All Cases

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1621 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1622 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1623 OF 2011 Global Trade Finance Limited ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. ... Respondents Mr. Yashpal Thakur i/by M/s. Paras Kuhad & Associates, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Pednekar, A.P.P. for State in Cri.W.P. No. 1621 of 2011. Mr. A.S. Shitole, A.P.P. for State in Cri.W.P. No. 1622 of 2011. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, A.P.P. for State in Cri.W.P. No. 1623 of 2011. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 P.C. Heard. Issue notice to respondents returnable on 17.11.2011. The learned A.P.P. waives service on behalf of State. To be heard finally at admission stage along with W.P. No. 1620 of 2011. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)

Order - Status 12: WP 1620-G OF 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1620 OF 2011. WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1622 OF 2011. WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1623 OF 2011. Global Trade Finance Limited .. Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra and anr .. Respondents. Mr. Yashpal Thakur i/by M/s Paras Kuhad & Associates, for the petitioners in all the petitions. . Mrs. U. V. Kejariwal, APP for the Respondent – State Ms. K. R. Davierwala i/by M/s Mulla & Mulla C.B.C. for Respondent No.2. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 22nd November, 2012 P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has instructions from his client to withdraw the petitions. Petitions are disposed of as withdrawn. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.552 OF 2013 M/s.Neha Enterprises .. Appellants Versus Smt.Marubai Narayan Thakur and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.V.A.Thorat, Senior Advocate i/b. R.A.Thorat, Senior Advocate with Mr.Himanshu Kode i/b. Mr.S.A.Sawant for the appellants Mr.P.S.Dani i/b. Mr.Amol Patil for respondent Nos. 10A and 10B CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. 13rd June 2013. P.C.: 1] When this appeal from order was listed for admission pursuant to the order of the learned Vacation Judge on private notice the contesting respondents 10A and 10B have appeared and Mr.Dani, learned Counsel states that Mr.Amol Patil, Advocate has instructions to appear for them and a caveat has also been filed on their behalf. He further states that he would file vakalatnama on their behalf within a week. 2] At the request of the caveators' Advocate and in order to enable him to file vakalatnama and take instructions, S.O. 26th June 2013. Ad-interim order to continue till 1st July 2013. (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J)

Order - Status 9: mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APEAL FROM ORDER NO. 552 OF 2013 M/s. Neha Enterprises Appellants Vs. Mrs. Marubai Narayan Thakur & Ors. Respondents Mr. V.A. Thorat, Sr. Advocate a/w. R.A. Thorat and S.A. Sawant for Appellants Mr. Ajay Patil for Respondent No.6 Mr. Rohit Sachdeo for Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 Mr. P.S. Dani i/b. A.B. Patil and D.D. Ausarkar for Respondent Nos. 10A and 10B CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 1ST JULY, 2013 P.C. : The impugned order of the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Panvel dated 14th May, 2013 shows the setting out of the facts and arguments of the Advocates of the parties with regard to the main issue No. 1 in paragraphs 1 to 36 of the order. The issue which has been answered in paragraph 37 does not show the reasons for acceptance of the arguments of one party or rejection of arguments of the other. Both Counsel agree that the order cannot be sustained for want of reasons. Based upon the same facts and arguments the learned Judge would require to give his reasons for coming to the conclusion that he does. However both parties would be entitled to reargue the application under Exhibit42 on a single specified date of hearing upon which the learned Judge shall pass an order with reasons. The learned Judge shall fix a clear date in the month of July, 2013 for the aforesaid purpose. Consequently the impugned order is set aside. The interim order passed in this Appeal from Order shall continue until the disposal of Exhibit42 application by the learned Judge and two weeks thereafter. The Appeal from Order is disposed of accordingly. The civil application is also disposed of accordingly. (MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.2347 OF 2007 Hasnain Rohawala Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra Respondent. Mr Mustafa M. Najni, Adv.(appointed) for the applicant. Ms S. D. Shinde, A.P.P for the respondent. CORAM: V. C. DAGA,J. DATED: 23.10.2007. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. Perused the application and the material available on record. 3. There is no change in circumstance, so as to release the applicant on bail. 4. In the result, the present application stands rejected. 5. Any observation made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. (V.C.DAGA,J)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2892 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO. 24856 OF 2003 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or Judge's orders. orders or directions and Registrar's orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED : 3rd Sept., 2004. P.C.: If the entire amount of Court fee payable in the First Appeal is paid within a period of six weeks from today, the First Appeal will stand restored. If the Court fee is not paid within the stipulated time, the order of dismissal will stand. No further extension will be granted. Civil Application stands disposed of. Judge.

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2892 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 24856 OF 2003 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of of Coram, appearances, Court's orders and Registrar's orders : Court's or Judge's orders ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri K.K. Tated, A.G.P. present for the State. CORAM: P.V. KAKADE, J. DATED: 14TH OCT., 2004 P.C.: Heard learned A.G.P. Shri Tated. Perused the contents of the application including the earlier orders passed by this Court and the Ordinance of the State Government. In view of the circumstances, it is necessary for the applicant State to get the proviso of Sec.2 clarified and for that purpose further explanation is necessary. Hence in supersession of the earlier order passed by this Court, extension of 8 weeks' is granted to pay Court fee. Matter be placed before the Court after seven weeks. .....

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2892 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 24856 OF 2003 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of of Coram, appearances, Court's orders and Registrar's orders : Court's or Judge's orders ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri K.K. Tated, A.G.P. present for the State. CORAM: P.V. KAKADE, J. DATED: 14TH OCT., 2004 P.C.: Heard learned A.G.P. Shri Tated. Perused the contents of the application including the earlier orders passed by this Court and the Ordinance of the State Government. In view of the circumstances, it is necessary for the applicant State to get the proviso of Sec.2 clarified and for that purpose further explanation is necessary. Hence in supersession of the earlier order passed by this Court, extension of 8 weeks' is granted to pay Court fee. Matter be placed before the Court after seven weeks. .....

Order - Status 9: Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3096 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20874 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Surendra Dhanji Shah & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3098 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20878 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Hansa Jayendra Shah & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3100 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21020 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Bindu Kiran Sampat & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3102 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20891 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Pramila Dhirajlal Parekh & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3104 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20881 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Surendra Dhanji Shah & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3108 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21002 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Tersih Keshavji Raigoga & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3115 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21007 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Bindu Kiran Sampat & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3117 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21013 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Kumud Tersih Raigoga & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3119 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21016 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Sangeet Vinay Raigoga & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3121 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20869 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Jayendra Dhanji Shah & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Vimal Chandrakant Shah, Applicant, present in person. Mr.Ramesh Jain, Advocate, for the Respondents. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 21ST JANUARY, 2008. P.C.: In view of averments made in the application, sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. Accordingly, delay is condoned. Applications are allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a). [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 596 OF 2018 Seema Hariom Sharma ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....Respondent None For Applicant Neeta S. Jain, APP for state. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 12th June, 2018 P.C. : None For Applicant. Stand Over to 03/07/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 596 OF 2018 Seema Hariom Sharma ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....Respondent Bhavesh Maheshchandra Thakur For Applicant H.S.Venegaonkar,APP Mrs.N.S.Jain,APP CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 18th June, 2018 P.C. : At the request of Mr.H.S.Venegaonkar, Stand over to one week i.e. 26/06/2018 on supplementary board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 596 OF 2018 Seema Hariom Sharma ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....Respondent Bhavesh Maheshchandra Thakur For Applicant H.S.Venegaonkar,CBI P.H.Gaikwad,APP CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 29th June, 2018 P.C. : Stand over to 02/07/2018 High on board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 701 OF 2017 Mrs. Seema Hariom Sharma … Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 596 OF 2018 Mrs. Seema Hariom Sharma … Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents Mr. Bhavesh Thakur for the applicant. Mr. P.H. Gaikwad for the RespondentState. Mr. H.S. Venegaonkar for the RespondentCBI CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 02nd JULY, 2018. P.C. The applicants have preferred these applications for return of the cash amount of Rs.2,79,000/ and Fixed Deposit Receipts seized during the course of investigation. ... Mr. Venegaonkar learned counsel for CBI on instructions submits that case for disproportionate assets against the husband of applicant is not made out during the course of inquiry and therefore CBI has no objection for allowing these applications. It is further submitted that amount of Rs.2,79,000/ has been deposited in the Bank of BaradaCBI account. The cheque to the tune of the said amount will be issued in favour of the applicant instead of cash. In view of aforesaid statements, both these applications are allowed. RespondentCBI is directed to return the amount of Rs.2,79,000/ by cheque to the applicant within a period of four weeks from today. RespondentCBI is also directed to return Fixed Deposit Receipts which are subject matter of the application to the applicant within four weeks from today. Both these applications are disposed of. ( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4843 OF 2005 R.K.Vidya Prasar Mandal & Anr. ... Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4844 OF 2005 Gautam Educational Trust & Anr. ... Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4845 OF 2005 Shethkari Shikshak Prasarak Mandal & Ors. ... Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4846 OF 2005 Oriental College of Engineering & Anr. ... Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents ….. ….. None for the Petitioners. Mr.R.S.Pawar, AGP for the Respondent/State. CORAM :- DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & G. S. KULKARNI, J. DATE :- MARCH 8, 2021 PC : 1 These Petitions have been notified as per the list of matters as received from the office of the learned Government Pleader to have become infructuous. As per the office notice dated 2nd March 2021, the Advocates for the petitioners/petitioners were called upon to give a praecipe in advance in case the petitions have not become infructuous. Such praecipe has not been received in regard to these petitions. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of as infructuous; however, with liberty to the petitioners to revive the petitions in case something survives. 2 Disposed of in the above terms. No costs. (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) Raju D. Gaikwad Digitally signed by Raju D. Gaikwad Date: 2021.03.08 21:08:43 +0530