All Cases

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 981 OF 2018 Mrs. Aditi Arun Shinde Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. Prakash Wagh for the Applicant. Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : V. L. ACHLIYA, J. (VACATION COURT) DATE : 15th MAY, 2018. P. C. : Learned Counsel for the applicant, on instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the application with liberty to surrender before the Investigating Officer within five days. Allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed. The applicant shall not be arrested till 20.05.2018 to enable her to surrender before the Investigating Officer. Application stands disposed of as withdrawn. [V. L. ACHLIYA, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.72 OF 2005 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION ST. NO.16223 OF 2005 Shri Madhukar Narayan Karandikar (expired as on 13.4.2004 L/R on record) Smt.Lilabai Madhukar Karandikar &.. ors. Applicants v/s. Maharashtra Chittapavan Sandh, Pune.. & ors. Respondents Mr.A.P.Vanarase for the applicants. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. DATED : 10th October, 2005 P.C. Heard Mr.Vanarase, the learned counsel for the applicants. No.16223 stamp under Application Appli Revision R Civil 2. hence, and dly belatedly t 1 but filed been has 2005 of per As delay. of 0 ion condonation for ation application this The days. 32 of 5 ( is caused delay note, office the and age old be to stated stat been has delay for reason awarding ä by condoned hereby he is delay The illness. the to remitted re and 8 Rs.500/- at ed quantified cost two within ty Authority A Services Ser Legal Court High weeks. Place this Civil Revision Application for admission after vacation. (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CAUSE TITLES AND APPEARANCES AS NOTIFIED ...... CORAM : N.M. Jamdar, J. 15 July 2016. P.C. :- On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on daily board dated 15 July 2016, stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS as under :- For condonation of delay A/N Matter at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 64 05.08.2016 65 25.08.2016 For Orders (Restoration) Matter at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 66 to 71 72 to 74 75 to 80 81 to 84 25.08.2016 26.08.2016 29.08.2016 30.08.2016 For restoration (admitted) Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 85 to 86 30.08.2016 87 to 89 31.08.2016 For Orders (Early Hearing Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 90 & 91 31.08.2016 92 to 94 01.09.2016 For Orders Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 98 01.09.2016 99 05.08.2016 100,101 01.09.2016 102 22.03.2017 103 01.09.2016 104 & 105 05.08.2016 106 to 109 02.09.2016 110 06.09.2016 A.O. for Admission Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 111 19.09.2016 M.C.A. fresh Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 112 18.10.2016 112 10.10.2010 M.C.A. Admission After Notice Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date For Admission Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date For Admission Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date For Admission fresh Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 117 to 122 23.03.2017 123 to 127 24.03.2017 For Admission After Notice Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 128 to 131 02.08.2016 132 to 135 03.08.2016 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 is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (N.M. Jamdar, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1033 OF 2016 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 806 OF 2011 Sandeep Manohar Chavan ....Applicant V/s. 1. Smt. Suvarna Sudhakar Pawaskar and Ors. ....Respondents Mr. Devendra Pawar i/by. R.D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant. None for the Respondents. Coram :- N.M. Jamdar, J. Date :- 21 April 2017. P.C. :- The Second Appeal was dismissed in view of the order passed on 13th October, 2015 directing the Applicant to pay costs of Rs.5,000/-. Till date, the costs are not paid and restoration of the Second Appeal is sought. The restoration, will have to be on the payment of additional costs. Accordingly, the Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to the Applicant paying costs of Rs.10,000/- within a period of 4 weeks from today failing which the Appeal to stand dismissed for non-prosecution without reference to the Court. (N.M. Jamdar, J)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5538 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr.Sagar Kasar, for the petitioners. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 18/08/2009 PC: When the petition was called out, the learned counsel for the petitioners was not in a position to argue the petition. Stand over to 29.9.09. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5538 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. Sagar Kasar, for the petitioners. Mr Prakash M. for the respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 10/11/2009 PC: Mr.Kasar, learned Advocate, submits that he has instructions to appear for the sole respondent. Hence, service is complete. The petition to come up for admission on 1.12.09. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)

Order - Status 15: MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.5538 OF 2009 Shashikant B. Kamble & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. The Bharat Cooperative Bank Ltd. ...Respondents Mr.S.K.Shinde i/b. Mr. Sagar Kasar, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr.Prakash Mulky i/b. Gopal C. Poojary & Co. Advocate for the Respondents CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 20TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C. : Heard both sides. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The impugned orders relate to refusal of condonation of delay in filing an application for setting aside the Exparte Award passed by the Cooperative Court on 29th February 2008. The application has been filed since 10th October 2008. The delay was of 193 days. The case for condonation of delay was that in view of the Writ Petition filed concerning the Bank's powers under Multi State Cooperative Bank, the dispute was adjourned sine die. After the decision was rendered the Dispute was taken on board for hearing. At that time no notice was issued upon the Petitioners. They did not know of the Award passed. Hence, the application. Their case is that the case has been adjourned sine die and is reflected in the noting dated 24th October 2002 of the learned Cooperative Court, Mumbai. Though a date is mentioned against the noting it shows that the case was adjourned sine die. The fact remains that the substance of the noting shows that it was indeed adjourned sine die. It would have been prudent for the Bank to issue notice upon the Petitioners when the dispute reached hearing. The Petitioners were not represented by Advocates. Hence no Advocate could appear or be informed. Consequently, the duty of the Court as well as the Disputant would be doubled. The fact remains that an Exparte decree was passed which is open to challenge. The challenge is not seen to be completely devoid of merits. The Petitioners would be required to be heard on merits. The cause shown is justifiable. Hence both the orders of the Cooperative Court and the Cooperative Appellate Court which refused to condone the delay are required to be interfered with. Both the orders are set aside. The dispute shall be heard on merits. The Petitioners shall forthwith file their written statement, give inspection of the documents, produce copies of their documents and get themselves ready for trial. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

Order - Status 4: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO. 12814 OF 2019 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : V. R. Kachare REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : 18/06/2019 None present Three weeks time is granted to remove office objections. sd/- REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2019 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or Judge's orders orders or directions and Registrar's orders Shri S.S. Kulkarni for applicants. CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J. DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2019 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the applicants. The applicants to serve the respondents by Advocate's notice along with the copy of this order informing respondents that the application would be heard on 14/11/2019. It is made clear that an endeavour would be made to dispose of the application finally on 14/11/2019 considering the narrow controversy involved in this application. In the event, the respondents fail to appear despite service of Advocate's notice, the application would be heard on its own merits even in the absence of the respondents. 29.doc The applicants to file an affidavit of service before the returnable date. Stand over to 14/11/2019. (M.S.KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 9: Dond IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2019 Shri Inderpalsingh Rajendrasingh Chadha & Anr. ..Applicants Vs Shri Baljit Ramlal Manchanda & Ors ..Respondents Mr. Swapnil Mhatre i/b S.S. Kulkarni for Applicants. Mr. S.S. Shah i/b Prashant Darandale for respondent Nos.1 to 8. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 28th November 2019. P.C.: 1] It is submitted that, the Advocate on record for applicants has filed a leave note. 2] In view thereof, at the request of learned counsel for the applicants, stand over to 21st January 2020. (A.S.GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 11: Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2019 Inderpalsingh Rajendrasingh Chadha & anr. .Applicants Vs. P. C. Baljit Ramlal Manchanda & ors. .Respondents None for the Applicants Mr. Surel S. Shah i/b. Mr. Prashant Darandale, Advocate, for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 13.01.2020 . None appears for the Applicants. The aforesaid Application has been circulated by the learned counsel for the Respondents and hence, it appears that learned counsel for the Applicants is not present. In order to give one opportunity to the Applicants, stand over to 27.01.2020 . Till then, ad-interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2019 Shri. Inderpalsingh Rajendrasingh Chadha And Anr ....Applicant V/S Shri. Baljit Ramlal Manchanda And Ors ....Respondent Shriram S. Kulkarni For Applicant Prashant Darandale Res. No.1 To 8 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 27th January, 2020 P.C. : In view of the joint request made by the learned Counsel for the parties, stand over to 04/02/2020 . Ad-interim order, if any, to continue till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2019 Shri. Inderpalsingh Rajendrasingh Chadha And Anr ....Applicant V/S Shri. Baljit Ramlal Manchanda And Ors ....Respondent Swapnil Mhatre i/b Shriram S. Kulkarni For Applicant Prashant Darandale For Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 4th February, 2020 P.C. : Stand over to 14/02/2020 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 19: Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2019 Inderpalsingh Rajendrasingh Chadha & anr. .Applicants Vs. Baljit Ramlal Manchanda & ors. .Respondents Mr. S. S. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the Applicants Mr. S. S. Shah i/b. Mr. P. Darandale, Advocate, for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 14.02.2020 P. C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this Application, the Applicants have impugned the order dated 08.02.2019 passed by the learned 5th Jt. C. J. S. D., Nashik below Exhs. 54 & 55 in R. C. S. No. 420 of 2010, by which the Applicants' Application ( Original Defendant Nos. 9 & 10 ) seeking rejection of the plaint under O. VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( for short 'C. P. C.' ) was rejected. Learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that the Partition Deed entered into between the Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 8 is of 1982 and that pursuant to the said Deed, measurements were carried out in the year 1987. He submits that under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, right to sue accrued on the date when the Applicants learnt about the alleged bogus Partition Deed i. e. when measurements were done in 1987. He submits that the present suit is filed after 28 years and as such, is barred by the law of limitation. He further submits that even the cause of action disclosed in the plaint is vague. According to the learned counsel, the plaint does not reveal any cause of action and is clearly barred by the law of limitation and as such, the Applicants' Application, seeking rejection of the plaint under O. VII, Rule 11 of the C. P. C. ought to have been allowed. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 ( Original Plaintiffs ) opposes the Application and submits that no interference is warranted in the impugned order. He submits that the plaint clearly discloses the cause of action and as such, the learned Judge has rightly rejected the Applicants' Application seeking rejection of the plaint under O. VII, Rule 11 of the C. P. C.. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 states that it is the case of the Applicants that the Respondent No. 8 committed fraud on the Respondent No. 1, by entering into a Partition Deed in 1982, and carried out measurements thereafter, by practising fraud on the Respondents and others. He submits that admittedly, the Applicants are the co-owners of the property in question and had not signed the Partition Deed allegedly entered into between the Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 8, in 1982. He submits that the Respondents ( Original Plaintiffs ) filed the suit in 2010, only after learning that the Respondent No. 8 had entered his name in the revenue records, thus, giving rise to cause of action. Perused the papers. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are the Original Plaintiffs, who have filed R. C. S. No. 420 of 2010 in the Court of the learned C. J. S. D. , Nashik, for a declaration that the Partition Deed dated 25.09.1982 entered into between the Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 8 be declared illegal. The Applicants ( Original Defendants ) appeared in the said suit and filed their Written Statement. It appears that the aforesaid Applicants filed two Applications i. e. Exh. 54 and Exh. 55 in the aforesaid suit and sought rejection of the plaint under O. VII, Rule 11 of the C. P. C. on the premise that the suit was barred by limitation. A perusal of the plaint prima facie shows that the issue of limitation, is a mixed question of facts and law. No infirmity can be found in the impugned order dated 08.02.2019 passed by the learned 5th Jt. C. J. S. D., Nashik below Exhs. 54 & 55 in R. C. S. No. 420 of 2010 and as such, the Application being devoid of merit, is dismissed. All contentions of all parties are kept open with respect to the issue of limitation for being decided at the stage of final disposal of the suit. Accordingly, the Application is disposed of. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

Order - Status 2: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 14061 OF 2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : V. R. Kachare REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : $6/09/2018$ None present Three weeks time is granted to remove office objection. $sd/-$ REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Karnik SumitDigitally signed bySumit Ramesh KarnikRameshDate: 2018.09.12Karnik15:21:58 +0530

Order - Status 3: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 14061 OF 2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : V. R. Kachare REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : 28/09/2018 None present Three weeks time as last chance is granted to remove office objection. sd/- REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Sumit Ramesh Karnik Digitally signed by Sumit Ramesh Karnik Date: 2018.10.03 15:10:54 +0530

Order - Status 4: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 14061 OF 2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : V. R. Kachare REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : 22/10/2018 None present Three weeks time as last chance excluding Diwali Vacation is granted to remove office objections. sd/- REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Sumit Ramesh Karnik Digitally signed by Sumit Ramesh Karnik Date: 2018.10.25 17:07:48 +0530

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 14061 OF 2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : A.N. MARE I/c. REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : 7/12/2018 None present 4 weeks time excl. Christmas Vacation is granted to remove office objections, failing which S.A.St. shall stand refused for registration, alongwith all the C.A.Sts. filed in this S.A.St., without further reference to the Court. sd/- I/c. REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

Order - Status 7: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5593 OF 2012 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders. Registrar's orders Shri Tushar Bhavsar a/w R Bhatt a/w Ms Prerna Khirsagar i/b Mr Manoj Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.M.Patne, AGP for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr P.K.Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate i/b Mr R.K.Mendadkar, for respondent nos 3 to 11. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 28/06/2012 PC: Heard Mr Tushar Bhavsar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr R.M.Patne, learned AGP for respondent nos 1 and 2, Mr Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Counsel for respondent nos 3 to 11. In view of the order passed today in Writ Petition No.5460 of 2012, this writ petition is rendered infructuous and the same is disposed of as infructuous. All contentions of the parties are kept open. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) 2/2 WP/5593/2012

Order - Status 5: 938-wp-5679-2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5679 OF 2017 Mr.Shrirang Dadu Pawar & Ors. ..Petitioners V/s. Gramsevak & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Ameya Deshpande i/by Mr.V.B. Shivarkar for the Petitioners. Mr.Vishwajeet V. Mohite for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM : M.S. KARNIK, J. (VACATION COURT) DATE : 26th MAY 2017 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The statusquo order passed on 27th April 2017 by the Appellate Court is continued till 08th June 2017. List the matter on 08th June 2017. [M.S. KARNIK, J]

Order - Status 7: Trupti p506wp-5679-17.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5679 OF 2017 …... …... Mr.Shrirang Dadu Pawar & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Gramsevak, Gramopanchayat Jakhinwadi & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Vikas B.Shivarkar for the Petitioners. Mr.V.V.Mohite for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED: JUNE 7, 2017 P.C. : Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board. The status-quo order passed on 27.04.2017 by the Appellate Court is continued till 27.06.2017. Stand over to 27.06.2017 (High on Board). (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 5679 OF 2017 Shrirang Dadu Pawar & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs. Gramsevak & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Vikas B. Shivarkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vishwajeet V. Mohite, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE: 27th June, 2017. P.C.: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, this Petition is heard finally and decided at the stage of admission. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 27th April, 2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Karad dismissing Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 97 of 2016 thereby confirming the order dated 21st November, 2016 passed by 5th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Karad in Regular Civil Suit No. 410 of 2016. The plaintiffs/petitioners have filed Regular Civil Suit for perpetual injunction against respondent nos. 1 and 2, who are the members of Gram Panchayat of Village Jakhinwadi, Taluka Karad, District Satara and respondent no. 3/one private party that the respondents/original defendants shall not construct especially a wall and the road, which is available to the petitioners/plaintiffs, should not be closed and they should not disturb the petitioners from the use of the said road. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been enjoying the west side of the said road since last many years, however, the respondents collusively have decided to construct a compound wall for the kitchen of the auditorium which was constructed by Gram Panchayat. It is further argued that earlier a suit was filed between the respondents and other parties in the year 1961 and in the earlier suit, a settlement has taken place wherein the said land was shown as a road available for the public use and thus, the petitioners have every right to use the said land as access and which is going to be closed because of the construction. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the orders passed by the Courts below and has submitted that the petitioners have no right over the said property. The auditorium is constructed for the public purpose and public use, so the construction of the wall or any construction for that auditorium is not going to cause any hindrance or any disturbance to the access of the petitioners. He 2 / 3 further argued that other roads are available to the petitioners. Heard the submissions. Perused the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. The reasons given by both the Courts are detailed. It is specifically observed by the learned Judges that the petitioners have failed to establish the case that there was only way as access to their property. It is also observed that other than that there are other access to their respective properties. Under such circumstances, it appears that prima facie no case is made out. The view taken by both the Courts cannot be interfered with. I am not inclined to extend the status quo order passed on 27th April, 2017 by the Appellate Court. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioners orally prays for stay of operation of this order for four weeks. Considering the merits of the matter, I am not inclined to grant stay to this order. Order accordingly. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1483 OF 2019 Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, J DATE : 7th June, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 04/07/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1483 OF 2019 Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, J DATE : 4th July, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 29/07/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1483 OF 2019 Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, J DATE : 22nd August, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned.Stand over to 16/09/2019. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1483 OF 2019 Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, J DATE : 16th September, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 09/10/2019 . 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 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1483 OF 2019 Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, J DATE : 9th October, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 15/11/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1483 OF 2019 Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 15th November, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 06/12/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.1482 OF 2019 Roshan Sunil Pawar .. Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO.1483 OF 2019 Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde .. Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent …... …... Mr.Silvin Y. Kale, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs.A.A. Takalkar, APP APP for the Respondent – State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATED : DECEMBER 20, 2019. P.C. : The applicants in both the applications were arrested in connection with C.R.No.I–291 of 2018, registered with Panvel City Police Station, Navi Mumbai, for the ofence punishable under Section 302j read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2 The case of the prosecution is that on 30th June, 2018, the victim/complainant was waiting at rickshaw stand. Accused Avi alias Ajinkya Shinde spoke to the victim and told him that he want to travel at Karanjade and the fare was fied at Rs.60/-. He boarded rickshaw. The victim dropped him at Karanjade. He paid Rs.50/- towards the fare although it was fied to be Rs.60/-. The victim demanded the balance amount. Accused Avi alias Ajinkya told him that he is associate of Rajesh Kaikadia and slapped him. The victim also slapped him. Thereafter, the victim went towards Panvel railway station and was waiting at rickshaw stand. At about 22:30 hrs., he went for smoking cigarette. Avi alias Ajinkya Shinde came and questioned him as to why he charges heavy fare and left the place. After some time, Ajinkya Shinde, Babu Kaikadia and two other persons approached the victim. Ajinkya Shinde assaulted him with iron rod in his head. As a result the victim fell down. Babu Kaikadia assaulted by knife and two other persons assaulted the victim by fst blows. Babu Kaikadia then assaulted him on head. The mother and wife of the victim reached the spot. Babu Kaikadia also assaulted his mother and all of them fled away from the place of incident. The victim was taken to the hospital. His statement was recorded, which was treated as First Information Report. Subsequently, victim succumbed to the injuries and charge under Section 302 of IPC was invoked. 3 Learned counsel for the applicant appearing for both the applicants submitted that there are major discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses. There are contradictions in the statements of eye witnesses. Applicants are falsely implicated,. There is no evidence against the applicant Roshan Pawar, the eye witnesses have given contradictory versions about the role played by him. Although, the applicant was identifed, subsequent to identifcation, diferent role is attributed to the said applicant. The version of both the eye witnesses were contradictory to each other. The applicants are in custody from the date of arrest and further detention is not necessary. Co-accused Iqbal Abdul Kadir Shaha has been granted bail by this Court. 4 Learned APP submitted that the role has been assigned to both the applicants. Applicant Avinash had picked up quarrel with the deceased. Thereafter, he came along with other accused and the victim was assaulted by weapons. The applicants are identifed by the eye witnesses. Thus, there is suficient evidence against the applicant and bail may not be granted. 5 Having heard both the sides. I have perused the charge–sheet. The frst informant is the victim of the crime. He has stated that accused Avi alias Ajinkya had quarreled with him. Subsequently, he came along with the other accused. In the frst information report, it is stated that Avi alias Ajinkya Shinde had assaulted the victim on his head by iron rod and Babu Kaikadia had assaulted by knife. Two unknown persons had allegedly caught hold of the victim. Thus, the role of assault is attributed to Avi alias Ajinkya Shinde and Babu Kaikadia. During the course of investigation, statement of Naziya and Sherbano were recorded. Naziya had stated in a statement under Section 164 that the victim was assaulted by Avi alias Ajinkya and others. Avi alias Ajinkya was holding iron rod and the other short person was holding knife. The victim was assaulted by iron rod on his head and the other person had assaulted by knife. Her statement was also recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., which is in consonance with her earlier statement. Thus, the said witness categorically stated that Avi alias Ajinkya Shinde had assaulted the victim by iron rod on his head and other persons assaulted by knife. Statement of Sherbano was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. She has stated that accused Avi alias Ajinkya and others had assaulted the victim. The identifcation parade was conducted. In the parade Naziya has identifed accused Roshan Pawar and stated that Roshan Pawar had assaulted victim by knife. The other witness Ayesha has also identifed Roshan Pawar and during the identifcation stated that he had assaulted the victim by fst blows. Thus, apparently, there are discrepancies in the evidence with regards to the role played by Roshan Pawar in the FIR, statement of eye witnesses and the identifcation parade. However, as far as Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde, is concerned, specifc overtact has been attributed to him. There is consistency in the evidence of witnesses. He was the cause of quarrel and incident of murder. The victim as well as other witnesses have attributed him role of assault. In this circumstances, applicant Roshan Pawar can be granted bail, however, applicant Ajinkya @ Avinash Shinde is not entitled for bail. 7 Hence, I pass the following order: :: O R D E R :: (i) Bail Application No.1482 of 2019, is allowed and disposed of; (ii) Applicant Roshan Sunil Pawar, is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R.No.I– 291 of 2018, registered with Panvel City Police Station, Navi Mumbai, on his eiecuting P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one or more sureties in the like amount; (iii) Applicant Roshan Sunil Pawar, shall attend the concerned police station once in a month on frst Saturday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, till the conclusion of the trial; (iv) Bail Application No.1483 of 2019, is rejected. ( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)