All Cases

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.5102 of 2013. Mr Sandip Bharat Jangam & another ..Petitioners. Vs The State of Maharashtra & others ..Respondents Mr S.M.Oak i/by Sagar Joshi for the Petitioners. CORAM : CORAM : A.S. OKA, & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 18th June, 2013 P.C. Not on board. Taken on board. The challenge in this petition is to the order rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioners in the election of the village Panchayat. In view of the constitutional mandate, at this stage, no interference can be made by this Court. The petitioners will have to adopt the statutory remedy. By keeping the statutory remedy open, the petition is disposed of. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.566 OF 2005 Office notes, office : 14 1 · · • Memoranda of Coram, : appearances, Court's : Court's or Judge's Orders orders or directions : - & Registrar's orders. : Mr. Surel S. Shah for the petitioner. CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J. DATED: 18TH FEBRUARY, 2005. P.C. :- Not on board. Mentioned urgently. Issue notice to the respondents. Returnable on 28/2/2005. Apart from court notice, advocate's notice is also permitted. Till 1/3/2005, there will be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d) of the petition. All concerned to act on ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3719 OF 2003 IN CRIMINAL REVN. APPLICATION NO. 360 OF 2003 Mr. Rajesh Kisanchand Agarwal. ... Applicant. V/s. Vinay Ramchandra Kulkarni and Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. S.R. Agarkar for the Applicant. Ms. U.V. Kejriwal, APP for the State. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. OCTOBER 08, 2014. P.C. :- Learned Counsel for the Applicant states that Criminal Revision Application No.360 of 2003 has been disposed of and consequently, the present Application is rendered infructuous. Accordingly, Criminal Application No.3719 of 2003 is dismissed as infructuous. (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2019 Aniket Anand Pawar ...Petitioner Versus Ruchita Aniket Pawar & Ors. ...Respondents …… Mrs. Veena J. Kamble, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. Ruchita Pawar, Respondent No. 1 in person. Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for State. CORAM : S. S. Shinde J. DATED : 12th June, 2019 P.C . Respondents No. 1 is present in Court. Learned APP Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar interacted with Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 has made request to appoint advocate to represent her. Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority to appoint senior advocate from the panel within a period of one week to represent Respondent No. 1. At the request of Respondent No. 1 stand over to 4th July 2019. [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

Order - Status 7: 48-wp-2531-2019.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2019 Mr.Aniket Anand Pawar ...Petitioner Versus Mrs.Ruchita Aniket Pawar & Ors. ...Respondents …... Mrs.Veena J. Kamble for the Petitioner. Mr.Ajit M. Savagave for the Respondents. Mrs.G.P.Mulekar, APP for the Respondent -State. CORAM : S.S.SHINDE J. DATE : 4 JULY 2019 P.C.: The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this matter does not pertain to the assignment of this Court. Hence, remove from board. …... (S.S.SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 9: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2019 Office Notes, Office Memorandam of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- Ms. Veena J. Kamble for the Petitioner. CORAM: SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATE : 22nd OCTOBER 2019. P.C. : 1 Liberty to move before Vacation Court. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)

Order - Status 11: Dond IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2019 Aniket Anand Pawar ..Petitioner Vs Ruchita Aniket Pawar And Ors. ..Respondents Ms. Veena Kamble for the Petitioner. Mr. A.M. Savagave for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 15th November 2019. P.C.: 1] At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that, there is an arrears of Rs.1,42,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent No.1. 2] Before the petitioner be heard on merits, the petitioner is directed to either deposit the said amount of arrears in the Registry of this Court or to pay to the respondent No.1 directly within a period of one month from today. 3] Stand over to 7th January 2020. (A.S.GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2019 Aniket Anand Pawar ....Petitioner V/S Ruchita Aniket Pawar And Ors. ....Respondent None for Petitioner Mr. Ajit M. Savagave a/w Jyotsna Kamble For Respondent Adv.S.S.Hulke APP for State CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J DATE : 22nd January, 2020 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the Respondent No. , Stand over to 29/01/2020 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: Bharat D. Pandit by Bharat D. 13:17:49 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2019 Mr. Aniket Anand Pawar …. Petitioner. V/s Mrs. Ruchita Aniket Pawar and Ors. ….. Respondents. ---- None for the Petitioner. Mr. Ajit M. Savagave for Respondents. Mr. S.S. Hulke, APP for the State. CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE: JANUARY 29, 2020 P.C.:- Stand over to 30/1/2020 for dismissal. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2019 Mr. Aniket Anand Pawar .... Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Ruchita Aniket Pawar & Ors. .... Respondents Smt. Veena J. Kamble for Petitioner Mr. Ajit M. Savagave for Respondents. Ms. P.N. Dabholkar, APP for State. Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. Date : 30th January, 2020 P.C.: The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that in compliance with the last order, the petitioner is willing to deposit an amount of Rs.90,000/- in this Court by tomorrow. The petitioner is present in the Court. Since the statement is made on instructions, the same is accepted as an undertaking. The petitioner is permitted to deposit an amount of Rs.90,000/- as undertaken. The respondent-wife will be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited. The learned Magistrate in a proceeding initiated by the respondent-wife under the provisions of D.V. Act ordered maintenance of Rs.4,000/- and additional Rs.4,000/- towards accommodation expenses, which was modified in appeal under Section 23 of the D.V. Act by reducing the amount of accommodation expenses to Rs.2,000/-. The petitioner-husband feeling aggrieved preferred this petition. The contention of the counsel of the petitioner is, the petitioner is a self employed and though he earns very meager income, he is ready and willing to maintain his wife. According to him, the respondent-wife is resident of Mumbai and presently staying with her parents. He would further urge that there is independent source of income, as the respondent is practising profession of beautician. While countering aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife would urge that the petitioner has neglected to maintain the respondent as the petitioner is in habit of not Dusane 3/4 905 wp 2531.2019.doc attending family duties his routine conduct creates serious doubt that the petitioner has some extra marital affair. According to the respondent, even if the respondent has taken training of beautician, still her earning from such profession is not sufficient to maintain herself. As such, she is forced to stay with her parents. Having appreciated rival submissions, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is self employed person, as such his average income is around Rs.12,000/- to Rs.16,000/- per month i.e. Rs.300/- to Rs.400/- per day. In the aforesaid background order of award of interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month is very much justified. As the respondent-wife is staying with her parents and it is not her case that she intend to stay independently or her parents are incurring expenses towards the rent, the order of award of accommodation charges, in my opinion, is not justified. As such, the order of maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month is confirmed, whereas, the order of award of accommodation charges of Rs.2,000/- per month is quashed and set aside. It is, however, clarified that the petitioner will be liable to pay accommodation charges till this date of the order. In response to the Court query, the petitioner submits that he shall clear entire arrears of maintenance within a period of four weeks from today, which statement is accepted as an undertaking. Let the entire amount be deposited in the Court of Magistrate within four weeks from today, to which the respondent-wife will be entitled to withdraw. The petition is partly allowed. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

Order - Status 19: Dusane 1/1 906.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2019 Mr. Aniket Anand Pawar .... Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Ruchita Aniket Pawar & Ors. .... Respondents Smt. Veena J. Kamble for Petitioner. Shri. Ajit M. Savagave for Respondent Shri. N.B. Patil, APP for State. Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. Date : 5th February, 2020 P.C.: Time to deposit the amount is extended till tomorrow, i.e. 6th February, 2020. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 559 OF 2018 Jamila Nasir Shaikh ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Vijay Dhananjay Upadhyay For Applicant Adv. A. A. Takalkar APP for State CORAM : SMT. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 21st March, 2018 P.C. : Stand over to 22/03/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 559 OF 2018 Mrs. Jamila Nasir Shaikh .Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .Respondent Mr. V. D. Upadhyay, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs. J. S. Lohokare, APP, for the Respondent – State CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 22.03.2018 P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this Application, the Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with C. R. No. 56 of 2018 registered with the Malvani Police Station, Mumbai, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 363, 364(A), 342, 354(D), 366, 506 r/w 34of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 9, 10 & 11 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act ( for short 'POCSO' ). Learned counsel for the Applicant states that the Applicant has not been named in the FIR and that the allegations are essentially as against co-accused – Sohail. He submits that even in the remand report, the Applicant's name has not been disclosed. Learned APP states that the victim has taken the name of the Applicant as being the person who was present at the place where the incident took place. She submits that investigation is still in progress. Learned APP seeks time to take detailed instructions. In the meantime, till the next date, the Applicant is granted interim protection on the following terms & conditions :- O R D E R (i) In the event of arrest, the Applicant be enlarged on bail, on executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount; (ii) The Applicant shall report to the investigating officer of the concerned police station on 2 nd & 3rd April, 2018 between 10:00 a. m. and 12:00 noon. Stand over to 10.04.2018 . To be listed on the Supplementary Board . All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPTORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 559 OF 2018 Jamila Nasir Shaikh Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. Vijay Upadhyay for the Applicant Ms. J. S. Lohokare, A.P.P for the Respondent-State API Mr. Ananda Vishnu Bagadi from Malvani Police Station is present CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. TUESDAY, 10th APRIL, 2018 P.C. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. 56 of 2018 registered with the Malvani Police Station, Mumbai, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 363, 364(A), 342, 354(D), 366, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has not been named in the FIR and that the allegations are essentially as against co-accused-Sohail. He submits that even in the remand report, the applicant's name has not been disclosed. Perused the papers. It appears and it is not disputed by the learned A.P.P that the victim has taken the name of the person, as she was present at the place where the incident took place. Learned A.P.P submits that apart from the same, there are no other allegations qua the applicant. It appears that the applicant has reported to the Investigating Officer pursuant to the interim protection granted to her vide order dated 22nd March, 2018. Considering the role of the applicant, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. Hence, the applicant is granted pre-arrest bail on the following terms and conditions : ORDER (i) In the event of the arrest, the applicant be enlarged on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount ; (ii) The applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station as and when called; (iii) The applicant shall not tamper or attempt to influence the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case. (iv) The applicant to cooperate with the investigating agency; The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of. It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie, for the purpose of deciding this application. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 9: ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5617 OF 2008 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Court's or Judge's Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.C.G.Gavnekar for the Petitioners. Mr.R.D.Soni i/by M/s.Ram & Company for Respondent No.2. CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED : 21st November, 2008. P.C. . The Petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 24/04/2008 whereby, on application filed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and 17 to 20, basically contending that before hearing of the Application Exhibit 5, it is necessary to consider the aspect of deficit in stamp as per Bombay Stamp Act. There is no dispute that the appeal against the said injunction order is also dismissed. The learned Judge, therefore, while deciding this application clearly observed that the parties are at liberty to raise this point while leading the evidence and at the time of hearing of the suit. In view of this, I see there is no reason to interfere with the said order. The intention with regard to the deficiency and as contemplated under Section 34 of the Bombay Stamp Act need to be considered at the earliest by the Trial Court. However, for grant of injunction/relief that may be one of the facet, but that itself cannot be the reason not to consider the application at this stage of the proceedings. There is no dispute that while passing the injunction order at Exhibit 5, there is always various facets which court consider to grant interim order. The validity or deficiency of stamp is a matter which can be gone into at the appropriate stage of the proceedings. Court cannot decline any interim relief on this ground. In view of this keeping all points open, the present Writ Petition is dismissed. . No costs. [ ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5664 OF 2010 Dhondiram Shankar Masal & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s Nana Narayan Masal & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. R.V. Bansode for the petitioners. Mr. Surel S. Shah for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 9TH AUGUST 2010 P.C. : Heard. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the common order dated 28 April 2010 passed by the learned District Judge1, Pandharpur, rejecting the petitioners' applications at Exhibits 94, 101, 102 and 118. By that order, the application made by the respondent no.1 at Exhibit 106 was also rejected. Respondent no. 1, however, has not challenged the order rejecting his application at Exhibit 106. Respondent no.1 in the writ petition is the original plaintiff. The petitioners and respondent nos.2 to 7 are the original defendants. In a suit for partition filed by respondent no.1 a decree for partition and separate possession was passed. The petitioners filed an appeal in which a partial stay to the execution was granted by the appellate court. The appellate court directed that the execution of the decree upto the delivery of possession can proceed but only directed stay for delivery of possession till the disposal of the appeal. Thereafter the petitioners filed an execution proceeding and the decree appears to have been sent to the Collector for partition. It appears that thereafter the Tahsildar issued a notice for possession but actual possession was not delivered when it was brought to the notice of the Tahsildar that there was a stay for delivery of possession. Thereafter the present petitioners made various applications mentioned above. By the application at Exhibit 57, the petitioners prayed that the proceedings for contempt of court be initiated against the Tahsildar. By the application at Exhibit 94, the petitioners prayed that tamperings were made by the respondent no.1 in the proceedings of Regular Darkhast No. 9 of 2002 and, therefore, prosecution be launched under sections 466, 468, 120B and 34 of the I.P.C. The appellate court has held that there was no iota of evidence about the alleged tampering by the respondent no.1 No material was pointed out before me to show any tampering by the respondent no.1. Hence, that order requires no interference. By the application Exhibit 101, the petitioners prayed that notice be issued to Mr. Ajay Pawar, the Tahsildar. By the application Exhibit 118, the petitioners prayed that Tahsildar Mr. Pawar be joined as party to the appeal. By the common order, both the applications have been rejected. Application at Exhibit 102 was for expeditious hearing of the appeal. In the final order, the appeal is directed to be fixed for final hearing. Hence, there can be no grievance about it. The gravamen of the applications of the petitioners at Exhibits 101 and 118 appears to be that though a stay for delivery of possession was granted by the first appellate court, The Tahsildar issued the notice for possession and thereby committed the contempt. Admittedly, the lower appellate court had not stayed the total execution of the decree. It had granted permission to the parties to proceed with the execution of the decree for partition and it only put a condition that the possession shall not be delivered. The proceedings were then sent to the Collector for effecting the partition. It appears that papers were sent by the Collector to the Tahsildar for partition. It appears that the Tahsildar did not notice that there was stay for delivery of possession and issued only the notice for possession. However, he did not deliver the possession on the fact of stay being brought to his notice. Thus, no breach of the order of the stay passed by the appellate court was committed. Hence, the decision of the trial court refusing to take action against the Tahsildar and joining him as a party appears to be proper requiring no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It may be noted that the suit was iled in the year 1996 and the appeal was filed in the year 2002. Thus, for 14 long years the respondent no.1, who has obtained the decree for possession, has been kept out of possession of the property. The present writ petition appears to be nothing but an attempt to further delay the hearing of the appeal and thereby stall the delivery of possession. For these reasons, there is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected summarily. The lower appellate court is directed to decide the appeal expeditiously and, in any event, within 6 months hereof. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6819 OF 2015 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Memorandam of appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Office Court's or Judge's orders Mr. R. P. Walvekar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Vikas Mali, AGP for the Respondent – State. ….. ….. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND S.B. SHUKRE, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 21, 2015. P.C. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petition has become infructuous. The petition is disposed of as infructuous. (S. B. SHUKRE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)