All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 17th January, 2020 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 07/02/2020 . In case any ad-interim/interim relief is operating till today, the said order will continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar And Ors ....RESPONDENT for Petitioner for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 30th November, 2022 P.C. : Wrongly on board. Remove from the Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 11: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 439 OF 2022 Parekh Market Premises Co-op Ltd. ....APPLICANT V/S Shree Padmanabh Builders, Ghatkopar And Ors. ...RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh And Ors PETITIONER V/S Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar And Ors RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15545 OF 2022 Mr. Nirmal Madanlal Tater And Anr PETITIONER V/S Shri Padmanabh Builders And Ors RESPONDENT Mr. Amit Shroff a/w Ashna Shah i/by HARISH SHROFF AND CO for Petitioner Kishore D. Shah for Respondent No.1 & 2 Mr. Karl K. Shroff i/by Mr. Kalpesh Nansi Adv. for R. No. in wp No.15545/22 & Petioner in WP 11053/2019 Mr. Sachin Punde, Adv. for R. No. 6 & 7 in CRA & Petitioner in WP CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 23rd January, 2023 P.C. : S. O. to 06/02/2023 ( at 2.30 pm). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 439 OF 2022 Parekh Market Premises Co-op Ltd. ....APPLICANT V/S Shree Padmanabh Builders, Ghatkopar And Ors. ...RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15545 OF 2022 Mr. Nirmal Madanlal Tater And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Shri Padmanabh Builders And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 20th February, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 10/04/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.439 OF 2022 [Parekh Vs. Shree Padmanabh] WITH WRIT PETITION NO.15545 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.11053 OF 2019 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders. Mr. Amit Shroff, Advocate a/w. Ashna Shah i/b Harish Shroff & Co. for Applicant in CRA/439/2022. Mr. Sachin S. Punde, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP/15545/2022. Mr. Karl K. Shroff, Advocate i/b. Kalpesh J. Nansi for the Petitioner in WP/11053/2019. Mr.V.V. Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate a/w. K.D. Shah for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in all matters. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 25th APRIL, 2023 P.C.: Due to paucity of time, both sides agree that the matters can be heard post-vacation. By way of interim arrangement, learned counsel of both sides agree that the affidavit-in-evidence can be filed in the suit, however, the cross-examinations may not be conducted till these matters are heard by this Court on the next occasion. Therefore, this arrangement shall continue till the next date of listing before this Court. Stand over to 25.7.2023. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) Deshmane (PS)

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 439 OF 2022 Parekh Market Premises Co-op Ltd. ...Applicant. Versus Shree Padmanabh Builders, Ghatkopar & Ors. ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15545 OF 2022 Nirmal Madanlal Tater & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus Padmanabh Builders & Ors. ...Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh & Ors. ...Petitioner. Versus Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar & Ors. ...Respondent. Mr. Amit Shroff i/b Harish Shroff and Co. for the applicant in CRA & respondent No.1 in WP 11053/2019. Mr. Kishore D. Shah for the respondent No. 1 & 2 in CRA and respondent no.1 in WP 11053/2019. Mr. Kalpesh Nansi for respondent No 3 & 5. in CRA & WP 15545/2022 & Petitioner in WP 11053/2019. Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : July 25, 2023. P. C. : Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on production board. $Patil_{SR}$ 1 of 2 Application has been moved seeking extension of ad-interim relief granted vide order dated 25th April 2023. List the matter on 31st July 2023 . Interim arrangement recorded in the order dated 25th April 2023 to continue till the next date. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Amit Shroff i/b Mr. Kalpesh Nansi for the Petitioners. Mr. Virendra V. Tulzapurkar i/b Mr. Kishore D. Shah for Respondent No. 1. Ms. Ashna Shah i/b Mr. Harish Shroff & Co. for Respondent No.4. —————— —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : July 31, 2023. P. C. : Heard. The challenge in the Petition is to the order dated 24th April 2019 allowing the Notice of Motion No. 3320 of 2015 preferred by the original Respondent No. 1 seeking recall of the order dated 15th July, 2015. Heard Mr. Amit Shroff, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Dr. Virendra V. Tulzapurkar, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 and Ms. Ashna Shah, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4. Mr. Shroff, Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submit that the Petitioners are one of the unit holders of first floor of the property known as Parekh Market and would submit that in view of termination of the Power of Attorney by Respondent No. 2 on 7th February, 2000 the Respondent No. 1 does not acquire any right to continue with the proceeding. He would further submit that the termination was challenged by the Respondent No. 1 which was taken right up to Apex Court in an application filed by Respondent No. 2 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and has been held to be time barred. He has taken to this Court to the order 24th November, 2006 passed by the Single Judge of this Court holding that the counter claim which was filed on 9th August, 2004 will not be maintainable in terms of the provisions of the Limitation Act. He would further submit that the Power of Attorney was in respect of the tenants who were occupying part of the property admeasuring 2455 sq. ft. and has nothing to do with the Respondent No. 4 society in which the Petitioners are one of the Unit holders. He has invited the attention of this Court to the Power of Attorney dated 8th June, 1990 which is at page No. 204 of the Petition and would submit that the proceedings in question have been instituted on the basis of this Power of Attorney. He would submit that the power which was given under the Power of Attorney was to file against the occupants of the structures which forms part of the portion of land admeasuring 2455 sq. ft. He would further submit that the said Power of Attorney having been terminated which challenge has failed right up to Apex court, Respondent No. 1 does not acquire any right to act on behalf of Respondent No. 2. He would further contend that the agreement which was executed with the unit holders was on 6th February, 1987 which was prior to the execution of the Power of Attorney. He would further urge that the Trial Court while allowing the Notice of Motion has failed to take into consideration the orders of the Single Judge of this Court as well as the Apex Court which upheld that the counter claim filed was barred by limitation. He would urge that as the challenge to the termination of the Power of Attorney has failed, the Power of Attorney cannot be said to be subsisting. He would further assail the finding of the Trial Court on the ground that the Trial Court has erroneously recorded that the affidavits filed by Defendant Nos. 2 to 4, no ground has been taken that the Power of Attorney concerned only the tenants and not the Defendant Nos. 2 to 4. He would further submit that the Trial Court has given specific findings in respect of the Power of Attorney being an irrevocable Power of Attorney was given for consideration coupled with interest. He would urge that by these findings, the challenge if any, to the Power of Attorney has been foreclosed by the Trial Court. Per contra, Dr. Virendra Tuljapurkar, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent-Plaintiff submits that the Notice of Motion was taken out by the Respondent for setting aside the order dated 15th July, 2015 listing the matter for dismissal under Order 39 Rule 11 of the CPC. He would further contend that the entire issue which was for consideration before the Trial Court was the application of provisions of Order 39 Rule 11 of the CPC and it is in that context, that the Trial Court has examined the Power of Attorney and has held that the provisions of Order 39 Rule 11 is not attracted in the present case. He would further submit that the order dated 15th July, 2015 was passed as the Trial Court had directed the original Plaintiff to appear in the Court. He would submit that the original Plaintiff, if required, will appear before the Court and in the present case, the only inquiry is the impugned order permitting recall of order of dismissal. He would further urge that in exercise to the power under Article 227, this Court may not go into the merits of an interlocutory order. Considered the submissions and perused the papers. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has made submissions as regards the validity of the Power of Attorneys which have been executed by the Respondent No. 2 in favour of Respondent No. 1. Perusal of the impugned order dated 24th April, 2019 discloses that the application was moved seeking recall of the order dated 15th July, 2015 keeping the matter for dismissal for non compliance of the order directing presence of the original Plaintiff by invoking the powers under Order 39 Rule 11 of the CPC. The Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion seeking recall of the order contends that there was a development agreement entered into in favour of the Respondent No. 1 and the possession was handed over for valuable consideration on a partly developed property and building was constructed thereon and various tenements were sold. The contention advanced was that Respondent No. 1 was granted irrevocable Power of Attorney as well as other Power of Attorney as required for development of the said properties and as such, considering the provisions of section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 the Power of Attorney is a power coupled with interest and hence, irrevocable. Apart from the prayer of seeking recall of the order an alternate prayer was sought that the Applicant be substituted in place of the Plaintiff under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which was not allowed and only the relief of recall of the order of dismissal was sought. It is in the context of the contentions taken up by the Respondent No. 1 for the purpose of assailing the order of dismissal that the Trial Court has gone into the issue as to whether the Power of Attorney is a power coupled with interest. After observing the provisions of section 2022 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 the Court has held that at this stage the Defendant No. 2 to 4 cannot challenge the validity of the power of Attorney which would otherwise be the matter in issue and can only be decided when both the parties will get an opportunity to lead evidence into that effect. The order of the Trial Court is clear in paragraph No. 10 that the issue which was being considered by the Trial Court was only the order dated 15th July, 2015 listing the matter for dismissal by invoking the provisions under Order 39 Rule 11 which according to the Trial Court was not applicable in the given circumstances. The Trial Court specifically observed that the documents place on record by the parties are subject matter of the evidence and therefore, for continuation of the suit on merits, the order dated 15th July, 2015 needs to be recalled and the suit needs to be proceeded on merits. In my view upon reading of the impugned order 24th April, 2019 it cannot be said that by the said order, the Trial Court has conclusively held that the Power of Attorneys which have been pressed into service by the Respondent No. 1 are irrevocable Power of Attorney given for consideration coupled with interest. On the contrary it appears that the Trial Court has held that the documents which are placed are the subject matter of evidence and only for the purpose of continuation of the suit on merits, at that stage, the order dated 15th July, 2015 was recalled. Considering that the impugned order only recalls the order of dismissal dated 15th July, 2015 no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition being devoid of merits stand dismissed. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1944 OF 2003 Shri Devidas Sadashiv Savale aged adult, P.B. No.9684, H.A.L. Aircraft Division, Nasik ... Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032 Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims Nasik Division, Nasik through its Deputy Director (R) and Member-Secretary, having its office at Adivasi Vikas Bhavan Old Agra Road, Nasik Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. through its Deputy General Manager (Planning and Tooling) and Disciplinary Authority, Aircraft Division, Nasik Executive Magistrate Niphad Dist., Nasik ... Respondents Mr.R.K. Mendadkar for Petitioner Mr.C.R. Sonawane, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 Mr.A.M. Vernekar for Respondent No.3 CORAM: V.G. PALSHIKAR & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: JANUARY 27, 2005 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.): . The Petitioner questions the invalidation of his caste certificate by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The facts in this case are not disputed. The Petitioner is in employment with Respondent No.3 Hindustan Aeronautics Limited since 1978. The Petitioner claims that he belongs to the Mahadeo Koli tribe which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe under the Presidential notifications issued under Article 342 (1) of the Constitution of India. He was issued a caste certificate by the Executive Magistrate, Niphad, who was then the Competent Authority to issue such a certificate. It appears that the caste certificate was then sent for verification by the employer to the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe claims. This was done in 1994. The Petitioner appeared before the Committee without prejudice to his contention that the Committee was acting without jurisdiction. The caste certificate of the Petitioner was invalidated by the Committee on coming to the conclusion that the Petitioner did not belong to the Mahadeo Koli Tribe on 19.10.1995. Consequent upon the caste certificate being invalidated, the employer issued a chargesheet to the Petitioner alleging misconduct on the part of the Petitioner for having obtained employment on the basis of a false caste certificate. A domestic enquiry was held. The enquiry officer found the Petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. A second show-cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on 27.1.2003 directing the Petitioner to show cause against the proposed punishment of dismissal. The Petitioner thereupon filed the present petition. When the petition was admitted on 25.8.2003, interim relief was granted injuncting the Respondents from terminating the services of the Petitioner. Earlier, the petitioner furnished an undertaking on 22.8.2003 averring that he would not claim any benefit as a member of the Mahadeo Koli tribe while in employment with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. The principal contention raised in this Petition is that the caste certificate has been invalidated by a Committee which had no jurisdiction to do so. There is no dispute that it was only by a Government Resolution issued on 11.6.1998 that such certificates could be verified by the scrutiny committee. These Committees which were functioning earlier by the Government Resolution of 23.1.1995 were reconstituted and conferred a specific jurisdiction enabling them to verify the caste certificates of employees of Central Government undertakings. By this Government Resolution, the Committee has been given wider powers than the earlier committee. The contention of the Petitioner that the jurisdiction to scrutinise the claims of employees of Respondent No.3 was conferred upon the Committee only by Resolution of 11.6.1998 therefore, must be accepted. In our opinion, therefore, the invalidation of the Petitioner's caste certificate by the Committee by its order dated 19.10.1995 cannot be sustained as the Committee had no jurisdiction to entertain the Reference made by the employer. In the case of Bhaskar Sitaram Koli v/s. Executive Magistrate, Thane & Ors., (W.P. 1414 of 1995) the Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us Palshikar, J. was a Member), this Court has already held that the jurisdiction of the Committee to scrutinise the claims of the employees in respect of their caste was conferred upon it for the first time on 11.6.1998. The reference made in 1994 by the employer to the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the invalidation of the certificate by the Committee is therefore, set aside. The action taken by the management pursuant to the invalidation of the caste certificate also cannot be sustained and, therefore, must be quashed and set aside. However, it would be open to the employer to refer the certificate obtained by the Petitioner in 1975 for verification by the Caste Scrutiny Committee which has been constituted pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 11.6.1998. Assuming the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds that the certificate issued to the Petitioner needs to be invalidated, the Petitioner who has been in service since 1978 will be continued in service and not be subjected to any disciplinary proceedings on this count. Rule is, thus, made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.

Order - Status 8: Dusane 1/1 wp6529.2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6529 OF 2016 Fernandes John Salestin .... Petitioner Vs. Dy. Collector (ENC) & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. V.S. Deokar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A.R. Mitkari, AGP for Respondent no.1 – State Mr. R. Narula i/by Jhangiani Narula & Associates for Respondent no.2. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 17th June, 2016 P.C. 1 Mr. Deokar, the learned advocate for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the writ petition. The petition is allowed to be withdrawn. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 15104 OF 2018 Mrs. K.padmaja ....Petitioner V/S General Secretary And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI HARISH DANGRE, JJ DATE : 6th June, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for admission, Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 21/06/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 15104 OF 2018 Mrs. K.padmaja ....Petitioner V/S General Secretary And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI HARISH DANGRE, JJ DATE : 21st June, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for admission, Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to02/08/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K. Padmaja ..Petitioner Versus General Secretary, DAV College Managing Committee, Chitra Gupta Road, New Delhi and others ..Respondents Ms. Deepali Y. Deherkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Irvin D'Souza h/f Joshna A. Patnigeve, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for Respondent No.3. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. DATE: 2nd APRIL, 2019 P.C.: 1] Issue notice to Respondents, returnable on 16/04/2019. 2] Mr. D'Souza, learned Counsel, waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Kalel, AGP, waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent No.3. Respondents may file their reply by the next date. (DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.) (B. R. GAVAI, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K.padmaja ....Petitioner V/S General Secretary And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & R. I. CHAGLA, JJ DATE : 3rd December, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 11/02/2020 . In case any ad-interim/interim relief is operating till today, the said order will continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K.padmaja ....Petitioner V/S General Secretary And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & R. I. CHAGLA, JJ DATE : 11th February, 2020 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 28/04/2020 . In case any ad-interim/interim relief is operating till today, the said order will continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K.padmaja ....PETITIONER V/S General Secretary And Ors ....RESPONDENT DEEPALI YATIN DEHERKAR for Petitioner Shri. Sugandh Deshmukh i/b JOSHUA ABHAY PATNIGERE for Respondent no 1 and 2 Mrs. P. N. Diwan Respondent AGP for state CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.V. GANGAPURWALA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHRIRAM MADHUSUDAN MODAK, JJ DATE : 28th July, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 20/09/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: Y.S.Patil 1 62-WP-12596-2018 (C) .doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K.padmaja ...Petitioner Versus General Secretary And Ors. ...RespondentS Ms. Deepali Y. Deherkar for the Petitioner. Mrs. P.N. Diwan AGP for the State. Mr. Joshua Abhay Patnigere for Respondent Nos 1 and 2. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & R.N. LADDHA, J.J. DATED : 20 th SEPTEMBER 2022 P.C. :- Learned counsel for respondents seeks a weeks accommodation to file sur-rejoinder. Stand over to 4th October 2022 as a last chance. No further time would be granted. (R.N.LADDHA, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 20: 44.12356.18-wp.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12356 OF 2018 BASAVRAJ GURAPPA GURAPPA PATIL Date: 2022.10.06 14:11:47 +0530 Digitally signed by BASAVRAJ PATIL Renu Prakash Mabrukhane ….. Petitioner Vs. General Secretary DAV College Managing Committee ….. Respondents WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 K. Padmaja ….. Petitioner Vs. General Secretary & Ors. ….. Respondents Ms. Deepali Y. Deherkar for the Petitioners Mrs. P. N. Diwan, AGP for the State Mr. Sugandh B. Deshmukh I/b. Mr. Joshna A. Patnigere for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 CORAM: S.V.GANGAPURWALA & R.N. LADDHA, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 4, 2022 P.C. 1 Respondent No.2 school is presently affiliated to the CBSE and governed by its Rules. 2 The learned Counsel for the Respondent relied upon the judgment of the apex court in the case of St. Mary's Education Society & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.5789 of 2022 to submit that the present Writ Petition would not be tenable before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Institution is unaided affiliated to CBSE. 3 The learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks time to go through the said judgment. 4 At the request of learned Counsel for the Petitioner, S.O. to 10th November 2022. (R.N. LADDHA,J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12356 OF 2018 Mrs. Renu Prakash Mabrukhane ….Petitioner Versus General Secretary, DAV College Managing Committee and ors. ….Respondents along with WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K. Padamja ….Petitioner Versus General Secretary, DAV College Managing Committee and ors. ….Respondents Mr. Deepali Deherkar, Advocate for the Petitioner in both the petitions. Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh i/b. Mr. Joshua A. Patnigere, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms. P. N. Diwan, AGP for Respondent No.3 – State. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & S. G. DIGE, JJ. DATE : 10th NOVEMBER, 2022. P.C. : Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks time to verify whether the CBSC has framed any rules covering the transfer of employees. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, stand over to 14th December, 2022. (S. G. DIGE, J.) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 24: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K.padmaja ....PETITIONER V/S General Secretary And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12356 OF 2018 Mrs Renu Prakash Mabrukhane ....PETITIONER V/S General Secretary Dav College Managing Committee ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. PATEL & HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE, JJ DATE : 24th February, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 21/03/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 26: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K.padmaja ....PETITIONER V/S General Secretary And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUNIL B. SHUKRE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE FIRDOSH PHIROZE POONIWALLA, JJ DATE : 18th October, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 13/12/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 28: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12356 OF 2018 Renu Prakash Mabrukhane ...Petitioner Versus General Secretary DAV College Managing Committee and Ors. ...Respondents Digitally signed by YUGANDHARA SHARAD PATIL Date: 2024.01.08 12:57:07 +0530 YUGANDHARA SHARAD PATIL WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 .…... K.Padmaja ...Petitioner Versus General Secretary DAV College Managing Committee And Ors ...Respondents ……. Ms. Deepali Deherkar, for the Petitioner. Mr.Sugandh Deshmukh, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for Respondent No. 3. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & M.M.SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 3 JANUARY 2024 P.C.: . The Petitioners have challenged orders of transfer issued in May 2018. There is no interim order in these Petitions. Learned counsel for the Petitioners states that the Petitioners are already working on the transferal post since last 5 years. Request is made on behalf of the Petitioners for adjournment. Stand over to 14 February 2024. If the Petitions are not argued on the next date, it will be presumed that the Petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the Petition and appropriate orders will be passed. (M.M.SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 30: Digitally signed by TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Date: 2024.04.23 19:13:20 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K. Padmaja … Petitioner vs. General Secretary, DAV College Managing Committee & Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12356 OF 2018 Mrs. Renu Prakash Mabrukhane … Petitioner vs. General Secretary, DAV College Managing Committee & Ors. … Respondents ….. Ms.Deepali Deherkar for the Petitioners in both the Petitions. Mr.Sugandh Deshmukh with Ms.Karishma Shinde i/b. Joushya Patnigare for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Ms.Kavita N. Solunke, AGP for the Respondent -State. …... CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND M.M.SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 19 APRIL 2024 P.C. : The Petitioners are challenging the transfer order dated 4 May 2018. There is no interim order. The Petitioners have joined the transferred post and are working. Before we proceed further with the matter, we are of the opinion that the issue needs to be amicably resolved. It is open to the Petitioners to make a request to Respondent No.1 for simplicitor transfer of the Petitioners back to the original post and for Respondent No.1 to consider the same. Respondent No. 2 will give audience to the Petitioners and decide further course of action. Stand over to 7 May 2024, to be listed under the caption "For Directions". (M.M.SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 32: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K. Padmaja … Petitioner vs. General Secretary, DAV College Managing Committee & Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12356 OF 2018 Ms. Deepali Y. Deherkar for the Petitioners in both the Petitions. Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh i/b. Joshua A. Patnigare for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. S. H. Kankal, AGP for the Respondent -State CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & M. M. SATHAYE, JJ. DATED : 7 MAY 2024 P.C.: Learned Counsel for the parties states that efforts are underway to explore the possibility of settlement. At the joint request, stand over to 21 June 2024 under the caption "for directions" (M. M. SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 34: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 12596 of 2018 Mrs. K. Padmaja … Petitioner. V/s. General Secretary DAV College Managing Committee & Ors. … Respondents. With Writ Petition No.12356 of 2018 Mrs. Renu Prakash Mabrukhane … Petitioner. V/s. General Secretary DAV College Managing Committee & Ors. … Respondents. Ms. Deepali Deherkar for the Petitioner in both petitions. Mr. S.H. Kankal,AGP for the State in W.P. No. 12596/18. Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for the State in W.P. No. 12356/18. Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR, AND M.M. SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 21 June 2024. P.C. : The learned counsel for the parties state that settlement talks have not succeeded. List the Petition on Board on 12 July 2024 for admission. (M.M. SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.) L.S. Panjwani,P.S.

Order - Status 36: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12356 OF 2018 Mrs. Renu Prakash Mabrukhane. … Petitioner V/s. General Secretary, DAV College Managing Committee & Ors. … Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K. Padmaja. … Petitioner V/s. General Secretary, DAV College Managing Committee & Ors. … Respondents. Ms. Deepali Y. Deherkar, Advocate for Petitioner in both Petitions. Mr. Irvin D'Souza i/b. Joshua Abhay Patnigere, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP, for Respondent-State in WP/12356/2018. Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP, for Respondent-State in WP/12596/2018. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & M. M. SATHAYE, JJ. DATED : 12 JULY 2024 P.C.: At the request of the learned Counsel for the Respondent Management, stand over to 19 July 2024. (M. M. SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.) ARUNA SANDEEP TALWALKAR Digitally signed by ARUNA SANDEEP TALWALKAR Date: 2024.07.16 10:50:22 +0530

Order - Status 38: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12356 OF 2018 Mrs Renu Prakash Mabrukhane ...Petitioner Versus General Secretary Dav College Managing Committee and Ors. ...Respondents Ms. Deepali Deherkar for the Petitioners. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 **** SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2024.07.22 11:23:16 +0530 Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh a/w Karishma Shinde, Vaibhav Thorve i/b Joshva Abhay Patnigere for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. S.H. Kanakal, AGP for Respondent No.3/State. **** CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND M.M. SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 19 JULY 2024 P.C. : . The Petitioner is seeking as relief against Respondent/private Educational Institute. There is no relief sought against any State Authority. The learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks time to examine the latest decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject matter. Stand over to 8 August 2024. (M.M. SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 41: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12356 OF 2018 Mrs. Renu Prakash Mabrukhane ...Petitioner Versus General Secretary DAV College Managing Committee, New Delhi, and Ors. ...Respondents HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN NADAF Digitally signed by HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN Date: 2024.08.09 18:27:26 +0530 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K. Padmaja ...Petitioner Versus General Secretary DAV College Managing Committee, New Delhi, and Ors. ...Respondents *** Ms. Deepali Deherkar for the Petitioners in both petitions. Mr. Sugandh B. Deshmukh i/b. Mr. Joshva Abahy Patnigere for Respondent No.1 in both petitions. Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for Respondent No.3 State in WP/ 12356/20218 and Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP for Respondent No.3 State in WP/12596/20218. *** CORAM: NITIN JAMDAR & M.M. SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 8 AUGUST 2024 P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Petitioners are working with Respondent No. 2 School which is run by Respondent No. 1 Institute. Respondent No. 2 is a Secondary School and is affiliated with CBSE Board. The petitioners by these petitions challenge the order of transfer dated 4 May 2018. The Petitioners have been transferred from Nerul to Kharghar, Navi Mumbai which is a distance of not more than 20 k.m. The Petitioners have raised several issues such as transfer being mid-term transfer and punitive in nature. As far as aspect of mid-term transfer is concerned, it is now six years since the order of transfer is issued and therefore this issue does not survive any more. As regards other aspects are concerned, considering the passage of time we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate if the Petitioners make representations to Respondent School to reconsider the order which is passed in the year 2018. If such representations are made, it is for the Respondent to consider the same and to pass appropriate orders therein as per law and as per other administrative aspects. If the representations are made within a period of four weeks, the Respondent will make an endeavor to communicate the decision to the Petitioners within a period of four weeks thereafter. We have kept all the issues open while we permit the Petitioners to make representations. Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. ( M.M. SATHAYE, J.) ( NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.685 OF 2006 Smt. Shubhangi wd/o. Ramkisan Cheulkar .. Appellant versus The Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Bombay .. Respondent Mr.V.V. Mishra for appellant Mrs. Geeta Joglekar for respondent CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED :5th October, 2006. P.C:- ... Heard counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the order dated 3rd March, 2006 passed by the City Civil Court dismissing the appellant's Notice of Motion No.4308 of 1999 for injunction against demolition of his unauthorised structure on the road. The respondent municipal corporation issued a notice on 17th February, 1997 to the appellant under Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act (for short 'the Act'). The appellant did not reply the said notice nor showed cause that the structure was authorised or was not constructed on the public street, but straightway filed suit bearing L.C. Suit No.5256 of 1999 in the City Civil Court, Mumbai for injunction. In the said Suit he took out a Notice of Motion No.4308 of 1999 for an injunction restraining the respondents from demolishing his stall. After carefuly considering the material adduced before it, the City Civil Court came to the conclusion that the stall was on the public road and not in the tenanted premises as alleged by the appellant. In view of this the trial court dismissed the Motion. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any material which shows that the stall was constructed not on the public street but on private property and that he was tenant of anybody. In the circumstances the findings that the stall was on a public street, is a finding of fact which apparently is a proper finding. In view of this appellant is not entitled for any injunction. No error is found in the findings of the trial court. Appeal is dismissed summarily. ( D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE,CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5852 OF 2007 Vardhman Industries Ltd...Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Prakash Shah for the Petitioners i/b.PDS Legal. Mr. R.V.Desai,Senior Counselwith Mrs.S.V.Bharucha, for the Respondents. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO & S.R.SATHE,JJ. DATED: 16TH AUGUST, 2007 P.C.: . At the request of the learned Counsel for the respondent reply, if advised to be filed within one week. Petitioners to file rejoinder within one week thereafter. Place the matter on board on 30th August, 2007. (S.R.SATHE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) MGN

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5852 OF 2007 Vardhman Industries Ltd. V/S. Union Of India And Ors. ...Petitioner ... Respondents Ms. Arya Anil i/b. Mr. Sriram Sridharan for the Petitioner. CORAM : G.S. KULKARNI & RAJESH .S. PATIL, JJ. DATED : 9 th JUNE, 2023 P.C.: Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave to take discharge in this Petition. Stand over to $23^{rd}$ June, 2023. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (G.S. KULKARNI, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5852 OF 2007 …. Vardhman Industries Ltd. .. Petitioner v/s. Union of India And Ors. .. Respondents …. Mr. Sriram Sridharan, i/b. M/s. PDS Legal, for the Petitioner. CORAM: G.S. KULKARNI & JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. DATE : 30th JUNE 2023 P.C:- Mr. Sridharan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, states that already steps are taken by him to obtain a discharge. Accordingly, as a last chance, stand over to 14th July 2023. Mr. Sridharan to inform the Petitioner of the present order. (JITENDRA JAIN, J.) (G.S. KULKARNI, J.) SMITA JOHNSON GONSALVES Digitally signed by SMITA JOHNSON GONSALVES Date: 2023.07.03 10:47:20 +0530

Order - Status 12: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5852 OF 2007 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders None present. CORAM : H. M. BHOSALE REGISTRAR (JUDL-I) Date : 07/07/2023 M/s. PDS Legal, Advocate representing the Petitioner in the present Petition has sought discharge vide preacipe dated 23/06/2023. The Hon'ble Court (Coram : G. S. Kulkarni & Jitendra Jain, JJ) vide order dated 30/06/2023 is pleased to direct the learned Advocate for the Petitioner to inform the petitioner of the order dated 30/06/2023 and the petition is scheduled on 14th July 2023. Therefore, it would be just and proper to place the present petition before the Hon'ble Court on 14th July 2023. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial-I)

Order - Status 49: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5852 OF 2007 Vardhman Industries Ltd. ….Petitioner V/s. Union of India and Ors. .…Respondents ---- Mr. Sriram Sridharan i/b. M/s. PDS Legal for petitioner. None for respondents. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. DATED : 14th JUNE 2024 P.C. : 1 Advocates for petitioner have been discharged pursuant to a chamber order dated 7th July 2023. Nobody else has entered appearance for petitioner. 2 Petition dismissed. (JITENDRA JAIN, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Chitra Vasant More Petitioner Vs. Bhavika Vidya Prasarak Respondents Mandal and Ors. Mr. Mandar Limaye, for the petitioner. Mr. Dilip Bodke, for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : Dr. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATED : 21st, November 2008. P.C. . The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondent seeks an adjournment to file a reply. The reply shall be filed on or before 5th December, 2008. Matter be placed for final disposal on 12th December, 2008. Sd/- [ Dr. D.Y. ChANDRACHUD, J.]

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4197 OF 2008 Mrs.Chitra Vasant More : Petitioner V/s. Bhavika Vidya Prasarak Mandal & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.Mandar Limaye for the petitioner. Mr.Dilip Bodke for respondent nos.1 to 3. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : JANUARY 12, 2009. P.C . Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr.Bodke waives service for the respondent nos.1 to 3. Heard by consent. The petitioner teacher has challenged the judgement and order dated 4.2.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Addl. School Tribunal, New Mumbai, in appeal no.48 of 2007. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against her dismissal from service. The petitioner was dismissed in pursuance of an inquiry in which it was found that she along with others was guilty of misconduct i.e. distribution of a letter containing serious grievances against the management and going on a relay hunger strike in front of the office of the Zilla Parishad. In appeal filed by the petitioner, the learned Tribunal relied on two letters dated 8.6.2006 and 31.7.2006 in which the petitioner has explained the circumstances in which she along with others participated in the hunger strike. In fact, in relation to participation in the hunger strike, the petitioner denied their actual participation on the ground that on 15.5.2006 i.e. the day of the strike, she was due to get married and she was busy in the performance of the marriage. There is no dispute about the proposed marriage, but the Tribunal has observed on the basis of oral arguments of Mr.Modgi that the marriage was postponed. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner has admitted the participation in the strike in the above letters. The finding of the Tribunal in regard to circulation of the pamphlet containing defamatory matter is not clear. It may be noted that there is no admission in this regard by the petitioner at all since the petitioner has written in her letter that on that date, certain teachers who had been removed from service distributed letters. Obviously, the petitioner was not one of them because she had not been removed from service on that date. There is also no dispute that the petitioner's name does not appear as one of the signatories of the pamphlet. Mr.Mandar Limaye, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the order of the School Tribunal is vitiated since it is held that it is not necessary to hold any inquiry. The learned counsel submitted that even if there are letters apparently containing an admission where there is a denial of actual participation by the delinquent, there must be a finding of fact and an inquiry cannot be dispensed with. He further pointed out that in the present case, the conduct of the teachers cannot be described as misconduct because they went on a hunger strike in the Zilla Parishad office and not in the school premises and, therefore, there was no cessation of work. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgement of this Court in Nandkumar Mahadeo Dengane & Ors. v. Bhavika Vidya Prasarak Mandal & Ors. (2008 (4) Bom.C.R. 319). Having perused the judgement in the aforesaid case, it is clear that this Court was deciding an identical view taken by the Tribunal arising out of the same incident. This Court held that the acts with which the teachers such as the petitioner were charged with do not constitute misconduct. This Court further held that there is a violation of rule 36 of the MEPS Rules. This Court, -: 4 :- therefore, set aside the order of the Tribunal. Mr.Bodke, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3, submitted that it cannot be said that there is no misconduct since the petitioner could be said to be guilty of misconduct described by the residuary clauses which read as follows:- "(i) breach of the terms and conditions of service laid down by or under these rules; (ii) violation of the code of conduct; and (iii) any other act of similar nature." However, the learned counsel is not in a position to point out the basic definition from which similarity can be worked out. I find that the challenge is substantially covered by the judgement of this Court in Nandkumar's case (supra) and the petition is liable to be allowed and is, accordingly, allowed. Mr.Limaye points out that the petitioner has not been reinstated in service till now. He further pointed out that other teachers in whose favour this Court passed an order have also not been reinstated in service. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I consider it appropriate to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner within a period of one month from today along with consequential benefits. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. S.A. BOBDE, J.