All Cases

Order - Status 9: Vasant Nanasaheb Mandlik .... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Shri D.G. Khamkar for the Petitioner. Shri D.P. Adsule, APP, for the State. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED: OCTOBER 6, 2009 P.C: The petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for life and according to him, he has served the sentence which he was required to serve. The Government also passed an order on 17-9-2009 ordering the immediate release of the petitioner, but he was not released. It is stated that while the petitioner was serving the sentence, he was released on parole during which he committed offences under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC. In both the offences he was given sentence of five years each which were directed to run consecutively. Therefore, the petitioner is now serving the sentence which he was awarded in the offence under Section 376. The petitioner wants to know as to when he completed the serving of sentence under Section 302 of the IPC and when the serving of the sentence under Section 376 commenced because, according to him, even if the said sentence is taken into consideration, he has served both the sentences. The Government to consider the matter and inform the petitioner within two weeks as to from which date the petitioner is serving the sentence under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.254 OF 2015 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL (ST) NO.14544 OF 2015 Sou. Neha Abhijit Mangudkar Applicant. V/s. Abhijit Bharat Mangudkar Respondent. Mr.S.S. Deshmukh for the applicant. None for the respondent. CORAM : CORAM : V.M.KANADE AND MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ. JJ. DATED : 24TH AUGUST, 2016 P.C. :- Issue notice to the respondent, returnable on 21st September, 2016. (MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, J.) (V.M.KANADE, J.)

Order - Status 6: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C.A.M. NO.254 OF 2015 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL ST. NO.14544 OF 2015 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 : AJIT N. MARE, REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 8th September, 2016 S.O. 1 week for supplying copy. ­ sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 08.09.16

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C.A.M. NO.254 OF 2015 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL ST. NO.14544 OF 2015 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 : AJIT N. MARE, REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 29th September, 2016 Stand over 1 week for furnishing copies. ­ sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 29.09.16

Order - Status 9: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C.A.M. NO.254 OF 2015 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL ST. NO.14544 OF 2015 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 : AJIT N. MARE, REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 26th October, 2016 Returnable date is extended by 8 weeks. ­ sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 26.10.16

Order - Status 10: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C.A.M. NO.254 OF 2015 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.14544 OF 2015 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 : AJIT N. MARE, REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 21st December, 2016 Await Service for 5 weeks. sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 21.12.16

Order - Status 14: (CAM 254 OF 2015) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION No. 254 OF 2015 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL (ST.) No. 14544 OF 2015 Sou. Neha Abhijit Mangudkar Applicant/Appellant Vs. Mr. Abhijit Bharat Mangudkar Respondent *********** Mr. Shrishailay S. Deshmukh for the Applicant/Appellant Mr. Dhananjay Patil for Respondent. *********** CORAM : V.M. KANADE & P.R. BORA, JJ DATE : FEBRUARY 06, 2017 P.C. : Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned counsel for the Respondent. The application is filed for condonation of delay. There is a delay of 20 days in filing the Family Court Appeal, which is filed against the order passed by the Family Court. The Applicant has vat stated in her civil application that it took time for her to send the papers to her advocate and, therefore, the delay was caused in filing the FCA. On the other hand, a detailed affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of the Respondent. Firstly, it is submitted that the valuable right has accrued in favour of the Respondent after the period of limitation is over. Secondly, it is submitted that there is an unexplained delay of 22 days and not 20 days. Thirdly, it is submitted that so far as the averment regarding the relatives of the Applicant were trying for amicable settlement of the present matrimonial matter is concerned, the said averment is false and no settlement talks have been taken place. Several other grounds have been taken in the reply. It is also pointed out that the Petitioner had remained absent on number of days before the Family Court and lastly, it is submitted that the Applicant is harassing the Respondent by filing civil applications and the petition for divorce filed by the Respondent before the Family Court is now at the last stage. It is submitted that on all these grounds, the civil application filed for condonation of delay may not be allowed. It is a settled position in law that if a plausible explanation is given by the Applicant, who is exercising his/her statutory right of appeal, then this Court shall exercise its discretionary power and condone the delay caused in filing the appeal. In the present case, there is a only delay of 20 days and the Applicant has a right to be heard on merits. Ultimately, while hearing the Applicant and the Respondent, this Court may consider the various submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent. So far (CAM 254 OF 2015) as the delay is concerned, we are inclined to condone the delay of 20 days. Hence, civil application filed for condonation of delay is allowed and disposed of in terms of prayer clause (a). Place the Family Court Appeal on the admission board on 20.2.2017 [ P.R. BORA, J.] [ V.M. KANADE, J.] Vaishali Tikam

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 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 4379 of 2005 M/s. Raymond Ltd. .. Petitioners V/s. Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. V. Shreedharan with Mr. Prakash Shah with Mr. Bharat Raichandani i/b. Mr. Prakash D. Shah for the Petitioners Mr. R.V. Desai, Sr. Counsel with Mr. V.H. Kantharia for the Respondents CORAM : DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 20.07.2005. P.C.:- Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned counsel for the Respondents. Rule. The learned counsel for the Respondents waives service. It is made clear that this Petition is admitted only on the issue of "Res Judicata and Consequential Penalty" and it is also made clear that this Petition is not admitted on the main issue of "Valuation". Hearing expedited. (DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (J.H. BHATIA, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4379 OF 2005 AND WRIT PETITION NO.4516 OF 2005 M/s. Raymond Limited … Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others … Respondents Ms. Ginita Bodani i/b. Economic Laws Practice for Petitioner. Mr. J. B. Mishra for Respondents. CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 27, 2021 P.C. : Heard Ms. Bodani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. It is seen that against the order-in-original bearing No.26/2001- Commissioner M-VI dated 09.10.2001, petitioner had filed appeal bearing No.E/3850/2001 before the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Western Zonal Bench, Mumbai ('CESTAT' hereinafter). Again, assailing the order-in-original bearing No.27/2001- Commissioner M-VI dated 09.10.2001, petitioner had filed appeal bearing No.E/43/02 before the CESTAT. Against the order-in-original No.21/CEX/Commissioner/99 dated 19.05.2019, petitioner had filed yet another appeal before the CESTAT being E/2449/99. First two appeals pertained to the factories of the petitioner situated at Thane whereas the last mentioned appeal pertained to the factory situated at Chhindwara in the state of Madhya Pradesh. All the three appeals were heard together by the CESTAT and were disposed of by the common order dated 08.04.2005. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 08.04.2005, petitioner has preferred Writ Petition No.4379 of 2005 (A.S.) before this Court which is pending. In the meanwhile, CESTAT modified its order dated 08.04.2005 by subsequent order dated 20.06.2005. This subsequent order has been put to challenge by the petitioner before this Court in Writ Petition No.4516 of 2005 (A.S.). Both the matters are listed today on praecipe filed by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that Government of India has introduced the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (briefly 'the scheme' hereinafter) for settlement of central excise and service tax disputes which have since been subsumed under the goods and services tax (GST). Petitioner had submitted declaration in respect of the two orders-in-original dated 09.10.2001 pertaining to the factories at Thane. Additionally, petitioner filed declaration under the scheme in respect of the factory at Chhindwara before the designated committee at Chhindwara. In so far the declarations pertaining to Thane factories are concerned, it is submitted that designated committee, Thane has accepted the tax dues declared by the petitioner pursuant to which petitioner has paid the amount determined by the designed committee. However, in so far the declaration pertaining to Chhindwara factory is concerned, the tax dues determined by the designated committee is much in excess of the dues declared by the petitioner and, therefore, the same has been put to challenge by the petitioner before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur Bench in Writ Petition No.7087 of 2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in so far the disputes pertaining to the orders-in-original both dated 09.10.2001 relatable to the factories at Thane are concerned, the matter has been settled and, therefore, in terms of the scheme, petitioner is required to withdraw the two writ petitions. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the prayer made for withdrawal of the writ petitions. In view of the above, we allow withdrawal of the two writ petitions pertaining to the orders-in-original dated 09.10.2001 relating to the factories at Thane. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of on withdrawal. Refund as per Rules. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.) Minal Parab

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.4379 of 2005 WITH WRIT PETITION No.4516 OF 2007 M/s. Raymond Limited ...Petitioner Vs. Union of India and Ors. ...Respondents Ms. Gihita Bodani i/b. Economic Laws Practice for Petition in WP No.4379 of 2005 and WP 4516 of 2007 CORAM:- G. S.KULKARNI, J. RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE :- JUNE 9, 2023. P. C.: . Both the Petitions have already been disposed of by this Court, by an order dated 27th January, 2021. Hence removed form the board. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) ( G.S. KULKARNI, J. )

Order - Status 2: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 3: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 4: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 5: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 9: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18470 OF 2022 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.434 OF 2002 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : D.S. DESHMUKH REGISTRAR (JUDL II) : 26th September, 2022 DATE Advocate Irvin D'Souza Present on behalf of Shri S.B. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Applicant. Advocate for the Applicant has filed Interim Application to bring on record legal representatives of deceased Respondent No.1 viz. Shri Prakash Ramchandra Kulkarni. The Interim Application is filed in time as per relief granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020. No objections raised by the otherside. Hence, Interim Application is allowed. Applicant to carry out necessary amendment in the title of Second Appeal within 2 weeks. Issue Notice to the newly added legal heirs of deceased Respondent No.1, returnable by 6 (six) weeks (excluding Diwali Vacation). sd/- Registrar (Judl II) dsm

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Appellate Side C.A No. 304 of 2007 in L.P.A. ST No15635 OF 2007 in Writ petition No. 4407 of 1993 Suresh P Tharkar . Applicant. vs Chairman/Secretary Shikshan Prasark Mandal & ors ..Respondents Mr Abhay Nevagi and Mr. Yogesh Paranjape i/b Paras Kuhad and Asso. for applicants. Mr. B.V. Bukhari for respondent No.1. Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for intervener. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J., & Dr.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. Dated: 7th September 2007 P.C.: Heard. Civil application not opposed. Civil Application is made absolute. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Civil application stands disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE Dr. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.

Order - Status 13: dik IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1388 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3098 OF 1995 Namdeo Rao Patil & Anr. ... Applicants. Vs. Smt.Leela d/o Maruti Shankore Kedare & Ors. ... Respondents. Ms.Rohini H.DesaiKalgutkar i/by Smt.B.P.Jakhade, Advocate for the Applicants Mr. Tushar Dahibavkar a/w Ms. Janhavi Naik i/by M/s Dahibavkar & Co., for the Respondent Nos.3,4. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2012. P.C. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants and learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.3,4. Application is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4. Prayer is for restoration of the Writ Petition filed by the present Applicants which was dismissed for nonprosecution by order dated 17th August, 2009. Reasons have been set out in the Application as to why Advocate appointed by the Applicants remained absent. Writ Petition was dismissed only because Advocate appointed by the Applicants remained absent. Hence, case for restoration is made out. Accordingly, the Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b) [ A. S. OKA, J. ]