All Cases

Order - Status 11: 28.wp.1806-09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1806 OF 2009 Jitendra Narayanbhai Pokar. ..Petitioner. Versus Mr.Prakash Mavani and others. ..Respondents. Mr.Diwakar Dwivedi, Advocate i/b. Mr.Pravin Singhal, Advocate for the petitioner. Dr.F.R. Shaikh, A.P.P., for the Respondent - State. ... ... CORAM : 1: BILAL NAZKI AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 11TH AUGUST, 2009. P.C. :- Learned Advocate for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the Petition. Hence, Petition is allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed as such. [BILAL NAZKI,J.] [A.R.JOSHI,J.]

Order - Status 3: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....APPELLANT V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT Mr Patil Pavan Suryaprakash Adv for Appellant Ms Sonali Jadhav, Adv for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI J DATE : 4th July, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 18/07/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....APPELLANT V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT Mr. PAVAN S. PATIL for Appellant. Ms. SONALI JADHAV for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 14th September, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 21/09/2022 ( for directions). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....APPELLANT V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT None for Appellant Mr. Kamlesh Ghumre a/w Sonali Jadhav for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 21st September, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 23/09/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....APPELLANT V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT Mr. Pavan Patil for Appellant Mr. Kamlesh Ghumre i/b Sonali Jadhav for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 23rd September, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 28/09/2022 ( for directions). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....APPELLANT V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT Mr. Pavan Patil for Appellant Mr. Kamlesh Ghumre i/b Sonali Jadhav for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 23rd September, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 28/09/2022 ( for directions). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: 5-AO-668-2022.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 668 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 Mr.Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe … Appellants/Applicants and Others Vs. Mr. Sachin Sayajirao Palance and … Respondents Another Mr. Shubham Saraf i/b. Mr. Pawan Patil for the Appellants/Applicants. Mr. Kamlesh Ghumre a/w. Ms. Sonali Jadhav and Mr. Sanket Patil for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 3 rd MARCH 2025 ORDER : This appeal is listed for extension of time. Time to dispose of the suit as per order dated 28th September 2022 is extended by eight months as prayed. [GAURI GODSE, J.]

Order - Status 4: 39.6391.23 wp.doc Iresh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 Shri. Baban Shankar Jadhav LHR ….Petitioner of Smt. Parvati Shankar Jadhav V/s. Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav ….Respondents LHR of Hiroji Deu Jadhav and others Mr. Abhijeet P. Rane Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. A. P. Vanarase, AGP for the State Ms. Priya Pandey a/w Jackie for Respondent No. 1 Mr. Ankit Dubey for Respondent No. 4 CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 19 th MAY, 2023. (VACATION COURT) P.C. :- This Petition is filed to challenge the order dated 3rd May 2023 passed in Appeal No. 283 of 2022. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that by the said order, the order of stay granted on 17th March 2023 has been vacated. He invited my attention to the order dated 17th March 2023, by which there was an order of statusquo granted. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 on instructions states that possession of the offending structure is already taken on 1st March 2023. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that such a statement was never made during the hearing before the concerned authority. In view of the rival contentions raised by all the parties, parties are directed to file their respective Affidavits placing on record the exact status of the offending structure. Since there was an order of status quo passed on 17th March 2023 in Appeal No. 283 of 2022, it will be in the interest of justice to direct Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that they will not create any third-party interest in the alternate structure as regards the offending structure till the next date. Respondents are at liberty to file their respective Affidavits within a period of three weeks. Rejoinder, if any, to be filed within a period of one week thereafter. Stand over to 16th June 2023. (GAURI GODSE, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 of 2023 Baban S. Jadhav LHR of Smt. Parvati S. Jadhav …Petitioner V/s. Sujata H. Jadhav LHR of Hiroji D. Jadhav and ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Abhijeet P. Rane for the Petitioner. CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 21.06.2023. P.C. : Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board. List on 5 July 2023. The interim order, if any, to continue till the next date. [N.R.BORKAR, J.]

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 … … Shri. Baban Shankar Jadhav .. Petitioner v/s. Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Abhijeet P. Rane, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Jackie Jain, Advocate for Respondent no.1. 1/1 Mr. A.P. Vanarse, AGP for State. Mr. Ankit S. Dubey, Advocate for Respondent no.4. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED : JULY 21, 2023. P.C. : At the request of learned Counsel for Respondent no.1, stand over to August 2, 2023. Interim order to continue till then. NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2023.07.24 11:34:31 +0530 28-WP-6391-2023.doc Neeta Sawant

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 Shri. Baban Shankar Jadhav Lhr Of Smt. Parvati Shankar Jadhav ....PETITIONER V/S Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav Lhr Of Hiroji Deu Jadhav And Ors ....RESPONDENT Adv.ABHIJEET P RANE for Petitioner Mr.A.P. Vanarase - AGP for State. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 6th October, 2023 P.C. : At the request of the learned Counsel for the Appellant(s)/ Applicant(s) / Petitioner(s) / Respondent No. stand over to 13/10/2023. Ad-interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 Shri. Baban Shankar Jadhav Lhr Of Smt. Parvati Shankar Jadhav ....PETITIONER V/S Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav Lhr Of Hiroji Deu Jadhav And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 13th October, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 08/12/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: 18-wp-6391-2023.doc varsha IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 Shri Baban Shanakar Jadhav Lrs of Smt Parvati Shankar Jadhav … Petitioner vs. Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav Lrs of Hiroji Deu Jadhav and Ors … Respondents Mr. Abhijeet P. Rane a/w. Swarta Suryawanshi, for the Petitioner. Mr. Kanhaiya S. Yadav a/w. Mr. Ankit Dubey for Respondent no.4. Mr. Dilip Shukla a/w. Ms. Priya Pandey i/b. Jackie Jain for Respondent no.1. Mr. S.L. Babar, AGP for the State. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 21 st FEBRUARY, 2024 P.C. :- Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to annex copy of Annexure-II on the basis of which petitioner claims that Parvatibai had right to get alternate premises. The petitioner to also annex copy of the appeal memo filed before the Competent Authority. Necessary amendment to be carried out within a period of two weeks from today. Stand over to 18th March 2024. The respondents are at liberty to file affidavit if necessary in response to the amendment. (GAURI GODSE, J.)

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE: 18 th MARCH 2024 P.C. :- On account of paucity of time, following matters on Daily Board stands adjourned as follows : Sr. Nos. Next Date 61 to 71 22nd April 2024 72 to 82 23rd April 2024 83 to 93 26th April 2024 94 to 106 29th April 2024 107 2nd April 2024 108 to 126, 128 to 136 3rd May 2024 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 ad-interim relief or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Iresh

Order - Status 19: common order.doc varsha IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 3rd MAY 2024 P.C. :- On account of paucity of time, following matters on Daily Board stands adjourned as follows : Sr. Nos. Next Date 77 to 91 23rd June 2024 92 to 112 1st July 2024 113 to 133 2nd July 2024 134 to 155 5th July 2024 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 ad-interim relief or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (GAURI GODSE, J.)

Order - Status 22: 42wp6391-23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 ————— Baban Shankar Jadhav LRs. of Smt. Parvati Shankar Jadhav ... Petitioner. Versus Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav LR.s of Hiroji Deu Jadhav and Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Abhijeet Rane, for the Petitioner. Mr.Jackie Jain, for Respondent No.1. Mr. Kanhaiya S. Yadav i/by Mr.Ankit s. Dubey, for the Respondent No.4. Ms. M.S.Bane, AGP for the Respondents-State. ————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : July 01, 2024 P. C. : 1. By this Petition, the challenge is to the order passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee dated 3rd May, 2023 in Appeal No.283 of 2022, challenging the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 15th October, 2022, by which the Application filed by the Petitioner seeking inclusion of his name in the Annexure-II came to be rejected. 2. By order dated 15th October, 2022, the Additional Collector noted that the name of the Respondent No.1 appears in Annexure-II at Serial No.128 and his name has also reflected in the voters list of 42wp6391-23 1995 for Ward No.427, at Serial No.597, T-1 and that on the basis of photo-pass which was issued, his illegibility has been determined. As regards the petitioner's mother, it was noted that the name of Petitioner's mother was included in the voters list for Ward No.427 at Serial No.599, T-2 and that both these structures appear to be different. The submissions which were advanced before the Additional Collector was that the Petitioner's mother was residing at Bandra and thereafter was allotted the hut at Kandivali where she was residing till 1997 and thereafter due to her old age, she started residing at her native place. It was contended before the Additional Collector that her brother started residing in the said hut without having any right to reside therein. It was further contended that the Respondent No.1 has also been issued the photo-pass in respect of the said hut and that on the basis of fraudulent documents, the Respondent No.1 has inserted his name in Annexure-II. 3. The Appellate Authority by the impugned order has dismissed the Appeal by upholding the findings of the Additional Collector that there are two different structures of the parties and that the delay has not been explained. The Appellate Authority further held that the Appellant has failed to produce any document on record to show that the Respondent No.1 by misleading the Authorities has inserted his 42wp6391-23 name in Annexure-II. 4. Mr. Rane, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the petitioner's mother was staying in Bandra at Zopdi No.REGE/Bandra/165. After the relocation to Kandivali, new Identity Card was issued having Serial No.84411. He submits that Identity Card No.0408308 was issued in name of petitioner's mother against Hut No.REGE/Bandra/165, C.S.No.163 (Part) Village Akorli. He would further submit that the Respondent No.1 had in fact, divided the hut into two different structures and had thereafter claimed right in respect of the part of the structure which was in his possession which is impermissible in law. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4-Developer submits that the entire scheme has been completed and the possession has already been handed over to the eligible slumdwellers. 6. Considered the submissions and perused the record. 7. Although the application which was made by the Petitioner was for deciding his eligibility and for inserting his name in Annexure-II, it appears that the submissions which were canvassed before the Collector was confined to the fraud which is alleged to have been committed by the Respondent No.1 by including his name in Annexure-II. The order of the Appellate Authority also indicates that the same submissions were advanced that the Respondent No.1 without any right in the property has started occupying the hut after the petitioner's mother in the year 1997 left the premises to reside at her native place. 8. Upon consideration of the material produced on record, the Additional Collector as well as the Appellate Authority has noted from the documents that the name of the Respondent No.1 is in respect of her different hut i.e. T-1 and in the voters list, the name of the Respondent No.1 appears in respect of Ward No.427 at Serial No.597 whereas the Petitioner's mother name appears in the voters list in the year 1995 in Ward No.427 at Serial No.599 in respect of T-2. Based on these documents both the authorities have held that there are two different structures. The submission which is now sought to be canvassed that the hut was divided by the Respondent No.1 into two different parts and thereafter separate record was prepared is not the case of the Petitioner either in the application or in the submissions canvassed before the Collector and the Appellate Authority. The application of the Petitioner pleads that in respect of the said hut, it is the Petitioner who has a right being the legal heir of the original occupant and the Respondent No.1 has prepared fraudulent document and has got himself declared eligible in Annexure-II. 9. Considering that the findings of the Additional Collector and the Appellate Authority is that there are two different structures of the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1, the Authorities were required to decide the eligibility of the Petitioner in respect of her own hut structure which does not appear to have been done. The Authorities appears to have considered the submissions advanced by the Petitioner qua the fraudulent manner in which the Respondent No.1 has inserted his name in place of the Petitioner's mother in respect of the said hut in Annexure-II. 10. Be that as it may. As both the authorities have held that there are two different structures, let an appropriate application be filed by the Petitioner before the Additional Collector within a period of four weeks. The application to be decided by the Collector on its own merits and in accordance with law. 11. As the proceedings are pending since 2013, the Additional Collector is requested to decide the same expeditiously and in any event within a period of three months from the receipt of the application. Writ Petition stands allowed in the above terms. 12. Needless to clarify that all contentions of the parties are expressly kept open. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

#VALUE!

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1991 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.208 OF 1998 Shri Narayan Tukaram Agre & Anr. .. Applicants. Vs. Shri Vinayak Narayan Naik & Ors. .. Respondents. Mrs.S.A.Mudbidri for the applicants. Mr.S.V.Dhakepalkar i/b P.K.Dhakepalkar for respondent no.1. Ms.Yasmin Desai for respondent nos.2, 2A to 2G. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 17TH AUGUST, 2006 P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the respondents. By this application, the applicants have prayed for restoration of possession of the suit premises which was obtained by the respondent-landlord on 3rd July, 2006. In the main writ petition, the interim relief was passed. However, the writ petition itself came to be dismissed for default on 22nd March, 2006 and then it was restored on file on 21st July, 2006. It appears that between 22nd March, 2006 and 21st July, 2006 the execution proceedings were prosecuted by the respondent-landlord and possession was restored on 3rd July, 2006. Mr.Dhakepalkar, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord submits that he shall not create third party right in respect of suit premises and shall keep it vacant till the disposal of writ petition. The statement is accepted. In view thereof the prayer in the instant application need not be considered at this stage. Civil application is, accordingly, disposed of. It is open for the applicant to collect her articles and belongings required by him which are still lying in the room without prejudice to the rights and contentions within two weeks from today after giving prior intimation to respondent no.1. Rest of the articles shall remain in the suit premises till the disposal of the writ petition. Respondent No.1 shall be entitled to take receipt of delivery of the articles and belongings whichever applicants choose to collect from the premises and shall not insist for any other writing from the applicants. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1991 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.208 OF 1998 Shri Narayan Tukaram Agre & Anr. .. Applicants. Vs. Shri Vinayak Narayan Naik & Ors. .. Respondents. Mrs.S.A.Mudbidri for the applicants. Mr.S.V.Dhakepalkar i/b P.K.Dhakepalkar for respondent no.1. Ms.Yasmin Desai for respondent nos.2, 2A to 2G. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 31ST AUGUST, 2006 P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the respondents. In the order dated 17th August, 2006 wherever the words "respondent-landlord" appear it may be read as "respondent no.1" only. The order dated 17th August, 2006 stands modified to that extent. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)

Order - Status 2: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA STAMP NO. 1531 OF 2017 In FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 28419 OF 2016 Smt. Meera Ganesh Khude And Anr. Applicant V/S Respondent Chief Officer Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Mr. Ashwin Kumar Gawai Manager Legal Ajay A Joshi For Applicant CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J DATE : 20th September, 2017 P.C. : Not on board. Taken on production board, by way of praecipe. Registry note shows that matter is under search. No orders. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: Trupti p513-fast-2841-16.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2947 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 28419 OF 2016 Smt. Meera Ganesh Khude and Anr. …Applicants Versus Chief Officer, Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd. …Respondent Mr.Vilas B. Tapkir h/f. Mr.Ajay A. Joshi for the Applicants. Mr.Rahul Mehta i/b. KMC Legal Venture for the original Appellant in FA (St.) No. 28419 of 2016. …… …... CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 P.C. : Upon urgent mentioning, taken on Production Board. This Application is moved for withdrawal of an amount deposited by the insurance company/original appellant pursuant to the judgment and award dated 16.02.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satara, in M.A.C.P. No. 673 of 2010. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are the wife and minor daughter of the deceased. He submitted that till today, the applicants have not received any amount, except no fault liability. The learned counsel for the insurance company opposed this application and submitted that the insurance company has filed the appeal on the ground of quantum and the deceased was gratuitous licencee. In view of the submissions and the reasons mentioned in the application, the applicants are allowed to withdraw 50% amount of the compensation on an usual undertaking. The remaining amount is to be deposited in the fixed deposit in any nationalized bank. Civil Application is allowed and is accordingly disposed of. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.113 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.388 OF 2007 Uday Kumar Abhevardhan .. Petitioner -versus The Union of India and anr .. Respondent Mr. Anil Lalla i/b Lalla and Lalla for the Petitioner Mrs. Revati Mohite Dere for the union of India CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATED: 23rd March, 2010 P.C. vks This is the second Application for bail. The first bail application rejected by this Court (Coram: A.M. Khanwilkar, J.). Therefore it is appropriate that this application be placed before the same Court. The Office to take steps. ( V.M. KANADE, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.113 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.388 OF 2007 ...... ...... Uday Kumar Abhevardhan ...Applicant Versus Union of India & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Shankar Dhoble i/b M/s.Lalla & Lalla for Applicant. Ms.Revati Mohite Dere for Respondent No.1. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATED :- APRIL 16, 2010. P.C. I am informed that Mr.Anil Lala is in personal difficulty. Request for adjournment is made. Stand over to 30th April 2010 at 3.00 p.m. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 113 of 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 388 of 2007 Uday Kumar Abhev Ardhan ....Petitioner Vs. Union of India & anr. ....Respondents Mr. Sunil Gadre i/b. Anil Lalla i/b. M/s. Lalla & Lalla for the applicant. Ms. S.V.Gajare-APP for the State. Smt. Revati Mohite Dere, advocate for respondent no.1. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED:- MAY 07, 2010 P.C. Request for adjournment is made on the ground that Mr. Lalla, advocate for the applicant is unavailable. Stand over to 11th June, 2010 at 3.00 p.m. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.113 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.388 OF 2007 Uday Kumar Abhev Ardhan. ....Applicant. Vs. Union of India & Anr. ....Respondents. Mr.Anil Lalla i/b. M/s. Lalla & Lalla for the applicant. Smt. Revati Mohite Dere for Respondent No.1. Mr.S.V.Gajare, APP for the State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED:- JUNE 11, 2010 P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. S Present application is filed on the sole ground that the applicant has already undergone more than 6 years and 11 months of imprisonment when the application was filed. The fact that the applicant's prayer for bail was considered on merits and rejected by this Court on 7th April, 2008 while deciding Criminal Application No.950 of 2008 is not disputed. The applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 21(c) r/w sec.8(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10(ten) years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) in default to suSffer further R.I. for one year. The fact that the applicant as of now has undergone 7 years of imprisonment is not in dispute. The question is whether inspite of mandate of section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the Court can show indulgence to the applicant on the ground that he has undergone substantive part of sentence. In this case, the sentence undergone is over 7 years out of 10 years of Rigorous Imprisonment. To buttress the contention, the learned Counsel for the applicant has essentially relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mansingh V/s. Union of India (2006) 1 SCC (Cri.) 279, which was decided by the Apex Court on September 27, 2004. Indeed, in that case the appellant was held guilty of the offence punishable under sections 8/18 and 8/15 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh on each count. The Apex Court considering the fact that the Appellant before it had undergone more than 7 years of imprisonment, released the appellant on bail. It is noticed that the said order has been passed by the Apex Court in the pending appeal filed by the Accused to question the order of conviction and sentence before the High Court. The question is: whether this order can be treated as a binding precedent. The learned APP has rightly invited my attention to the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in the cases of Union of India V/s Rattan Malik alias Habul (2009) 2 SCC 624, Ratan Kumar Vishwas V/s. State of U.P. & Anr. 2008 AIR SCW 7719 and Union of India v/s. Shiv Shanker Kesari(2009) 3 SCC(Cri) 505 . These decisions have expounded the sweep of section 37 of the Act. The mandate of section 37 of the Act applies on all fours to the situation where the person is in custody as under trial prisoner or for that matter at the stage of appeal before the High Court. Going by the said mandate, it is not possible to countenance the stand of the applicant that since he has undergone substantial part of the sentence should be released on bail only on that consideration. My attention has already been invited to the said decisions of our High Court in the case of Pritam Namdeo v/s. Union of India and Anr. decided on 23rd March, 2010 in Criminal Application No.1 of 2010 in Criminal Appeal No.394 of 2007 as well as in the case of Aniruddh Chavan vs. The Union of India & Anr . in Criminal Application No.433 of 2009 in Criminal Appeal No.618 of 2008 decided on January 21, 2010. Similar argument has been considered and rejected. I am in agreement with the opinion expressed in the said decisions. The Counsel for the applicant however, placed reliance on recent decision of another Single Judge of our High Court in Criminal Bail Application No. 854 of 2009 in Criminal Appeal No.1253 of 2008 decided on March 9, 2010. With utmost respect, it is not possible to place reliance on this decision to uphold the contention of the applicant. For, the said view is only on the basis of Mansingh's case (supra) . This Court would be bound by the subsequent decisions of the Apex Court which have restated the settled legal position about the sweep of section 37 of the Act. Further, the order in the case of Mansingh(supra) pressed into service may be ascribable to the inherent powers of the Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Suffice it to note that the said decision has not decided the case with reference to the sweep of section 37 of the Act, which aspect has been considered in the subsequent decisions of the Apex Court. Keeping in mind the mandate of section 37, it is not open for this Court to carve out further exception to section 37 of the Act, which would inevitably result in rewriting of the said section. In other words, merely because the applicant has already undergone substantial part of the sentence, by itself cannot be the basis to release him on bail. In the circumstances, taking over all view of the matter, this application should fail. The same is rejected. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)