All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4736 OF 2004 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. ... ... .... ... Petitioner. Versus Manny C. D'Mello & Ors. ... ... Respondents. Mr. M. D. Sidia with Ms. D. S. Retiwala i/by Rustamji & Ginwala for the Petitioner. Mr. Hitesh Jain for Respondent No.1. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATED : 29TH APRIL, 2005. P.C.: Rule. Having regard to the dealership agreement dated 12th March, 1999 between the petitioner and the respondent No.1, it is clear that the respondent No.1 was inducted into the premises as dealer vide clause 2 for the purposes mentioned therein. The Petitioner itself is a Lessee of the property leased out to it by the Natu family. Clearly, this is a dispute arising out of the dealership agreement vide clause 2 thereof and is within the scope of Clause 66 which is the arbitration clause. Having regard to the admitted position that the arbitration clause has been invoked by the respondent No.1, prima facie case is made out for interim stay of the impugned order passed in a suit filed by the Respondents. Prima facie, there is no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 is a dispute between the landlord and tenant and therefore, the suit is maintainable. Even the appellate court has observed that the respondent was inducted by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner i.e. M/s. Caltex India Limited. The Respondent No.1 has himself pleaded that he has been inducted by M/s. Caltex India Limited as a dealer, vide para 4 of the plaint. There is no cogent and reliable evidence at this stage to suggest that the respondents were inducted by the Lessor of the property in question i.e. Natu family, who is the landlord of the petitioner, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. Hence, there shall be ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (c), which reads thus: (c) that pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, the impugned judgment dated 11th February, 2003 be stayed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner requests for stay of this interim order. Prayer is rejected. Sd/- (S. A. BOBDE, J. )

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2432 OF 2012 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2435 OF 2012 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 14663 OF 2012 New India Assurance Co Ltd .. Applicant Vs Dinesh Bhikuram Jaiswal & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Ramesh K. Cheulkar for the Applicant CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 25th JULY, 2012. P.C.: Issue notice to the Respondents returnable on 29th August, 2012. There will be ad-interim stay of execution and operation of the impugned judgment and award subject to condition of the Applicant depositing the entire compensation amount with the Tribunal within a period of five weeks from today. If the amount is not deposited within the stipulated time, ad-interim stay will stand vacated without further reference to the Court. [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J ] jfoanz vkacsjdj

Order - Status 11: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2432/2012 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.14663/2012 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders Appearances, court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. R. K. Cheulkar for the applicant. Mr. T. J. Mendon for respondent No.1. CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 27, 2013 P.C.: The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the application for restoration of appeal against respondent No.2 is ready and he will file the same in the Registry on or before 03/10/2013. S.O. to 04/10/2013. JUDGE

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE – CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2432 OF 2012 IN FIRST APPEAL [STAMP] NO.14663 OF 2012 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .... Applicant Vs. Dinesh Bhikuram Jaiswal & Anr. .... Respondents Mr. Ramesh K. Cheulkar for the Applicant. Mr. T.J. Mendon for Respondent No.1. CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATED: APRIL 16, 2014 P.C: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to take out appropriate application for substituted service on respondent No.2. Same is granted. The applicant to take out appropriate application for substituted service on respondent No.2 on or before 20-6-2014, failing which the civil application shall stand S.O. to 20-6-2014. (K.K. TATED, J.)

Order - Status 5: 25.7566.22-wp.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7566 OF 2022 Shri Rahul Baburao Navsagare ….. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Sandeep Dere for the Petitioner Mr.P.P.Kakade, G.P. a/w Mr.S.B.Kalel, A.G.P. for the State CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA & S. M. MODAK, JJ. DATED : JUNE 30, 2022 P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned G.P. submits that the authority has now taken up the documents and would pass the orders on it. It appears that subsequently, directions have been issued by respondent no.3 for the acceptance of the documents and if the documents confirm to the provision of the the Registration Act, may register it. Naturally, the respondents would pass orders with regard to the registration of the documents or otherwise, on its own merits. TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Digitally signed by TRUSHA Date: 2022.07.04 11:15:13 +0530 25.7566.22-wp.docx Writ Petitions is disposed of. (S. M. MODAK,J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....Petitioner V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....Respondent None For Petitioner CORAM : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J DATE : 28th August, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 11/09/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena …Petitioner Versus Umesh Chandra Tiwari and ors. …Respondents ---------- None for the petitioner. Mr.Brijesh Shukla for the respondents. CORAM : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER 2019. P.C. : The respondent's counsel informs the Court that the petitioner has filed this writ petition to avoid the execution proceedings, but has not been prosecuting it. According to him, on the last occasion, too, none represented the petitioner. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has, so far, not served the case papers on him. Post the matter on 20th September 2019 under the caption for "dismissal". [DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.]

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. NO.14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena vs. Petitioner. Ms. Manisha Prajapati for the petitioner. CORAM : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. DATE : 18th September, 2019 PC : Petitioner's counsel seeks time. Post the matter on 25.9.2019. ( DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena …Petitioner Versus Umesh Chandra Tiwari and ors. …Respondents Ms.Manisha Prajapati for the petitioner. Mr.Brijesh Shukla for the respondents. CORAM : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. DATE : 25th SEPTEMBER 2019. P.C. : Shri Brijesh Shukla waives notice and informs the Court that he is appearing for the respondents. The petitioner's counsel assures the Court that she will serve the case papers on the respondents' counsel forthwith. Post the matter on 10th October 2019. [DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.] Vina A. Khadpe Digitally signed by Vina A. Khadpe Date: 2019.09.26 17:15:04 +0530

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gauraqv Saxena …Petitioner Versus Umesh Chandra Tiwari and ors. …Respondents ---------- Mr.Samji Joseph i/b. Ms.Manisha Prajapati for the petitioner. Mr.Brijesh Shukla a/w Ms.Devika Mehra for the respondents. CORAM : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. DATE : 10th OCTOBER 2019. P.C. : The petitioner's counsel fairly submits that there is a dispute about the quantum of damages/rent due from the petitioner to the respondents-landlord. He submits that the admitted amount comes to Rs.2,25,000/-. Status quo in relation to the recovery of rent/damages shall be maintained subject to the petitioner's depositing Rs.2,25,000/-, the admitted amount, with the Registry in 4 weeks. If petitioner fails to deposit the amount in 4 weeks, the stay stands vacated without further reference to this Court. Vina A. Khadpe Digitally signed by Vina A. Khadpe Date: 2019.10.11 21:04:14 +0530 [DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.]

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena …..Petitioner. Vs. Umesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors. …..Respondents. Mr. Siraj Khan i/by M. B. Prajapati for the Petitioner. Mr. Brijesh Shukla a/w Devika Mehra for the Respondents. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 11th NOVEMBER, 2019. P.C.:- It is submitted that, the Advocate on record for the Petitioner is in personal difficulty and is unable to attend the Court today. 2 At his request of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, stand over to 20th December, 2019. (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....Petitioner V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....Respondent Adv. Ramji Kotali For Petitioner Adv.Brijesh Shukla Res 1 For Respondent CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 20th December, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 07/02/2020 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 20: 54-wp-14372-2018.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ••• Petitioner V/s. Umesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors. ••• Respondents Mr.Sudhir V. Sadavarte i/b. Manisha Prajapati for Petitioner. Mr.Vaibhav R. Gargade for Respondent No.1. Ms.V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent No.2. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 7 th February 2020. P.C. : 1] Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in pursuance of Order dated 10 th October 2019, the petitioner has deposited the said amount of Rs.2,25,000/- in the Registry of this Court. 2] The issue involved in the present Petition is with respect to the quantum of compensation to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents-landlord pertaining to a period of 12 months as per Order dated 11 th April 2017. 3] In view thereof, Admit. 4] Ad-interim relief, granted by Order dated 10 th October 2019, is confirmed as interim relief. [A.S. GADKARI, J.]

Order - Status 21: TAUSEEF LAIQUEE FAROOQUI Digitally signed by TAUSEEF LAIQUEE FAROOQUI Date: 2023.03.13 11:02:46 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena … Petitioner V/s. Umesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors. … Respondents ***** None for the Petitioner. Mr. Brijesh Shukla for Respondent No.1. Mrs. V. s. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent (State). ***** CORAM : S.G. DIGE, J. DATED : 8 MARCH, 2023 P.C.: None present for the Petitioner. Heard learned counsel for Respondent No.1, stand over to 12 April 2023. (S.G. DIGE, J.)

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....PETITIONER V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....RESPONDENT None for Petitioner Mr. S. V. Sadavarte i/by Brijesh Shukla for Respondent No. 1 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHIVKUMAR DIGE J DATE : 12th April, 2023 P.C. : None present for the petitioner/s, stand over to 14/06/2023. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 26: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ...PETITIONER V/s. Umesh Chandra Tiwari and Ors ...RESPONDENTS Mr. Rushikesh Patil i/b Mr. S.V. Sadavarte, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Brijesh Shukla, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 14th JUNE, 2023 P.C. : Mr. Rushikesh Patil holding for Mr. S.V. Sadavarte, submits that Mr. Sadavarte will be filing Vakaltnama on behalf of the petitioner and some time may be granted. At his request, list on 28th June, 2023. In the meanwhile, let the Counsel for the petitioner take instructions on the payment plan for the outstanding payments to be made to the landlord. (ABHAY AHUJA, J.) KSG 1/1

Order - Status 28: WRIT PETITION NO.14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena … Petitioner Vs. Umesh Chandra Tiwari and ors. … Respondents ------- Mr.Saurabh M. Railkar h/f Mr.S.V.Sadavarte i/by Ms.Manisha B. Prajapati, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr.Brijesh Shukla, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 28 JUNE, 2023. P.C. : On 14th June, 2023, the following order was passed:- "1. Mr. Rushikesh Patil holding for Mr. S.V. Sadavarte, submits that Mr. Sadavarte will be filing Vakaltnama on behalf of the petitioner and some time may be granted. At his request, list on 28th June, 2023. In the meanwhile, let the Counsel for the petitioner take instructions on the payment plan for the outstanding payments to be made to the landlord." Today this court is informed that Mr.Sadavarte has filed a leave note. On the last occasion, the learned counsel for the Petitioner was to take instructions on the payment plan for the outstanding payments to be made to the landlord. Let instructions with respect to the payment plan be taken by the next date. List on 19th July, 2023. It is made clear that if instructions are not obtained by the next date, this court will proceed to pass appropriate orders. (ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

Order - Status 30: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....PETITIONER V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION STAMP NO. 18038 OF 2023 In Writ Petition 14372 OF 2018 Umesh Chandra Tiwari ....PETITIONER V/S Gaurav Saxena ....RESPONDENT None for Petitioner Mr Brijesh Shukla Advocate for Respondent No. 1. [ MENTIONED AT 5.15 P.M. ] CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ABHAY AHUJA J DATE : 19th July, 2023 P.C. : Mentioned out of turn. At the request of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Respondent, stand over to 21/08/2023. Ad-interim relief, if any, to continue till the next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 31: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2024.01.11 16:09:58 Digitally +0530 INTERIM APPLICATION NO.14387 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO.14372 OF 2018 Umesh C. Tiwari ...Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN : Gaurav Saxena ...Petitioner V/s. Umesh C. Tiwari & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Brijesh Shukla with Ms.Siddhi Mahambre and Mr.Harshil Gandhi for the Applicant. Mr.Sudhir Sadavarte for the Petitioner. Mr.P.P. Pujari, AGP for the State - Respondent. CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE : 9 TH JANUARY , 2024. P.C. :- This Interim Application is filed by the Original lessor. This Interim Application seeks withdrawal of the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- deposited by the lessee (Petitioner) pursuant to vai the directions given by this Court on 10 October 2019. For ease of reference, the order dated 10 October 2019 is reproduced herein below :- "1. The petitioner's counsel fairly submits that there is a dispute about the quantum of damages/rent due from the petitioner to the respondents-landlord. He submits that the admitted amount comes to Rs.2,25,000/-. Status quo in relation to the recovery of rent/damages shall be maintained subject to the petitioner's depositing Rs.2,25,000/-, the admitted amount, with the Registry in 4 weeks. If petitioner fails to deposit the amount in 4 weeks, the stay stands vacated without further reference to this Court." According to the Respondent (lessor) as per the impugned order, the amount payable by the lessee till the date of handing over possession i.e. 25 May 2019, would be Rs.5,23,600/-. Mr.Shukla, advocate appearing for the Applicant (Umesh Chandra Tiwari) submits that however on 10 October 2019, as the sum of Rs.2,25,000/- was admitted by the Petitioner, the Writ Petition was admitted. Mr.Shukla further submits that in such a situation, if the amount less than 50% is deposited in this Court, the Respondent / lessor should be allowed to withdraw the said amount with accrued interest. After hearing both the sides, I am of the view that suffice will be the purpose if the Applicant (Umesh Chandra Tiwari) is allowed to withdraw the said sum of Rs.2,25,000/ deposited in this Court along with accrued interest thereon. Before withdrawal of the said amount, the Applicant (Umesh Chandra Tiwari) should file an undertaking before this Court within a period of one week from today that in case after hearing the Writ Petition, the Writ Petition is answered against the Applicant Umesh Chandra Tiwari), the Applicant will comply with the directions given by this Court. The Interim Application is accordingly disposed of. 7. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.14372 OF 2018 Both the parties agree that the Writ Petition can be disposed of, since small issue is involved in this matter. 3/4 Place the Writ Petition on board for hearing and final disposal on 8 February 2024, at 2:30 p.m. The parties agree to file a compilation of documents, short synopsis along with their preposition of law and authorities relied upon by them before the next date of hearing. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 33: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.14372 OF 2018 ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Gaurav Saxena … Petitioner V/s. Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors … Respondents Mr. Saurabh R h/f Mr. Sudhir Sadavarte, Advocate for the Petitioner. Adv. Bijesh Shukla a/w Mr. Harshil Gandhi & Ms. Siddhi Mahambre, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri. P. P. Pujari – AGP for Respondent-State Nos. 2 & 3. CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J . DATED : 8 FEBRUARY 2024 P.C.: This Writ Petition is filed by licensee challenging the impugned Judgment and Order dated 11 April 2017 and as confirmed by Judgment and Order dated 19 June 2018. Mr. Shukla appearing for the Respondent No.1 submits that the possession of the suit premises has been already received by them. He submits that the only dispute is now regarding the payment of compensation to be made by the petitioner. He further points out to Order dated 14 June 2023 passed by this Court. On 14 June, 2023 there was a request made by the advocate appearing for the Petitioner seeking time so that he will furnish a "Payment Plan" with regard to the outstanding payment to be made to Respondent / Landlord. Mr. Shukla submits that from 14 June 2023 till today, the said so called payment plan has not been furnished by the Petitioner. Mr. Saurabh appearing for the Petitioner seeks a short accommodation on the ground that the advocate appearing for the Petitioner due to personal reasons is not present in this Court. As a matter of last chance, stand over to 13 February 2024. To be listed "High On Board". (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 36: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2024.02.17 11:50:13 +0530 Writ Petition NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ..Petitioner Versus Umesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Sudhir Sadavarte for the Petitioner. Mr.Brijesh Shukla with Adv.Siddhi Mahambre for Respondent No.1. Ms.Kajle, AGP for the State - Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE : 13 TH FEBRUARY , 2024. P.C. :- This Writ Petition is filed as regards quantum of damages payable by the Petitioner to the Respondents, since the possession of the suit premises has already been hand over. Mr.Shukla appearing for Respondent No.1 / Owner submits that as per his calculation the amount as of today payable would be Rs.2,98,600/-. vai Mr.Sadavarte appearing for the Petitioner disputes the said figure payable. Mr.Sadavarte submits that the total outstanding amount is Rs.4,86,000/-. However, a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- was deposited in this Court and by an order of this Court, Respondent No.1 has already withdrawn the said amount. Therefore, the amount now payable by the Petitioner to Respondent No.1 according to him would be Rs.2,61,200/-. Be that as it may, in the present Writ Petition on 10 October 2019 an order was passed. The said order dated 10 October 2019 reads as under :- "The petitioner's counsel fairly submits that there is a dispute about the quantum of damages/rent due from the petitioner to the respondents-landlord. He submits that the admitted amount comes to Rs.2,25,000/-. Status quo in relation to the recovery of rent/damages shall be maintained subject to the petitioner's depositing Rs.2,25,000/-, the admitted amount, with the Registry in 4 weeks. If petitioner fails to deposit the amount in 4 weeks, the stay stands vacated without further reference to this Court." Thereafter on 7 February 2020, this Court recorded that a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- had been deposited by the Petitioner with the Registrar of this Court. Therefore, the Writ Petition was "Admitted" and ad-interim relief granted on 10 October 2019 was confirmed. The said order dated 7 February 2020 reads as under :- "1] Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in pursuance of Order dated 10th October 2019, the petitioner has deposited the said amount of Rs.2,25,000/- in the Registry of this Court. 2] The issue involved in the present Petition is with respect to the quantum of compensation to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents-landlord pertaining to a period of 12 months as per Order dated 11th April 2017. 3] In view thereof, Admit. 4] Ad-interim relief, granted by Order dated 10th October 2019, is confirmed as interim relief." Mr.Sadavarte submits that thereafter the matter came up before this Court on 14 June 2023 when the colleague of Mr.Sadavarte sought time to file Vakalatnama on behalf of the Petitioner. He submitted that on 14 June 2023, Vakalatnama to appear on behalf of the Petitioner was not there. Therefore, the said statement was made on behalf of the Petitioner. On 14 June 2023, this Court granted two weeks time to Mr.Sadavarte to file the Vakalatnama on behalf of the Petitioner. So also it was recorded that the advocate appearing for the Petitioner to take instructions about payment plan as regards outstanding payment to be made. The said order dated 14 June 2023 reads as under :- "1. Mr. Rushikesh Patil holding for Mr. S.V. Sadavarte, submits that Mr. Sadavarte will be filing Vakaltnama on behalf of the petitioner and some time may be granted. At his request, list on 28th June, 2023. In the meanwhile, let the Counsel for the petitioner take instructions on the payment plan for the outstanding payments to be made to the landlord." Mr.Sadavarte submits that the Petitioner had challenged the quantum of amount payable as the rent to Respondent No.1 / Landlord and whatsoever was admitted amount by the Petitioner was already deposited as per the directions of the Court on 10 October 2019, and the said amount has been withdrawn by Respondent No.1 pursuant to the order dated 9 January 2024 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.14387 of Mr.Sadavarte submits that since he could not appear on 14 June 2023, his colleague had appeared in the matter only for seeking two weeks time to file Vakalatnama on behalf of the Petitioner, no statement could be made as regards payment plan towards the outstanding amount, as according to him as of that date, there was no outstanding amount payable as a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- admitted by them was already deposited. Thereafter the matter appeared on 28 June 2023, although Mr.Sadavarte had personal difficulty and he had filed the leave note, therefore, his colleague Mr. Railkar appeared on his behalf and sought time. According to Mr.Sadavarte, again on the said date, it was recorded that the Petitioner would be filing payment plan towards the outstanding amount. This Writ Petition involves only the dispute as to the quantum payable by the Petitioner to Respondent No.1 / Landlord. The Petitioner had admitted that only a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- is payable by Respondent No.1, however, Respondent No.1 has disputed this figure. The Petitioner has already deposited the said amount of Rs.2,25,000/- in this 5/6 Court. The said amount has been withdrawn by Respondent No.1. The Petition is already admitted by an order of this Court on 7 February 2020. The Writ Petition to come up on board for hearing and final disposal as per its turn. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 37: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....PETITIONER V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE J DATE : 30th August, 2024 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 04/10/2024 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 39: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....PETITIONER V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE J DATE : 4th October, 2024 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 13/12/2024 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 41: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....PETITIONER V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....RESPONDENT Mr. Sudhir Sadavarte for Petitioner Smt. Madhubala Kajale 'B' Panel for Respondent-State CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE J DATE : 13th December, 2024 P.C. : Stand Over to 16/12/2024. List the matter under the caption of For Circulation. Interim relief,if any,to continue till the next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 44: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ….Petitioner : Versus : Umesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors. ….Respondents None for the Petitioner. Mr. Brijesh Shukla, for Respondent No.1. Mr. Hamid Mulla, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3/State. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. Dated : 16 DECEMBER 2024. _____________ _____________ P.C. : None appears on behalf of the Petitioner. It appears that the Petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting the petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Respondent No.1 would be at liberty to execute the order passed by the Competent Authority. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2024.12.17 08:54:47 +0530

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5610 OF 2021 Somnath Baburao Mayrane. … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. … Respondent. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP for the Respondent- State. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND N.R. BORKAR, JJ. DATE : 29 July 2022. P.C. : The learned APP informs that the Petitioner was released on emergency (Covid-19) parole but he has not returned back and is absconding. As per the Government Resolution dated 4 May 2022, the said policy is discontinued. Therefore, no relief can be granted. Writ petition is rejected. (N.R. BORKAR, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 3: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10095 OF 2017 Mr. Bharat Jethalal Maniar ....Petitioner V/S Usha Balasaheb Khandagle And Anr. ....Respondent CORAM : M.S. SONAK, J DATE : 25th September, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to CMIS date. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10095 OF 2017 Mr. Bharat Jethalal Maniar ....Petitioner V/S Usha Balasaheb Khandagle And Anr. ....Respondent Adv. Ashwini C. Pawar i/b Akshar Laws For Petitioner Mrs. Usha Balasaheb Khandagale for Respondent in person present in court CORAM : RAJESH G. KETKAR, J DATE : 7th June, 2019 P.C. : Matter to be placed on 21/06/2019 on supplementary board as a last chance. In the meantime, Ad-interim relief if any to continue. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10095 OF 2017 Mr. Bharat Jethalal Maniar ....Petitioner V/S Usha Balasaheb Khandagle And Anr. ....Respondent Aseem Naphade a/w Ms. Ashwini C. Pawar, Advocate Akshar Laws For Petitioner Smt. Vasudha Narvekar, Advocate for Respondent CORAM : RAJESH G. KETKAR, J DATE : 21st June, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 09/07/2019 on Supplementary Board a/w cawst 23274/2018 for Passing Order. In the meantime Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: Shailaja IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10094 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1541 OF 2019 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10095 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1540 OF 2019 Bharat Jethalal Maniar ] Petitioner Vs. Usha Balasaheb Khandagale & Ors. ] Respondents ….. Mr. Assem Naphade a/w Arun H. Mehta i/b Akshar Laws, Advocates for the Petitioner. Ms. Vasudha C. Narvekar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. ….. CORAM : R.G. KETKAR, J. DATE : 9TH JULY, 2019. P.C. Heard Mr. Naphade, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Narvekar, learned Counsel for respondent No.1, at length. The Petitions were heard on 21st June, 2019 and were kept today for passing orders. Mr. Naphade, on instructions, seeks permission to withdraw these Petitions and Civil Applications for amendment with liberty to file Petition seeking review of the impugned orders dated 6th December, 2016 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai. He assures that within two weeks from today, Petition seeking review of the impugned orders dated 6th December, 2016 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai will be filed. He states that as the petitioner was prosecuting these Petitions in this Court bona fide, time spent by the petitioner in prosecuting these Petitions from 8th June, 2017 till date may be excluded while considering the issue of limitation. Ms. Narvekar states that in case the Court is inclined to grant liberty, it may be made clear that grant of liberty shall not be construed as an expression of merit either way and that all contentions of the first respondent may be expressly kept open. In view thereof, on the motion made by Mr. Naphade, Petitions and Civil Applications are allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It is made clear that grant of liberty shall not be construed as an expression of merit either way. All contentions of the first respondent including maintainability of the Review Petition are expressly kept open. It is further made clear that in case the petitioner files Petition seeking review of the impugned orders dated 6th December, 2016 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai, within two weeks from today, the time spent by the petitioner in prosecuting these Petitions bona fide in this Court from 8th June, 2017 till date i.e till 9th July, 2019 shall be excluded while considering the issue of limitation. The Petitions and Civil Applications are disposed of accordingly. All the parties, including the Small Causes Court to act upon the authenticated copy of this order. [R.G. KETKAR, J.]

Order - Status 7: ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.8 OF 2011 Pradip Shankar Rao @ Shervegar. ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr. ....Respondents None for petitioner. Mr. K.V.Saste, APP for State. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED: JANUARY 31, 2011. P.C. None appears for the Petitioner. Office note indicates that office objections have not been removed. We grant one week's time to the Petitioner by way of indulgence to remove office objections, failing which the Writ Petition to stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the court. Subject to above, Writ Petition to proceed as per its turn under appropriate caption. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)