All Cases

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELALTE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 358 OF 2009 Sou. Ushadevi Sambhaji Patil ...... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra ....... Respondent. Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel with Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for the applicant. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.359 OF 2009 Shri Sambhaji Anandrao Patil ....... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent. Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel with Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for the applicant. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 17 th February, 2009 P.C.: Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with the offence punishable under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the present applicants have defrauded depositors to the tune of Rs 8,27,27,308/. In the affidavit in reply filed by the State it is stated that loans have been given to fictitious and bogus persons who are not in existence. Taking into consideration the allegations which are levelled in the complaint and the affidavit in reply filed by the State, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. Both these applications for anticipatory bail are accordingly rejected. Both these applications are disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.414/2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.359/2009 Office notes,Office Memoranda of Coram Appearances,Court's orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Court's or Judge's order Mr.Pradeep Gole for the Applicant Mr.Kharge,APP for State CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J. DATE : 7th October,2009 P.C. . The learned counsel for the applicant/ original accused submits that he has served the respondents thrice. However, despite of the service they are not appearing. This Revision Application is filed against the concurrent findings of the conviction of the Sessions Court ,Satara and the J.M.F.C. Satara. Thereby convicting the applicant for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ordering the applicant/accused to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- .The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has already deposited . Rs.30,000/- . The Revision Application is admitted. Issue notice to the respondents. R/o 30/11/2009. The bail application is pressed. The applicant accused is released on bail of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in like amount. The bail application is disposed of. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.854 OF 2020 Ajay Ramavtar Pathak … Petitioner Versus The Commissioner, Mira Bhayandar Mahanagarpalika & Ors. … Respondents Mr.Ram Baboo Upadhyay a/w. Mr. Santosh Kumar Dube i/b. Law Competere Consults for the Petitioner. Ms.Tanvi Kamal Deasthale i/b. Mr. Mayuresh Lagu for Respondent No. 1 Corporation. Mrs.M.P.Thakur, AGP for the State. Ms.Sai Wadke – Legal Offer of Respondent No. 1 Corporation, present in person. CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA, & B.P.COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 4TH FEBRUARY, 2020 P.C. : The Corporation to fle its Afdavit in Reply on 6th February, 2020. Stand over to 6th February, 2020. ( B.P.COLABAWALLA, J. ) ( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 854 OF 2020 Ajay Ramavtar Pathak … Petitioner Versus The Commissioner, Mira Bhayandar Mahanagarpalika and others … Respondents Mr. Ram Baboo Upadhyay alongwith Mr. Santoshkumar Dube instructed by Law Competere Consultus for the Petitioner. …...... …...... Mr. Mayuresh Lagu for the Respondent-Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Tejas Deshpande for Mr. Jagdishkumar Gupta - Proposed Intervenor. CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA AND B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 6, 2020. P.C. :- The Learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner states that he is not pressing any allegations against Mr. Jagdish Kumar Gupta in the above Writ Petition. The statement is accepted. Stand over to 7th February, 2020. ( B.P. COLABAWALLA, J. ) ( S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 854 OF 2020 Ajay Ramavtar Pathak … Petitioner Versus The Commissioner, Mira Bhayandar Mahanagarpalika and others … Respondents …...... Mr. Ram Baboo Upadhyay alongwith Mr. Santosh Kumar Dube instructed by Law Competere Consultus for the Petitioner. Mr. Mayuresh Lagu for Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation – Respondent. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Nandkishore Deshmukh, Tahsildar, Mira Bhayandar Mahanagarpalika. Mr. Chandrakant Laxman Borse, Ward Ofcer, present. Ms. Saee Wadke, Law Ofcer, present. …...... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA AND B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 7, 2020. P.C. :- Mr. Chandrakant Laxman Borse, Ward Ofcer, who is present in Court states that most of the debris which was dumped on the subject land is removed and the balance debris shown in the photographs shall be forthwith removed. He also states that the Corporation will ensure that no debri is dumped by any individual/frm/company on the subject land. The statement is accepted. The Respondents are allowed to fle Afdavit-in-rejoinder/Additional Afdavit, if any, on or before 14th February, 2020. Stand over to 14th February, 2020. ( B.P. COLABAWALLA, J. ) ( S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 854 OF 2020 Ajay Ramavtar Pathak … Petitioner Versus The Commissioner, Mira Bhayandar Mahanagarpalika and others … Respondents …...... Mr. Ram Upadhyay instructed by Law Competere Consultus for the Petitioner. Mr. Mayuresh S. Lagu for Respondent No.1. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent-State. …...... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA AND B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 14, 2020. P.C. :- The Learned Advocate appearing for the Mira Bhayandar Mahanagarpalika states that the debris has been removed in its entirety. The Learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner disagree with the said statement. The Registrar ( Judicial-I) shall therefore appoint an Ofcer to visit the site on 15th February, 2020 and submit his report setting out whether any debris is found on the subject plots and submit his report to this Court on 18th February, 2020. The Ofcer appointed by the Registrar ( Judicial-I) shall co-ordinate with the Advocates for the parties, on the following numbers :- Advocate Ram Upadhyay for the Petitioner : 77383 87168 Advocate Mayuresh Lagu for the Respondent : 9821049290 2. The costs of the Commissioner shall be borne by the Petitioner. The Ofcer shall also take photographs and annex the same to his report. The representatives of the parties shall remain present when the Court Ofcer visits the subject plot. Stand over to 18th February, 2020. ( B.P. COLABAWALLA, J. ) ( S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 854 OF 2020 Ajay Ramavtar Pathak ....Petitioner V/S The Commissioner, Mira Bhayandar Mahangarpalika Bhayandar And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ DATE : 18th February, 2020 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 25/02/2020 . In case any ad-interim/interim relief is operating till today, the said order will continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 854 OF 2020 Ajay Ramavtar Pathak ....Petitioner V/S The Commissioner, Mira Bhayandar Mahangarpalika Bhayandar And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA & R. I. CHAGLA, JJ DATE : 25th February, 2020 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 03/03/2020 . In case any ad-interim/interim relief is operating till today, the said order will continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.854 OF 2020 Ajay Ramavtar Pathak … Petitioner versus The Commissioner, Mira Bhayandar Mahanagarpalika and Ors. … Respondents None for Petitioner. Mrs. Ashwini A. Purav, AGP, for State. CORAM: S.J. KATHAWALLA & R.I.CHAGLA, JJ. DATE: 3 rd MARCH, 2020 P.C.: None appear for the Petitioner. Since the matter is called out after 5.00 p.m., stand over to 26th March, 2020. ( R.I.CHAGLA, J. ) ( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )

Order - Status 23: Digitally signed by Kanchan P. Dhuri Date: 2020.10.14 13:37:35 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WP-854-2020 Ajay Ramavtar Pathak … Petitioner Versus Commissioner of Mira Bhayandar Mahanagarpalika and others … Respondents …...... Mr. Prem Upadhye alongwith Dharmesh Singh instructed by Law Competere for the Petitioner. Mr. Mayuresh Lagu for Respondent No.1. Ms. M.P. Thakur, AGP for the State. …...... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA AND RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 13, 2020. P.C. :- By the above Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks the following reliefs :- "(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents for immediate demolition of the illegal structures/Factories/of whatsoever nature and evict the illegal occupants from the plot of lands bearing survey numbers (all Hissas and parts of ) 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123/1, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147/2, 148, 149, 150 and 151 at village Velkaripada opposite river Laxmi of Village Chene. (b) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to Completely Remove debris's dumped on the plot of lands bearing survey numbers (all hissas and parts of ) 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123/1, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147/2, 148, 149, 150 and 151 at village Velkaripada opposite river laxmi of Village Chene forthwith and bring it to its original topography as delay in removing the debris's is resulting into regular submerging of the plots and property of the inhabitant of the Velkaripada village and of the petitioner. The Costs for removal of debris be recovered from the land owners and its illegal occupants with heavy penalties and penal action. (c) This Hon'ble court be pleased to direct the respondent to remove obstructions in the Natural water fow due to closing of the water drainage constructed by the concerned authorities of the respondent No. 1 and also to properly reconstruct the Naala and provide a proper storm water drain for the water to fow through it smoothly as per Communication Report Of The Mira Bhayandar Mahanagarpalika, Dated : 23.04.2018 Exhibit 'R' attached herewith, so as to maintain the natural surrounding and serenity of the area and avoid stagnation of water which has resulted into breeding of harmful mosquitoes and other insects and also submerging of the plots and property of the petitioners and the other inhabitants of village Velkaripada. (d) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct respondents to remove the tin sheds abutting Petitioner's property by covering the boundary wall of plot having survey number 147/1 & 3 and 123/2 and also illegal dumping of debris near the plot, same being illegal and not authorized under the law." The grievance of the Petitioner made in the Writ Petition is quite serious. Despite the Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation having assured the Court as far back as on 7th February, 2020 that they will remove the debris which was dumped on the subject land, the dumping of debris on the subject land has continued. However, today an order dated 30th September, 2020 issued by the Learned Municipal Commissioner, Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation is placed before us whereunder the Municipal Commissioner, after taking cognizance of the grievance of the Petitioner made in the above Writ Petition and the orders passed by the Court from time to time, has proceeded to form a Committee to consider and decide the issues set out in the said order. The Committee so constituted shall within a period of eight weeks from today, after hearing the Advocate for the Petitioner and considering the documents provided by him to the Committee, submit its report to the Municipal Commissioner setting out its views/suggestions qua the issues placed before them and the Corporation shall forthwith take steps to comply with the same. In addition to the issues set out in the order passed by the Learned Commissioner, the Committee shall also consider the allegations made by the Petitioner qua the unauthorized construction/business carried out on the subject land and set out its fndings in the report submitted to the Corporation. The above Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to fle a fresh Petition if his grievance is not resolved despite this order. This order will be digitally signed by the PA/PS of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. ( RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J. ) ( S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5380 OF 2006 Jayprakash Kalicharan ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors., ....Respondent Shri.Amogh Singh i/by Anil D.yadav For Petitioner Shri A.R.Metkari, AGP for State. CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J DATE : 29th November, 2016 P.C. : To be placed on the Final Hearing Board in the week commencing from 05.12.2016. To be kept a/w W.P.Nos.7975/2006 and 5393/2006. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5380 OF 2006 Jayprakash Kalicharan ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors., ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7975 OF 2006 Shaileshkumar Radheshyam Dubey ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5393 OF 2006 Shivshyam Vijaynarayan Singh ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent None for Petitioner None for Respondent CORAM : RAJESH G. KETKAR, J DATE : 16th June, 2017 P.C. : None for Petitioners/Respondent,matter to be placed in the week commencing from 10/07/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5380 OF 2006 Jayprakash Kalicharan ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors., ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7975 OF 2006 Shaileshkumar Radheshyam Dubey ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5393 OF 2006 Shivshyam Vijaynarayan Singh ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent Adv. Anil K.Singh i.b. ADV.Anil D.yadav For Petitioner Ms.kumud A. Bhatia For R.no.1 ( V.p. Filed) Government Pleader For R.no.3 For Respondent CORAM : RAJESH G. KETKAR, J DATE : 13th July, 2017 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the petitioners, Stand over to 20/07/2017 as a last chance. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5380 OF 2006 Jayprakash Kalicharan ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors., ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7975 OF 2006 Shaileshkumar Radheshyam Dubey ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5393 OF 2006 Shivshyam Vijaynarayan Singh ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : RAJESH G. KETKAR, J DATE : 20th July, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for 10/08/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5380 OF 2006 Jayprakash Kalicharan ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors., ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7975 OF 2006 Shaileshkumar Radheshyam Dubey ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5393 OF 2006 Shivshyam Vijaynarayan Singh ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent Adv. Anil Singh i.b. Adv.Anil D.yadav For Petitioner Ms.kumud A. Bhatia For R.no.1 ( V.p. Filed) Government Pleader For R.no.3 For Respondent CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J DATE : 10th August, 2017 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the petitioners, Stand over to 18/08/2017 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5380 OF 2006 Jayprakash Kalicharan ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors., ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7975 OF 2006 Shaileshkumar Radheshyam Dubey ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5393 OF 2006 Shivshyam Vijaynarayan Singh ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J DATE : 18th August, 2017 P.C. : Matter to be placed in the week commencing from 28/08/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5380 OF 2006 Jaiprakash Kalicharan … Petitioner V/s. The President-Rashtabhasha Mahavidyalaya & Ors. … Respondents ----- Mr.Amogh Singh i/b. Mr.Anil D.Yadav, for the Petitioner. Ms.Kumud A.Bhatia, for Respondent No.1. Mr.P. P. Pujari, AGP for the State. C0RAM : G. S. KULKARNI, J. DATE : 28 October, 2021 PC : Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondent nos.1 have tendered the consent terms stating that the disputes and differences between the parties stand settled in terms of the consent terms. The consent terms are signed by the petitioner and by the President of respondent no.1 on behalf of respondent no.1. The signatures of the parties are identified their respective Advocates who have also initialed the consent terms. There is no dispute on the signatures as made on the consent terms. The consent terms are taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms of the consent terms. No costs. (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Digitally PRASHANT VILAS RANE Date: 2021.11.01 20:02:01 +0530 PRASHANT VILAS RANE

Order - Status 6: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.6259 OF 2001 ------------------------------------:----------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court's or Judge's orders. coram, appearances, Court's orders : or directions and Registrar's : orders. : ------------------------------------:------------------------------------ Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for Petitioner. None for Respondents. ---- CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED : 15th September 2004 P.C. : Heard Mr.Mendadkar for the Petitioner. None present for any of the Respondents though they have engaged Advocates. No reply has been filed by Respondent No.1-State of Maharashtra, although this matter is pending since December 2001 and a specific order was passed on 30th June 2004 asking the 1st Respondent-State of Maharashtra to file a reply. No reply has been filed by either of the Respondents. An interim order has been running in favour of the Petitioner since 26th December 2001. admit the Petition. The interim order passed earlier will continue to operate till the disposal of the Petition. Hearing expedited. (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (NISHITA MHATRE, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4519 OF 2001 ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.4544 OF 2001 ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.4903 OF 2001 ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.4949 OF 2001 ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.6259 OF 2001 ------------------------------------:---------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court's or Judge's orders. coram, appearances, Court's orders : or directions and Registrar's : orders. : ------------------------------------:------------------------------------ Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for the petitioners. Mr.C.R.Sonawane AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM: V.G.PALSHIKAR & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. DATED: 18TH OCTOBER, 2005 P.C. : ... . These petitions have been wrongly tagged together probably because they are filed by the same advocate. Except that similarity there is no other similarity in these petitions. On the request of Mr.Mendadkar, office to separate this petition and list them independently.

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6259 OF 2001 Shri Mohanlal Pandhari Nandanwar ..... Petitioner. V/s The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents. ------ Mr. R.K. Mendadkar for the Petitioner. Mr. C.R. Sonawane for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. ------- CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATE : 29 th January, 2008. P.C.: On the motion made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Petition is permitted to be withdrawn. The Petitioner shall be at liberty to make representation to Respondent No.3. for protection of his services. In case, such a representation is made, the Government shall consider it in accordance with law. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)

Order - Status 7: CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.37 OF 2014 IN CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2183 OF 2013 Noor Jahan Abdul Rauf Marne ..Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra ..Respondent .... .... Mr. Vivekanand N. Upadhye, for the Applicant. Mr. Rajesh More, APP, for the Respondent – State. CORAM : A. R. JOSHI, J. DATE : 28th JANUARY, 2014 P.C. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant on this application for relaxation of condition of bail. It is prayed that the applicant may be allowed to furnish the cash security instead of personal surety for the total amount of Rs.20,000/. Considering the prayer and considering the case against the applicant as mentioned in the order passed by this Court while granting bail, provisionally for the period of three weeks from today the applicant is given liberty to give cash security of Rs.20,000/ and the applicant shall complete the process of submitting the surety and thereafter acceptance of the same within this period of three weeks as the liberty of cash bail is only for the period of three weeks from today. Trial Court to take appropriate action and accept the cash bail only for the period of three weeks from today and thereafter deal with the applicant in accordance with law. With these directions, present application is disposed of. (A.R. JOSHI, J.)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1015 OF 2011 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Sachin Patil i/b Mr. Manoj A. Patil for the petitioner. Mr. Lalit Jain for respondent no.1B. Mr. Bipin Joshi for respondent no.2. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 P.C. : Colleague of Mr. Manoj Patil, advocate for the petitioner, prays for an adjournment on the ground that Mr. Patil is ill. S.O. for a week. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 31: Ingale FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1014 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1015 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1016 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1017 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr.Sandeep K.Shinde a/w Mr.A.B.Vagyani i/b Mr.Manoj A.Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.R.D.Mishra, Advocate for the Respondents No. 1A to 1B. Mr.Bipin Joshi, Advocate for Respondents No. 3 & 4. CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 12th February, 2014 P.C. . Heard Mr.Sandeep K.Shinde, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.D.Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1A to 1B and Mr.Bipin Joshi, learned Counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4. Since the matters are to be disposed of finally at the state of admission as per order dated 27/04/2011, call for record and proceedings of the case telephonically. The petitioner will file copies of i) plaint ii) report of the court Commissioner and iii) evidence led by the plaintiffs in all the suits and serve the copies in advance on the other side. List the petitions for admission on 26/02/2014 at 3.00 p.m. The parties are put to notice that subject to the time constraint and convenience of the Court, the petitions may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)

Order - Status 34: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1014 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1015 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1016 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1017 OF 2011 GULAMBHAI VALIBHAI RAJE )...PETITIONER V/s. SURESH KALYAJI BHAGAT (since deceased) ) JAYA SURESH BHAGAT AND ORS. )...RESPONDENTS Mr.Ashish P. Pawar i/b. Mr.Manoj A. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Vijay R. Dubey, Advocate for Respondents Nos.1A & 1B. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATE : 2 nd APRIL, 2014. P.C. : 1 Stand over by Two Weeks, to enable the petitioner to file compilation, pursuant to the order dated 27th April 2011. The counsel for Respondents nos.1A & 1B states that Respondent no.1B died on 23rd March 2014. Petitioner to take the suitable steps. (SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J.)

Order - Status 38: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1014 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1015 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1016 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1017 OF 2011 .... .... Gulambhai Valibhai Raje ..Petitioner Vs. Suresh Kalyani Bhagat (Since Deceased) Through L.Rs. And Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Ashish Pawar, Advocate i/b Manoj Patil for Petitioner. Mr. R.D. Mishra, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1A to 1B. Mr. Sachin Pawar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. CORAM : N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 24 MARCH 2015 P.C.: The learned Counsel for petitioner states that Respondent No.1.B. has expired and seeks time to take necessary steps in that regard. At his request, S.O. to 7 April 2015. [N.M. JAMDAR, J.] S.S.DESHPANDE 1 / 1

Order - Status 41: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1014 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1015 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1016 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1017 OF 2011 Gulambhai, Son of Valibhai Raje. ] … Petitioner Versus Suresh Kalyanji Bhagat (Since Deceased) ] through legal heirs ] 1A Smt. Jaya Suresh Bhagat and Ors. ] … Respondent Mr. Gulambhai Valibhai Raje, Petitioner present in person. Mr. Manoj A. Patil for Petitioner. Mr. V. R. Dubey for Respondent Nos.1A and Ab. CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : JULY 07, 2015 P. C. : Mr. Gulambhai Valibhai Raje, Petitioner, appears in person and states that his Advocate is unwell and therefore unable to attend the Court. The record reveals that this matter has been taken up for consideration no less than 54 times. There is an interim order, which affects the Respondents. Nevertheless, at the request of Mr. Gulambhai Valibhai Raje, stand over to 15/07/2015. It is made clear that in case, the Counsel for the Petitioner is not present and does not proceed with the matter on the next occasion, the appropriate orders shall be made, including orders for dismissal of this petition for nonprosecution. (M. S. SONAK, J.)

Order - Status 55: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1014 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1015 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1016 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1017 OF 2011 Gulambhai Valibhai Raje … Petitioner Vs. Suresh Kalyanji Bhagat (decd) though LRs Jaya Suresh Bhagat and others … Respondents Mr. Manoj A. Patil for Petitioner in all the Petitions. Mr. Sachin Pawar for Respondents No.3 and 4 in all the Petitions. CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 P.C. : Heard Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for petitioner and Mr. Pawar, learned Counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 in all the Petitions at length. By these Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner, hereinafter referred to as 'defendant', has challenged - (i) the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2003 passed by the learned Judge, presiding over Court Room No.8 of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai in R.A.E. Suit No.480/857 of 2002 as also (ii) the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2010 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court in Appeal No.712 of 2007. By these orders, the Courts below decreed the Suit instituted by original plaintiff and directed the defendants to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of Shop No.1 known as "Hotel Cafe Aaram" situate at plot No.212, Vinod Mahal, Worli Market, Worli, Mumbai 400 018 (for short 'suit premises') to the plaintiff. Defendants have also challenged the judgment and order dated 29.01.2011 passed by the learned trial Judge in Miscellaneous Application No.959 of 2010. By that order, the learned trial Judge allowed the application filed by Vinod Kalyanji Bhagat and Tanuja Bhagat filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'C.P.C.') and deleted the direction given by the Courts below to the defendants to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. By order dated 27.02.2003, the learned trial Judge decreed the Suit ex-parte after observing that all the defendants were served with the writ of summons. Defendant No.3 remained absent. Defendants No.1 and 2 engaged Counsel to file written statement on record, but failed to file written statement. In short, defendants did not participate in the trial, despite service of writ of summons. Plaintiff filed affidavit of evidence as also produced documents. While decreeing the Suit, the learned trial Judge observed that plaintiff's evidence remained unchallenged as the defendants chose not to contest the Suit. After considering the documents on record including the Court Commissioner's report, the learned trial Judge decreed the Suit ex-parte. Defendants took out Miscellaneous Notice No.247 of 2004 under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The notice was dismissed on 06.07.2004 by the trial Court. Aggrieved by that order, defendants preferred appeal, which was dismissed on 16.03.2006. Aggrieved by these decisions, defendants instituted four Petitions in this Court. All the Petitions were disposed of as not pressed on 25.01.2007. The order passed by this Court reads thus, " Mr.M.P.Vashi for the petitioners. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED: 25TH JANUARY, 2007 P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr.Vashi, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the four petitions submits that he has instructions not to press the writ petitions and seeks liberty to challenge the judgment and decree dated 27th February, 2003 in the appeals before the appropriate court. The writ petitions are disposed of as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. The petitioners to file appeals within four weeks from today. If the appeals are filed, same may be considered on merits in accordance with law. All contentions are kept open. The writ petitions are disposed of." In pursuance of the liberty granted by this Court, defendants preferred substantive appeals under Section 96 of C.P.C. The appeals preferred by the defendants were dismissed on 30.10.2010. After the appeals were disposed of, application under Section 152, as noted earlier, was made out for deleting the direction to handover possession. That application was allowed. It is against the trial Court's and appellate Court's judgment and decree as also order passed in an application under Section 152 of C.P.C., defendant has instituted these Petitions. In support of these Petitions, Mr. Patil strenuously contended that the defendants were not given opportunity to participate and contest the Suit. The learned trial Judge relied upon the Commissioner's report. The learned trial Judge was not justified in relying only upon the Commissioner's report and decreeing the Suit. As the defendants were not given opportunity to contest the Suit, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside thereby permitting defendants to file written statement and also cross-examine plaintiff's witness and lead their evidence. On merits, Mr. Patil submitted that the Courts below were not justified in passing the decree on the ground that defendants No.1 and 2 have carried out additions and alterations of permanent nature and that, defendants No.1 and 2 have unlawfully sublet the suit premises in favour of defendant No.3. As far as the order passed in an application under Section 152 of C.P.C. is concerned, he submitted that none of the parties to the proceedings filed application under Section 152. Application was filed by Vinod Kalyanji Bhagat and Tanuja Bhagat, who were not party to the proceedings. The learned trial Judge was, therefore, not justified in entertaining their application. On the other hand, Mr. Pawar supported the impugned orders. He submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.1 died on 30.06.2008 leaving behind, Hitesh Suresh Bhagat (son) and Maniben Kalyanji Bhagat (mother). Advocate for respondent No.1, therefore, addressed a letter to the petitioners, who were the appellants before the appellate Court for amending the appeal memo and bringing on record Maniben Kalyanji Bhagat, mother of respondent No.1 - plaintiff (since deceased). However, petitioners did not suitably amend the appeal memo. He further submitted that Tanuja is the grand-daughter of Maniben and niece of respondent No.1 Suresh Kalyanji Bhagat. Vinod is the real brother of respondent No.1 – Suresh Bhagat. He also relied upon Section 152 of C.P.C. to contend that Court has power to correct clerical mistake on its own motion or on the application made by any of the parties to the proceedings. He submitted that in fact from the record, it would be evident that decree was executed and possession was obtained on 22.03.2004, and therefore, the direction issued by the Courts below against the defendants to handover possession was required to be deleted. He submitted that even in the order dated 27.04.2011, while issuing injunction restraining respondents from creating third party rights or inducting any third party, this Court noted that decree has already been executed and the respondents have taken possession. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. I have also perused the material on record. As noted earlier, respondent No.1 had instituted Suit against defendants for recovery of possession of the suit premises. Perusal of the trial Court's order dated 22.02.2003 shows that defendants were duly served with the writ of summons. Though defendants No.1 and 2 engaged Counsel to file written statement, they did not file written statement. Defendant No.3 remained absent. Thus, despite service of suit summons on defendants, they chose to remain absent. During the pendency of the Suit, original plaintiff took out interim notice for appointment of the Court Commissioner. Court Commissioner visited the suit premises after giving notices to the defendants and after inspection, submitted a report along with photographs. After considering the plaintiff's evidence together with documents as also Commissioner's report and after recording that defendants chose not to contest the Suit, the learned trial Judge observed that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff remained unchallenged and accordingly, decreed the Suit. Defendants filed application under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. for setting aside ex-parte decree. As noted earlier, Order 9, Rule 13 application was rejected by the learned trial Judge on 06.07.2004. Appeal preferred therefrom was also dismissed on 16.03.2006. Though defendants instituted four Petitions in this Court challenging these orders, they did not press Writ Petitions and Petitions were disposed of on 25.01.2007. I have already extracted the order dated 25.01.2007. Perusal of the order shows that while giving liberty to the defendants to file appeal, this Court directed that the same shall be considered on merits in accordance with law. Mr. Patil submitted that the impugned decrees passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside as no opportunity was given to the defendants to participate and contest the Suit. It is not possible to accept this submission. In the first place, defendants were duly served with the suit summons. Despite that, they chose not to participate in those proceedings. Secondly, against the ex-parte decree, defendant has as many as 4 options available, namely, (i) filing of application under Order 9, Rule 13; (ii) filing of substantive appeal under Section 96; (iii) filing of Review Petition and lastly, (iv) filing of Suit on the ground that decree was obtained by playing fraud upon the Court. The proceedings filed by the defendants under Order 9, Rule 13 were decided against the defendants with liberty to file substantive appeal under Section 96. In the substantive appeal, defendants have to challenge the decree passed by the trial Court on merits. In other words, in the substantive appeal, defendants cannot be permitted to agitate the points which are available in proceedings under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. In view thereof, the Court has to proceed to decide the appeal on its own merits and not on the grounds available for setting aside ex-parte decree under Order 9, Rule 13. In view thereof, it is not possible to accept the submission advanced by Mr. Patil that the impugned decrees are liable to be set aside for giving opportunity thereby restoring the Suits with permission to the defendants to file written statement and cross examine plaintiff's witness and lead evidence in support of their case. As far as merits of the case are concerned, the Courts below have considered the fact that the evidence of the plaintiff remained unchallenged. In view thereof, no fault can be found in the decrees passed by the Courts below. That brings me to the contention advanced by Mr. Patil that application under Section 152 was made by persons, who were not parties to the proceedings. Section 152 of C.P.C. reads thus, 6/8 "152. Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders.- Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. (emphasis supplied) " Mr. Pawar submitted that Maniben died executing Will and appointed Tanuja Bhagat as Executrix. As far as Hitesh Suresh Bhagat is concerned, though he was brought on record, he was arrested in MCOCA case and died. In fact perusal of record shows that on behalf of the original plaintiff, letter dated 15.09.2008 was addressed to the Advocate for defendants for bringing on record Maniben Bhagat, mother of original plaintiff and Hitesh, son of original plaintiff. Vinod is the real brother of original plaintiff – Suresh Bhagat and Tanuja is the grand-daughter of Maniben Bhagat and is also Executrix. In view thereof, it cannot be said that they are totally strangers to the lis between the parties. That apart, Section 152 enables the Court to exercise its power suo motu for correcting any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. While allowing the application under Section 152, Court has noted that decree was executed on 22.03.2004. This is also evident from - (i) paragraph 5 of the application dated 02.04.2004 wherein defendants No.1 and 2 have stated that possession of the suit premises was forcibly taken on 22.03.2004; (ii) paragraphs 22 and 33 of the trial Court's order dated 06.07.2004 dismissing notice under Order 9, Rule 13. In paragraph 22, the learned trial Judge has noted the submission advanced on behalf of the plaintiffs that the decree was executed on 22.03.2004. In paragraph 33, the learned trial Judge noted that the decree was executed on 22.03.2004, after passing two years. Thereafter, plaintiff has handed over the possession to Mr. Hira Chauhan and Mr. Rahul D. Jadhav by executing leave and licence agreement in their favour on 23.03.2004. Thus, from the record, it is evident that decree was executed and possession was obtained on 22.03.2004. In view thereof, I do not find that the trial Court has committed mistake in deleting the direction issued to the defendants to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. Hence, no case is made out for invocation of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitions fail and the same are dismissed. At this stage, Mr. Patil orally applies for continuation of the adinterim order dated 27.04.2011 for a period of 12 weeks from today. He further assures that petitioner will not apply for further extension. Mr. Pawar opposes this application. Having regard to the fact that the interim order is operating from 27.04.2011 as also having due regard to the fact that the petitioner intends to challenge this order in the higher Court, I find that the request made by Mr. Patil is reasonable. In view thereof, notwithstanding dismissal of the Petitions, interim order dated 27.04.2011 shall remain in force for a period of 12 weeks from today with express understanding that petitioner will not apply for further extension. Order accordingly. (R. G. KETKAR, J.) Minal Parab