08/2015 76(OS), 81 13/07/2015 77(OS) 07/10/2015 78(OS) 14/10/2015 79, 82, 83, 88, 89, 90, 93(OS) 16/11/2015 80(OS) 20/07/2015 86(OS) 14/07/2015 87(OS) 22/07/2015 92(OS) 24/07/2015 901 16/07/2015 904 31/07/2015 If in any of the above matters, adinterim 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.

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL/CRIMINAL JURISDICTION / O.O.C.J. COMMON ORDER CORAM : A.S. OKA, AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 21st AUGUST, 2015 P.C. . The following matters on Balance Board / Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. The matters will appear on the dates as may be fixed by C.M.I.S. Sr. No. C.M.I.S Date 67 03/09/2015 68 05/10/2015 69, 70 06/10/2015 71 08/10/2015 72 16/10/2015 73 17/10/2015 74, 75, 76 27/10/2015 77, 78 28/10/2015 79 20/11/2015 80, 89, 90, 91, 92 23/11/2015 81 13/10/2015 82, 84, 85 01/09/2015 83, 87, 88, 123, 124, 125, 139, 140 (O.S.) 14/12/2015 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98 24/11/2015 99, 100 26/11/2015 101 to 120 30/11/2015 121, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 142, 143, 144, 148, 149, 150, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 158, 160, 162, 163, 164, 902 01/12/2015 126 (Criminal) 14/10/2015 127 (O.S.) 11/09/2015 128 (O.S.) 14/09/2015 129, 130, 131, 132, 145, 146, 147, 151, 157, 159, 161 15/10/2015 137 (O.S.) 15/09/2015 141 (O.S.) 15/12/2015 . If any adinterim relief or interim relief in the aforesaid matters is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the dates which are fixed under this order. If any adinterim or interim order is to operate till further orders, such orders shall remain unaffected. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)

Order - Status 11: Shephali IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE AND ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER FOR BALANCE BOARD OF DAILY BOARD DATED 23RD NOVEMBER 2015 CORAM: A.S. OKA & G.S. PATEL, JJ. DATED: 23rd November 2015 PC:- The following matters on Balance Board / Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. The matters will appear on the dates as may be fixed by C.M.I.S. Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 54, 56, 57, 58, 61 03/12/15 55 (O.S.), 70 23/03/16 59 (O.S.), 71 to 80, 87 (O.S.), 106, 111, 114 29/03/16 60, 85, 86, 88, 89 (O.S.) 11/04/16 62, 64, 65, 81 (O.S.) 16/12/15 63 20/01/16 66 to 69 22/03/16 82, 83, 84 (O.S.) 17/12/15 90 to 98, 100, 105, 107 to 110, 113 25/01/16 99, 104 (O.S.) 05/12/15 101, 102, 103 (O.S.) 12/04/16 112 (O.S. 07/12/15 116, 117 14/01/16 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 the ad-interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (G. S. PATEL, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : A.S. OKA & G.S.PATEL, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 16, 2015 P.C. On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on Daily and Supplementary Board stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 27 21­03­2016 34, 35, 37, 46 to 06­05­2016 61 28 02­05­2016 39, 40, 41 06­01­2016 29 05­05­2016 42 (OS) 15­06­2016 30 (OS) 15­02­2016 43, 44, 75, 76, 77, 79 (OS) 28­06­2016 31 09­03­2016 45, 74 22­02­2016 32, 36, 38 10­03­2016 62 to 72, 78, 80 to 85 06­06­2016 33 08­02­2016 73 (OS) 27­01­2016 If in any of the above matters, adinterim 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. ( G.S.PATEL, J ) (A.S. OKA, J ) ssp

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4182 OF 2015 Mohan Somla Pagi … Petitioner Versus The Administrator, Union Territory of Daman & Diu and Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Ors. … Respondents Ms. Dipti Kuber i/by Devmani Shukla for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & MAKARAND KARNIK, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 19, 2016. P.C. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not taken any action on the petitioner's complaint dated 8.1.2015 Exh.A in regard to the raising of the illegal construction on the land bearing S. No. 244, located at Silvasa, Dadra Nagar Haveli. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we dispose of this petition by directing the respondents to examine the petitioner's complaint and take appropriate action in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as also to the concerned affected persons. Let the action as aforesaid be taken as expeditiously as possible but not latter than four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Petitioner to give copy of the complaint dated 8.1.2015 to the respondents along with the copy of this order. With the aforesaid directions, petition is disposed of. (MAKARAND KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1144 OF 2019 Prakash Siddhnath Shukla & Ors. Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra Respondent Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishnan i/b Mr. Chinmay P. Gaonkar for the Applicants. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, A.P.P. for Respondent – State. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATED : 24th MAY, 2019. (VACATION COURT) P.C. : 1 I have perused the F.I.R. There are allegations in the F.I.R. that applicants have tendered forged documents to stake claim to their right in a Slum Rehabilitation Project. Prima facie there is nothing to show that the documents were genuine. However, the investigation is still in progress. Learned Counsel for the applicant seeks time to give details of the documents which were supplied by the applicants to the authorities. Time as prayed for is granted. 2 Stand over to 12.06.2019. (SARANG V. KOTWAL J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1144 OF 2019 Prakash Siddhnath Shukla And Ors Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra Respondent MS.Ameeta Kuttikrishnan i/by Chinmay P Gaonkar For Applicant V.V.Gangurde App for state. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 13th June, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 17/06/2019 UNDER THE CAPTION OF URGENT CIRCULATIONS. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1144 OF 2019 Prakash Siddhnath Shukla And Ors Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra Respondent Ms. Ameeta kuttikrishanan i/b.Mr Chinmay P Gaonkar For Applicant. V.V.Gangurde App for state. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 17th June, 2019 P.C. : At the request of Applicant ,stand over to 19/06/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1144 OF 2019 Prakash Siddhnath Shukla & ors. .Applicants Vs. P.C. The State of Mahrashtra .Respondent Ms Ameeta Kuttikrishnan i/b. Mr. C. P. Gaonkar, Advocate, for the Applicants Mr. S. S. Hulke, APP, for the Respondent – State CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 19.06.2019 . Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this Application, the Applicants seek prearrest bail in connection with C. R. No. 8 of 2017 registered with the Andheri Police Station, Mumbai, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Without going into the merits of the allegation made by the Complainant, learned counsel for the Applicants relies on the Judgment of this Court in W. P. No. 924 of 2016 with Cri. Application No. 486 of 2016 ( Sayyed Anwar Ahmed & anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr. ) dated 27th & 28th February, 2017, to show that the complaint at the behest of the Complainant is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the Applicants in particular, relies on para 28 of the said Judgment, wherein it is stated that in cases of SRA Schemes, in view of the law laid down in Shailesh Gandhi Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, an aggrieved party must first approach the High Power Committee; and if the High Power Committee finds that there is an element of criminality or in cases of impersonation etc, it would ensure that the investigation is handed over to the appropriate agency. It is further stated that if a Complainant has any grievance about the names included in Annexure – II, he can always approach the High Power Committee and that the said Committee can direct setting of criminal law in motion, if it finds criminality in it. Learned counsel in view of the said decision submits that the complaint filed by the Complainant before the learned JMFC, pursuant to which an order under Section 156(3) came to be passed and the aforesaid C. R. came to be registered is untenable. Learned APP does not dispute the aforesaid. In the facts, custodial interrogation of the Applicants is not warranted. Accordingly, the Application is allowed and the Applicants are granted prearrest bail on the following terms & conditions : O R D E R (i) In the event of arrest, the Applicants be enlarged on bail, on executing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ each with one or two sureties in the like amount; (ii) The Applicants shall report to the investigating officer of the concerned police station as & when called for by the investigating officer. The Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi and anr. .. Appellants vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. .. Respondents ---------------- Mr. R.S. Deshpande a/w Mr. Vijay S. Thakur for the Appellants. Mr. N.B. Patil, APP for the State. Mr. Vinayak Narale, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ambernath Division, Thane City present. CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J. DATE : AUGUST 12, 2021 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the Appellants. He seeks leave to amend so as to implead the complainant as a party Respondent. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. The ofence is registered against the Appellants in respect of C.R. No.I-152 of 2021 registered with Hill Line Police Station, Thane for the ofences punishable under Section 354-D of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and Section 3(1)(R), 3(1)(W) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the said Act' for short) on the basis of FIR given by the complainant-Ms. Apeksha Dalvi. 14.APEAL.574-21.doc Ms. Apeksha Dalvi is a President of RPI (Women Wing) of Thane District. The Appellant No.1 is the President of RPI Maharashtra State and the Appellant No.2 is the President of RPI Shahpur Taluka. It is the case of the Appellant No.1 that he being a Vice President of RPI Maharashtra appointed one lady as a President of Shahpur Taluka RPI, without consulting the complainant. The complainant was therefore annoyed and hence the submission of Appellant that a false case is registered against them. It is alleged that the Appellant No.1 has posted some messages in a whatsapp group of RPI Thane District which are derogatory in nature and insulting. Even the Appellant No.2 has posted some messages on the whatsapp group which afects the dignity and honour of the complainant and hence the ofence is registered. The trial Court rejected the application for bail. It is contended by learned counsel for the Applicants that the basic ingredients of ofence under Section 3(1)(R) of the said Act are not made out. The Appellant No.2-Jayvant Bhagawan Thorat belongs to the Scheduled Caste. The trial Court therefore held that so far as the ofence under the said Act alleged against Jayvant is concerned, the same may not be attracted in his case. As against the Appellant No.1-Farooq Sattar Dalvi, the trial Court held that prima facie Section 3(1)(R) of the said Act would be attracted. As against both the Appellants, trial Court observed that Section 354(D) of IPC will be applicable. 14.APEAL.574-21.doc It is the contention of learned counsel for the Appellants that all insults or intimidations to a person will not be an ofence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The ofence under Section 3(1)(R) of the said Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation must be with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Appellants that the whatsapp messages posted were not with the object of humiliating any member of the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe. According to him, the Appellants as well as the complainant happen to be members are of the RPI Political party. Assuming the language used in the posts on whatsapp is derogatory, it cannot be said to have been posted with an intent to humiliate the member of the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe. It is just that the complainant was annoyed with the Appellants taking some decisions without consulting her which led to the exchange of the messages. The intent therefore is absent. Learned APP for the State submitted that the Appellants have not co-operated with the investigation and the bar of Section 18 of the said Act will be attracted in the present case. He submitted that for the reasons mentioned by the Appellate Court, this is not a ft case for grant of anticipatory bail. 3 Of 4 Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that they are willing to co-operate with the investigation but as there is no protection in their favour, they apprehend that they will be arrested forthwith. That was the only reason according to them that they did not present themselves before the Investigating Ofcer. Prima facie I fnd substance in the contention of the Appellants that the ofence under Section 3(1)(R) is not made out. Issue notice to the complainant, returnable on 24.08.2021. In addition to the Court's notice, the Investigating Ofcer to inform the complainant about the next date of hearing. The Appellants in my opinion deserve to be granted interim protection. In the event the Appellants are arrested in connection with C.R. No.I-152 of 2021 registered with Hill Line Police Station, Thane, they shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount. The Appellants shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses or contact, threaten or infuence the complainant in any manner. The Appellants in the meantime to co-operate with the investigation and present themselves before the Investigating Ofcer on 14th, 16th and 18th August, 2021 between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. List the matter on 24.08.2021. (M.S.KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 6: Ingale FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2021 Mr.Vijay S. Thakur, for the Appellants. Mr.N.B. Patil, APP for State. Smt.Apeksha Dalvi - Respondent No.2 present. CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J. DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2021 P.C. The matter pertains to the assignment of Hon'ble Anuja Prabhudessai, J. On 12/08/2021, the matter was listed before this Court in view of the office order. The complainant appeared and mentioned the matter. The matter be placed before appropriate Court on 25/08/2021. (M.S.KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 9: Megha 11_apeal _574_2021.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi and Anr. ...Appellants Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents …. Mr. Vijay S. Thakur with Mr. R.S. Deshpande for the Appellants. Mr. P.H. Gaikwad, APP for the Respondent No.1-State. CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. DATED: 31st AUGUST, 2021. P.C.:- It is stated that matter does not pertain to the assignment of this Court. Registry to verify and place it before appropriate Court. Stand over to 07/09/2021. Interim relief, if any, to continue till the next date. (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) MEGHA Digitally signed by Date: 2021.09.01 14:29:07 S PARAB

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi And Anr. ....APPELLANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Mrs.Prabha Badadare i/b Vijay Thakur for Appellant Ms. P.N.Dabholkar, APP for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI J DATE : 7th September, 2021 P.C. : The Registry to verify and place the matter before the appropriate Court. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.574 OF 2021 FAROOQ SATTAR DALVI AND ANOTHER )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT Mr.R.S.Deshpande a/w. Mr.Vijay Thakur, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent. CORAM : V. G. BISHT, J. DATE : 28th APRIL 2022 P.C. : 1 Heard learned APP and learned counsel for the appellant. Vide order dated 12th August 2021 this Court had granted interim protection which is continued from time to time. Let the interim protection so granted be continued till the next date. 2 Stand over to 16th June 2022. (V. G. BISHT, J.)

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi & Anr. ….Appellants Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents Mr. Vijay S. Thakur, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent No.1-State. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 22nd DECEMBER, 2022 P.C. : The learned counsel for the appellants states that he will supply a spare copy within a period of two days from today. Once the spare copy is supplied, issue fresh notice to the respondent No.2, returnable on 8.2.2023. Interim order granted vide order dated 12.8.2021 to continue till then. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE Digitally signed by PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE 10:38:05 +0530

Order - Status 17: 1 of 1 16-apeal-574-21 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2021 __________ __________ Farooq Sattar Dalvi & Anr. ..Appellants Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Vijay S. Thakur for Appellants. Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for State/Respondent No.1. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 8 FEBRUARY 2023 PC : Await service on the Respondent No.2. Stand over to 29/03/2023. Interim order granted earlier to continue till the next date. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) Gokhale

Order - Status 19: 27.Apeal.574.2021.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi and another Appellant versus The State of Maharashtra and another Respondents Adv.R.S.Deshpande with Vijay Thakur, Advocates for Appellant. Ms.P.N.Dabholkar, APP, for State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 12th June 2023 Office note indicates that notice was issued to Respondent no.2 on 16th January 2023. Service report is awaited. It is noticed that this appeal is pending in this Court since long. Hence concerned Police Station is directed to take steps to intimate/serve Respondent no.2. Stand over to 5th July 2023. Interim relief granted earlier, if any, to continue till then. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) MST PC :

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi And Anr. Appellants Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. Respondents Mr. R.S. Deshpande i/by Mr. Vijay S. Thakur, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms. Pallavi N. Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent – State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : th 5 JULY, 2023. PER COURT : Learned APP on instructions submit that the intimation about the hearing of this Appeal has been given to Respondent No.2. However, she has requested for time as she is undergoing some treatment. This Appeal is pending in this Court since 2021. By way of last chance the Appeal is adjourned till 12th July, 2023. Stand over to 12th July, 2023. Interim relief granted earlier shall continue to operate till the next date. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) SUNNY ANKUSHRAO THOTE Digitally signed by SUNNY ANKUSHRAO THOTE Date: 2023.07.07 10:53:40 +0530

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi And Anr. ...Appellants Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Respondents …. Mr. R.S. Deshpande a/w Mr. Vijay S. Thakur, Advocate for Appellant. …. Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent – State. Ms. Saili Dhuru, Appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2.s CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 12 th JULY, 2023. P.C.:- Learned APP has tendered report from the concerned Police Station indicate that the intimation be given to the complainant and request is made by the complainant for providing legal aid. Report is taken on record. Learned Ms. Saili Dhuru is appointed to represent for Respondent No.2. Stand over to 19th July, 2023. Interim relief granted earlier shall continue to operate till the next date. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Order - Status 25: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi And Anr. ...Appellants Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Respondents Mr.R. S. Deshpande a/w Mr.Vijay S. Thakur Advocate for Appellants. Ms. Saili Dhuru Advocate for Respondent No.2. Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent – State. …. …. ETHAPE DNYANESHWAR ASHOK Digitally signed by ETHAPE ASHOK Date: 2023.07.20 17:32:17 +0530 CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 19th JULY, 2023. P.C.:- This is an Appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act"). The appellants are aggrieved by order dated 10th July 2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan rejecting the application for anticipatory bail preferred by Appellants in connection with C.R. No. I-152 of 2021 registered with Hill Line Police Station, Thane City on 20th June 2021. The FIR was registered at the instance of Respondent No.2 for offences under Sections 354(D) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1)(w) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. D.A.Ethape 11-APEAL-574-2021.doc The case of the prosecution is that, the first informant is the office bearer of political party and belongs to Scheduled Caste. She is also member of Thane District Rural Whats APP group. The accused are also member of the same political party and whats-app group. The accused posted messages on those whats-app groups which was derogatory nature. Appellant No.2 belongs to scheduled caste. Hence, offence under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w) of the Atrocities Act cannot be attracted against him. The learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the application for anticipatory bail has observed that, Section 3(1)(w) is not attracted in this case. However, the application was rejected on that ground that Section 3(1)(r) is attracted qua the appellant No.1. The offence under Section 354(D) of IPC is bailable. Learned Advocate for Appellant submitted that, neither Section 354(D) of IPC nor the provision of Atrocities Act invoked against the appellants are attracted in this case. All insults or intimidation to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the said Act indicate that the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation must be with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. The whats-app messages posted were not with the object of humiliating any member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The Appellants as well as the complainant happen to be members of same political party. Assuming the language used in the posts on whats-app is derogatory, it cannot be said to have been posted with an intent to humiliate the member of the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe. The complainant was annoyed with the Appellants taking some decisions without consulting her which led to exchange of messages. The intent therefore is absent. Learned APP and learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 submitted that, the nature of message posted by the accused was derogatory and sent with a view to insult and humiliate the complainant as she belongs to Scheduled Caste. Prima facie offences are made out and the Appellants are not entitled for anticipatory bail. It appears that, the alleged message was on account of animosity between Appellants and the complainant. Appellants as well as complainant are members of the same party and same whats-app group. In any case, the offences under the Atrocities Act cannot be applied against Appellant No.2 as he belongs to Scheduled Caste. Section 354(D) of the IPC relates to offence of stalking. Prima facie it is debatable whether the said provision can be applied in the present case. Section 3(1)(r) of Atrocities Act, provides that, whoever intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. Case of the complainant is that, message was sent on whats-app group. The record does not indicate that, the alleged message was forwarded to intentionally insult or intimidate the complainant because she was belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In these circumstances, bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act would not be an impediment to grant relief sought in this Appeal. ORDER (i) Criminal Appeal No. 574 of 2021 is allowed. (ii) Interim order dated 12th August 2021 is confirmed. (iii) Impugned Order dated 10th July 2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1101 of 2021 is set aside. (iv) In the event of arrest of the appellants in connection with C.R. No.I-152 of 2021 registered with Hill Line Police Station, Thane, City, they shall be released on bail on furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one or more sureties in the like amount. (v) Appeal stands disposed off. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPEAL NO. 94 OF 2006 The State Of Maharashtra ....Appellant V/S Gangaram Baburao Jagtap ....Respondent Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, A.P.P. For Appellant Mr. Heramb S. Kadam i.b. Mr. S.A.Sawant For Respondent CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM, J DATE : 5th March, 2020 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the Respondent No. 1, Stand over to 06/03/2020. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.94 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra ) ….Appellant/Complainant V/s. Gangaram Baburao Jagtap Age 45 years., Occ.: Talathi R/o. Fatyapur, Taluka & District – Satara ) ) ) .….Respondent/Accused ---- Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, APP for State – Appellant. Mr. Heramb S. Kadam i/b. Mr. S.A. Sawant for respondent. CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J. DATE : 6th MARCH 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated 19th October 2004 passed by the Special Judge for Anti Corruption, Satara, acquitting respondent (accused) of offences punishable under Section 7 (Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act), Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). 2 Complainant Ramchandra Dadasaheb Shinde (PW-1) had purchased some agricultural land. After about 8-9 months, further agricultural land was purchased in his brother's name. A week thereafter, PW-1 gave a photocopy of the sale deed and relevant documents to accused, who was the Talathi of the village Venegaon and requested him to mutate the name of his younger brother in 7/12 register. Accused, however, avoided doing the same on one ground or the other and on 16th October 1999, when PW-1 met him, accused told him that he has to give Rs.1000/- on 20th October 1999 at Tahasil office, Satara. PW-1 realised that unless the bribe amount was given, the work will not be done and therefore, decided to approach the Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.). PW-1 then lodged the complaint with PW-4 – Vidhyadhar Shete, the Investigating Officer and after complying with the pre-trap formalities, the A.C.B. office, Satara, decided to trap accused on 20th October 1999. Complainant and PW-3, the panch witness, met accused on 20th October 1999 and complainant gave Rs.1000/ tainted currency to accused, who accepted it with his right hand and put it in his pocket on the right side of his pant. Thereafter, PW-1 gave the agreed signal, the raiding team swooped and PW-4 caught the wrist of accused. Under ultraviolet light, the hand of accused was examined and so also the pocket and anthracene marks were found. Post-trap panchnama was prepared, investigation commenced and after obtaining sanction from the Sub Divisional Officer – Kanhuraj Harichandra Bagate (PW-2), complaint was filed. Once the further investigation was over and statements were recorded, chargesheet was filed and accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3 To prove its case, prosecution led evidence of four witnesses as against 16 witnesses listed in the chargesheet. No independent witness was examined. The four witnesses are Ramchandra Dadasaheb Shinde, complainant (PW-1); Kanhuraj Harichandra Bagate, Sub Divisional Officer (PW-2); Sambhaji Bhausaheb Budhawale, panch witness (PW-3); and Vidhyadhar Bharma Shete, Investigating Officer (PW-4). Gauri Gaekwad 4 The Apex Court in Ghurey Lal V/s. State of U.P. 1 has culled out the factors to be kept in mind by the Appellate Court while hearing an appeal against acquittal. Paragraph Nos.72 and 73 of the said judgment read as under: The following principles emerge from the cases above: The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial court's decision. This is especially true when a witness' credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that trial court was wrong. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts should follow the well settled principles crystallized by number of judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal: The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when: i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong; ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law; iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice"; 1 . (2008) 10 SCC 450 iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/ report of the Ballistic expert, etc. vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. The Appellate Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court. If two reasonable views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused. The Apex Court in many other judgments including Murlidhar & Ors. V/s. State of Karnataka 2 has held that unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are found to be palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, Appellate Court should not interfere with the conclusions of the Trial Court. Apex Court also held that merely because the appellate court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. We must also keep in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of respondent and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the Trial Court. 2 . (2014) 5 SCC 730 The Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Doshi V/s. State of Gujarat 3 has held that if the Appellate Court holds, for reasons to be recorded that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained because Appellate Court finds the order to be palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable, Appellate Court can reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions. In other words, if Appellate Court finds that there was nothing wrong or manifestly erroneous with the order of the Trial Court, the Appeal Court need not even re-appraise the evidence and arrive at its own conclusions. 5 Demand and acceptance of gratification other than legal remuneration is the crux of a bribery case. Besides, Section 7 of the PC Act lays down that agreement to accept or the acceptance of gratification other than legal remuneration is to be the motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show in exercise of his official functions any favour or disfavour to any person, i.e, complainant. We will have to scrutinize the evidence on record and see if accused had made demand for Rs.1000/- as gratification other than legal remuneration from complainant for mutating the name of his brother in the revenue record against the agricultural land which they had purchased under a conditional sale deed or the amount was given to him for the purpose of stamp papers and payment of registration fee etc. 3 . 1996 SCC (cri) 972 6 In the first place, it has to be noted that PW-1 in his complaint as well as in his deposition, has stated that photocopies of sale deed relating to his younger brother were given to accused for effecting mutation. But in the documents seized, no such photocopies were available. Secondly, which is really fatal to prosecution's case is that complainant alleged that on 16th October 1999, when he met accused, accused made demand of Rs.1000/- as bribe. It has come on record that between 15th October 1999 and 26th October 1999 accused was on medical leave. The entries made in the service book of accused shows that accused was on leave from 15th October 1999 to 26th October 1999 on medical grounds. There is no evidence to show that during his medical leave, accused came to the office on 16th October 1999. Therefore, prosecution's case that PW-1 met accused on 16th October 1999, when accused demanded Rs.1000/- for making the mutation entry, is not believable. 7 One more point is that even the application moved by complainant for making the mutation entry is not coming forth. PW-2, the sanctioning authority, has in his cross examination stated that he came to know that the requisite mutation entry was made by accused and he also came to know that after some months of making that entry, complainant had given his complaint in A.C.B. office, Satara. PW-2 also says that the Revenue Circle Officer has to take decision within 8 days after service of notices on the interested parties and 7/12 extract cannot be issued by the Talathi unless the entry is certified by Revenue Circle Officer. PW-2 further says that the job 7 / 9 413.Apeal-94-2006.doc of Talathi comes to an end after taking entry and effecting the service of the notices on the concerned person and in the instant case, PW-2 had found that Talathi (accused) had made entry, effected service of notices and had sent the matter to Revenue Circle Officer for certification. Therefore, there was nothing left to be done by accused. Interestingly, PW-2 says after he read the documents, he felt suspicious about the genuineness of complaint lodged by PW-1 against accused. PW-2 also says he thought over whether permission for prosecution has to be granted and PW-2 required to be protected. Nevertheless, PW-2 went ahead and granted the sanction. 8 These are grounds alongwith many other which have been recorded in the judgment impugned which prevailed over the Trial Court to pass the order of acquittal. For the sake of brevity, I am not reproducing those points but certainly those points have the approval of this Court. 9 Even for a moment we accept that there was a presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act, the same is a rebuttable presumption and the burden placed on accused for rebutting the presumption is one of preponderance of probabilities. 10 Paragraph 11 of State of Gujarat V/s. Navinbhai Chandrakant Joshi & Ors. 4 reads as under : So far as the presumption raised under Section 20 of the Act for the offence under Section 7 of the Act is concerned, it is settled law that the presumption raised under Section 20 of the Act is a rebuttable presumption, and that the burden placed on the appellant for rebutting the presumption is one of preponderance of probabilities. In C.M. Girish Babu Vs. CBI Cochin, High Court of 4 . (2018) 9 Supreme Court Cases 242 Keralar (2009) 3 SCC 779, this Court held as under:- "21. It is well settled that the presumption to be drawn under Section 20 is not an inviolable one. The accuse charged with the offence could rebut it either through the crossexamination of the witnesses cited against him or by adducing reliable evidence....… It is equally well settled that the burden of proof placed upon the accused person against whom the presumption is made under Section 20 of the Act is not akin to that of burden placed on the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt..." Since it is established that the accused was possessing the bribe money, it was for them to explain that how the bribe money has been received by them and if he fails to offer any satisfactory explanation, it will be presumed that he has accepted the bribe." 11 There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption in favour of accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to accused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial Court. For acquitting accused, the Trial Court rightly observed that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. 12 In the circumstances, in my view, the opinion of the Trial Court cannot be held to be illegal or improper or contrary to law. The order of acquittal, in my view, need not be interfered with. 13 Appeal dismissed. 14 The Government/Appropriate Authority shall pay over to respondent, within a period of 30 days from today, all pensionary or other Gauri Gaekwad benefits/dues stalled, in view of pendency of this appeal. If during the service, in view of this matter, the promotions or increments of accused have been affected, the concerned Authority/Department will pay, proceed and calculate on the basis that there was no such matter ever on record against accused and will factor in all promotions and increments that accused would have been entitled to and all the amounts shall be accordingly paid within 30 days. After 30 days interest at 12% p.a. will have to be paid by Government/ Appropriate Authority to respondent. No authority shall demand certified copy for reimbursing the benefits/dues as directed above. All to act on authenticated copy of this order. Certified copy expedited. (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7840 of 2016 M/s. Hotel Keepers & Halwai Co-op.Soc.Ltd. ….Petitioner versus Controller of Rationing, Royal Insurance Building, Churchgate and ors. …Respondents Mr. S. P. Kanuga, advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Aparna D. Vhatkar, AGP for the State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE & ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. DATE : 13th JULY, 2016. P. C. : Having heard Mr. Kanuga, learned counsel for the petitioner, we direct learned AGP to file reply before the returnable date. Stand over to 27th July, 2016. (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) [RANJIT MORE, J.]

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7840 OF 2016 M/s. Hotel Keepers And Halwai Co.op. Soc.ltd. ....Petitioner V/S Controller Of Rationing And Ors ....for Respondent Sheroo Kanuga ....for Petitioner Mr. P.p. Kakde, Government Pleader, R.no. 1 To 3. ....Respondent CORAM : RANJIT MORE. & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ DATE : 3rd August, 2016 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the petitioner, Stand over to 10/08/2016. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7840 OF 2016 M/s. Hotel Keepers And Halwai Co.op. Soc.ltd. ....Petitioner V/S Controller Of Rationing And Ors ....Respondent SHEROO KANUGA GOVERNMENT PLEADER WRIT CELLR.NO. 1 TO 3 CORAM : RANJIT MORE. & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ DATE : 10th August, 2016 P.C. : Mentioned. At the request of learned advocate for the petitioner Stand over to 18/08/2016. Ad-interim relief if any granted earlier to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL AND CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION AND ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM: S.S. KEMKAR & M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED: 18th August 2016 PC: The following matters on Balance Board / Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. The matters will appear on the dates as may be fixed by C.M.I.S. Civil Appellate Side C.M.I.S. Date Original Side C.M.I.S. Date 216, 217 28/08/16 218, 224 29/08/16 225 14/10/16 146 24/10/16 223 03/10/16 210, 211, 212, 213, 214 27/10/16 147, 204 07/04/17 215, 219, 220, 222, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 238, 239, 240 15/11/16 141 23/12/16 142, 143, 144, 145, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 100, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184 06/03/17 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 221, 226, 227 07/03/17 141, 147, 168, 178, 204, 218, 223, 224, 237 16/09/16 If in any of the above matters, adinterim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If the adinterim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (M.S. KARNIK, J.) (S.S. KEMKAR, J.)

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATTE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7840 OF 2016 M/s. Hotel Keepers and Halwai CSL ...Petitioner vs. Controller of Rationing and Others ...Respondents Mr. Sheroo Kanuga, for the Petitioner Mr. P.P. Kakade, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2State. CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & MAKARAND KARNIK, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 30, 2016 P.C.: . Not on board. Upon mentioning taken on board. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission. Issue notice to the Respondents. The learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. He seeks time to get instructions and file reply. Three weeks time as prayed for is granted. List the matter on 20th September, 2016. (MAKARAND KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL AND CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION AND ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : S.S. KEMKAR & M. S. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 2 0/09/2016 P.C.: The following matters on balance Board/Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. The matters will appear on the dates as may be fixed as per C.M.I.S. Civil Appellate Side C.M.I.S. Date Original Side C.M.I.S Date 38 27/09/16 63 18/10/16 32, 33,34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54,55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 11/10/16 35, 36 27/07/17 46, 47, 48 16/12/16 In any of the above matters, in case any ad interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, then 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. (M.S. KARNIK, J.) (S.S. KEMKAR, J.)

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7840 OF 2016 M/s. Hotel Keepers And Halwai Co.op. Soc.ltd. ....Petitioner V/S Controller Of Rationing And Ors ....Respondent Sheroo Kanuga For Petitioner Mr.V.M.mali.Addl.Government Pleader Writ Cell R.no. 1 To 3 For Respondent CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M. S. KARNIK, JJ DATE : 28th September, 2016 P.C. : Stand over to 01/10/2016. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 25: mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7840 OF 2016 M/s. Hotel Keepers & Halwai CSL ...Petitioner Vs. Controller of Rationing & Ors. ...Respondents Ms. P.P. Bhosale i/b. Mr. S.P. Kanuga, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Vikas Mali, AGP for the State Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED :1ST OCTOBER, 2016 P.C. : Petitioner's Counsel seeks time to file rejoinder. 2 weeks time as prayed for is granted. List as per CMIS date. (M.S. KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)

Order - Status 30: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7840 OF 2016 M/s. Hotel Keepers & Halwai CSL Petitioner vs. Controller of Rationing and others Respondents Mr. Sheroo Kanuga for the petitioner. Mr. Manish M. Pabale, AGP, for the respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM : A.S.OKA, & A. K. MENON, JJ. DATE : 3RD MAY, 2017 P.C. After it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no document placed on record to show that at one stage 187 authorised ration shops were attached to the petitioner, he seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to make an application/representation to the State Government for satisfying the State Government that earlier there were 187 shops attached to the petitioner and out of 187, only 107 shops have been again attached to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. All the contentions on merits are kept open. If such application is made, the same shall be disposed of expeditiously. (A. K. MENON, J.) (A. S. OKA, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE SIDE, CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.675 OF 2012 Shalini Vitthal Gadekar through Next friend namely Shri Sachin Balasaheb Daptare ..Petitioner Versus Smt. Tarabai Vitthal Gadekar & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. Ganesh M. Mohite holding for Mr. Sachin Kadam, for the petitioner. CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 2 May 2012. P.C. Notice to respondents returnable on 10 May 2012. Respondents shall be served through Advocate's notice. CHIEF JUSTICE (N.M. JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 675 OF 2012 Shalini V. Gadekar ... Petitioner V/s. Smt.Tarabai V. Gadekar & Ors. ... Respondents Advocate for Petitioner is present. CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL REGISTRAR (JUDL.-I) Date : 20th June 2013 Two weeks time granted for payment of Bhatta. If Bhatta paid within two weeks, issue notice to Respondents returnable within six weeks from today. REGISTRAR (JUDL.-I) mvm – R(J-I) -11.06.13

Order - Status 25: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.675 OF 2012 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 : MANGESH S. PATIL REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) Date : 1st August 2013 Two weeks time granted as a last chance for payment of Bhatta. If bhatta is paid within two weeks, issue Notice to Respondents returnable within six weeks from today. REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) mvm – R(J-I) 1/8/2013

Order - Status 27: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 675 OF 2012 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders Registrar's orders Advocate for Petitioner is present. CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) Date : 15 October 2013 Advocate to pay Bhatta within two weeks, failing which Writ Petition shall stand dismissed as against unserved Respondents. If Bhatta is paid within two weeks, issue notice to Respondents returnable within six weeks from today. REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) RJ -I aap/mvm 15/10/2013

Order - Status 29: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER MATTERS NOTIFIED AT SR. NOS. 48 TO 60 AND 62 TO 80 ON THE BOARD DATED 20TH JANUARY 2014 CAUSE TITLES AND APPEARANCES AS NOTIFIED CORAM : A. S. OKA & M. S. SONAK, JJ. 20TH JANUARY 2014 P.C.: . The following matters on Balance Board -Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. The matters will appear on the dates fixed as per the C.M.I.S. Sr.No. C.M.I.S.Date 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58 12/02/14 59, 60, 78, 80 13/02/2014 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 and 77 14/02/2014 64 21/03/2014 79 08/04/2014 If in any of the above matters, ad interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same shall continue to operate till the respective next dates. If ad-interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. If there is an extreme urgency, the parties can get the papers produced before the Court.

Order - Status 33: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 675 OF 2012 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or orders or directions & Judge's orders. Registrar's orders. Shri Sachin D. Kadam for the Petitioner. Ms. Saima Ansari i/by Shri R.N. Gite for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM : A.S. OKA & M.S. SONAK, JJ DATE : 14TH FEBRUARY 2014 P.C.: . On the oral prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, we restore the Petition which was dismissed as against Respondent Nos.5 to 13. After having perused the Petition and after having heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, we find that the Petitioner will have to establish her right in relation to the property in dispute by approaching the Civil Court. The representation made on behalf of the Petitioner which is at ExhibitC to the Petition shows that the civil suits are pending in relation to the property in dispute. By granting liberty to the Petitioner to take out appropriate proceedings, we dispose of the Petition. All contentions on merits are kept open. (M.S. SONAK, J) (A.S.OKA, J)

Order - Status 7: Urmila Ingale IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7551 OF 2016 Bhimrao Bapurao Atigre .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Mr.Dhairyasheel Sutar, for the Petitioner. Mr.A.I.Patel, AGP for State. CORAM : SHANTANU.S.KEMKAR & M.S.KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 04st JULY , 2016 P.C. : . Matter is not on board. In view of the urgency, taken on production board and heard forthwith. Through this Petition, the petitioner is seeking various reliefs, however, at this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is pressing only prayer clause (a) which reads thus : "This Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for relevant record and proceedings from the office of respondents and after going through the legality, validity and propriety of the same direct respondent no.3 to hear and decide application dtd. 22.9.2015 submitted by the petitioner u/s. 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 within stipulated period; for that purpose issue appropriate Writ and/or order." According to the petitioner in regard to the aforesaid prayer clause (a), he had submitted a representation invoking the provisions of Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 before respondent No.3. Collector, Kolhapur. However, the petitioner's application has not been decided by the Collector yet. Without commenting upon the merits of the matter, in view of the submission made by the petitioner, we are inclined to dispose of the Petition by directing the Collector, Kolhapur to consider and take appropriate decision on the petitioner's application dated 22/09/2015 annexture Exhibit 'G' as expeditiously as possible but not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this Petition. In regard to the other reliefs claimed in the Petition, it is open for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Petition is disposed of. ( M.S.KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU.S.KEMKAR, J.) 2/2