All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2431 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1529 OF 2009 Krishna Tukaram Shete Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents Shri L.M.Acharya, advocate for applicant. Smt. G.P.Mulekar, AGP for respondents. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.A.SAYED, JJ DATED:- JULY 16, 2010 P.C. Considering issue raised in this application, we think it appropriate that reply ought to have been filed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, respondent herein. Learned AGP seeks time to file reply within two weeks from today. Accordingly list this application on 30th July, 2010. Advance copy of the reply affidavit be made over to the Counsel for the Applicant. (A.A.SAYED, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2431 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4071 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1529 OF 2009 ...... Krishna Tukaram Shete ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.R.S.Shekhawat i/b Mr.L.M.Acharya for Applicant. Mrs.G.P.Mulekar, A.G.P. for Respondents. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED:- AUGUST 5, 2010. P.C. Request for adjournment is made at the instance of Applicant on the ground that the Advocate on record is out of station. No leave note has been filed. In such situation, the matter ought to proceed. However, by way of indulgence, we defer the hearing of this matter to 16th August 2010. It is made clear that no request for adjournment or keeping back the matter at the instance of Applicant shall be entertained on the next date of hearing. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2431 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1529 OF 2009 . Mr.Krishna Shete .. Applicant v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Others ..Respondents Mr.L.M.Acharya, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.A.R.Patil, AGP for the Respondents CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED : 19th November , 2010 P.C. : The applicant had filed Special Civil Suit No.157 of 2005 claiming recovery of interest on the award amount of Rs.51,16,492/- and the said suit has been decreed for a total sum of Rs.92,78,008/- which amount has been already deposited by the State Government as directed in First Appeal No.1529 of 2009 which impugns the said decree. By this application, the plaintiff prays for leave to withdraw the amount deposited by the State Government and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are not inclined to allow this application. Admittedly, the acquired land admeasuring about 4766.76 sq. meters located within the municipal area of Bhor, District-Pune was reserved in the development plan for the Forest Office and Nursery and its possession was taken over on 28.1.1983. The award came to be passed on or about 7.4.1998 determining the compensation payable to the plaintiff at Rs.51,16,492/- and the said amount has been paid to the plaintiff on 30.9.1998. While allowing the Special Suit by the impugned decree dated 18.4.2009, the trial court has granted simple interest at 9% on the award amount from 7.4.1998 to 30.9.1998, with which we do not find any fault atleast at this stage. However, interest has been granted at 8% per annum on Rs.51,16,492/- w.e.f. 28.1.1993 to 7.4.1998 and from 7.4.1998 to 5.1.2009 further interest has been awarded at 6% per annum. As noted earlier the amount deposited by the Government has been invested in a fixed deposit with a nationalised bank for a period of three years and even if we may not prima facie find fault in awarding interest of Rs.2,21,972/- for the period from 7.4.1998 to 13.9.1998, we are not inclined at this stage to disturb the investment. At the best First Appeal No.1529 of 2009 can be heard and decided expeditiously. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff will submit private paper book within four weeks and as soon as the appeal is ready for final hearing will take out a motion for fixing the date. Hence the stay application is rejected. [R.Y.GANOO, J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.]

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3494 OF 2005 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1215 OF 2005 Yuraj Deepak Thorat & Anr. .... Applicants $V/s$ Gulabrao Shankarrao Thorat & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. Ratnesh Dubey, i/by Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, for the Applicants. None for the Respondents. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.J. : $6^{TH}$ APRIL, 2015. DATE $P.C.$ : In view of the report of the Bailiff, which is dated 4 th December, 2007 1. stating that the 5 th Respondent is dead, this Civil Application as well as the First Appeal stand abated as against the 5 th Respondent. $mathbf{2}$ On 19 th September, 2005, ad-interim relief was granted by this Court in the present application. Though 1 st to 4 th Respondents are duly served, none appears for them. Hence, limited ad-interim relief granted on 19 th Dixit September, 2005 deserves to be continued. Accordingly, Civil Application is disposed of by directing that the ad-interim relief granted on 19th September, 2005 shall continue to operate as an interim relief. [DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 624 OF 2016 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 429 OF 2003 Mr. Arvind Dagduram Chopda (since deceased through legal heirs) 1a. Smt. Kanchan Arvind Chopda & Ors. … Applicants. V/s. Kisan Yesu Kotwal and Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. S.S. Patwardhan i/b. A.L. Gore for the Applicants. Mr. V.R. Kasale i/b. Ram & Co. for Respondents 1 to 7. CORAM : N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 4 APRIL, 2016. P.C. : Not on board. Taken on production board by way of praecipe. Place the Civil Application on board on 15 April 2016. Office remark shows that the next CMIS date is 15 April 2016, however, the Application is still under objections. Registry to explain as to how the CMIS date is assigned before the office objections are removed. Office objections to be removed before the next date. (N.M. JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 7: Sequeira IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 624 OF 2016 in SECOND APPEAL NO. 429 OF 2003 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's order or Court's or Judge's Orders Directions and Registrar's Orders Mr.S.S.Patwardhan i/b Mr.A.L.Gore, for Applicants. Mr.V.R.Kasale i/b Ram & Co., for Respondents Nos.1 to 7. CORAM: N.M. JAMDAR, J. Friday, 15 April 2016. P.C.: The learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 has no objection for granting prayers made in the Application in view of the statement made by the Applicants in para 7 of the Application. The learned counsel for the Applicants states that he has served the other Respondents and seeks time to file affidavit of service. The remaining Respondents are represented through the Advocate, who are not present. Stand over to 4 May 2016. The Appellants will give one more notice to the Advocate for the Respondent Nos.8 to 13. (N.M.Jamdar, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 429 OF 2003 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 624 OF 2016 Arvind Dagduram Chopda (since deceased through legal heirs) 1A. Smt.Kanchan Arvind Chopda & ors. … Appellants/Applicants v/s Kisan Yesu Kotwal (since deceased) 1A. Bhimaji K. Kotwal & ors. … Respondents Mr.A.L. Gore for the appellants/applicants. Mr.V.R.Kasle i/by Ram & Co. for Resp. Nos.1 to 7. Mr.L.S. Gaikwad i/by M.R.Bhope for Resp. Nos.10 to 13. Coram: N.M. Jamdar, J. Dated: 4 May 2016 P.C.: Learned counsel for the Appellants states that he has received instructions to withdraw the appeal. 2 The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the civil application. ( N. M. JAMDAR, J. )

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2092 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.9059 OF 2005 ------------------------------------:---------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court's or Judge's orders. coram, appearances, Court's orders : or directions and Registrar's : orders. : ------------------------------------:----------------------------------- Ms Bhalekar,i/b Mr U.P.Warunjikar, for the respondent. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATED: 24.08.2006 P.C. : The applicant has prayed for fixed date of hearing of the main writ petition. The writ petition has yet not admitted. It is open for the applicant to seek circulation for admission of the writ petition. The prayer made in the civil application cannot be granted. It is disposed of as such. (D.B.BHOSALE,J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1669 OF 2004 M/s.Standard Industries Ltd. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.O.A.Siddiqui for the petitioners. Mr.R.Y.Mirza APP for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 27TH AUGUST, 2004 P.C.: . Heard Mr.Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Mirza, learned A.P.P. for the respondent. Mr.Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if they are given liberty to approach the concerned Magistrate for appropriate relief. This application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners as prayed for. If such application seeking relief as prayed for in the instant petition is filed by the petitioners, same may be considered on merits and disposed of expeditiously. The application is disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.370 OF 2004 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1440 OF 2003. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 370 OF 2004 Sunil Shridhar Ghadashi ..Appellant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1440 OF 2003. Chandrakant @ Shekhar Yashwant Pawar ..Appellant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr. Arfan Sait, Appointed Advocate for the appellant. Mr. D.S. Mhaispurkar, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State CORAM : S.B. MHASE & ANOOP V.MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 22ND NOVEMBER, 2004. P.C. . Heard. Delay condoned. It is brought to our notice at the time of admission of the appeals, that the original accused No.1 have preferred appeal bearing No. 748/2000 and the said appeal has been dismissed by this Court on merit. In these circumstances, we have admitted this appeal to the extent of accused Nos. 2 and 3 only. Admit. Mr. Mhaispurkar, A.P.P. waives the service of notice on behalf of respondents. S.O. to one week. . Parties concerned to act on a simple copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Registry of this Court. [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.] [ S.B.MHASE, J.]

Order - Status 5: suresh 908-WP-2265.2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE – CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2265 OF 2014 Sakshi Naresh Nagwani @ Neetu Kanayalal Gursahani .... Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. J.S. Kini i/b Mr. Suresh Dubey for the Petitioner. Ms M.H. Mhatre, APP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM: V.M. KANADE & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED: JULY 01, 2014 P.C: Issue notice before admission to the respondents, returnable on 3072014. The learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. In the meantime, there shall be adinterim relief in terms of prayer clause (b). (P.D. KODE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2265 OF 2014 Sakshi N. Nagwani ..Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Suresh Dubey for the Petitioner. Mr. Sunedh Kale a/w. Ms. K.H.Rajani for the respondent no.3. Mr. K.V.Saste, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI,JJ. DATED : JANUARY 12, 2015. P.C. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the MECR No.3 of 2013 registered at Rabale Police Station, in pursuance of the order under Sec.156(3) issued by the learned Magistrate in OA No.256 of 2013. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent no.3, due to the differences between the parties, respondent no.3 has filed criminal case against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 420, 384, 406, 504, 506, 407 r/w. 34 of IPC and under Section 67A of the Information Technology Act. The learned Judge passed an order under Section 156(3) and thereafter MECR in question is registered against the petitioner. The differences and disputes between the parties were thereafter settled by intervention of mediator and accordingly consent terms were entered into between the parties in Criminal Application No. 743 of 2014. In para 14 and para 22 of the said consent terms both the parties agreed to withdraw the allegations made against each other. The respondent no.3 has also given no objection for quashing of the said MECR. The respondent no.3 also has filed an affidavit dated 12.1.2015. In para 3 he has given no objection for quashing and setting aside the said MECR in pursuance of the consent terms dated 23.12.2014. The respondent no.3 is personally present in the court. He states that he has gone through the consent terms and affidavit and states that he has no objection for quashing the said MECR. He further states that he is giving no objection without any influence or coercion from anybody. In the above facts and circumstances, and in the light of the decision in the case of in B. S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana reported [AIR 2003 SC 1386] wherein it is held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.". It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of complaint, it transpires that the allegations are totally personal in nature. There is no element of public law involved in the crime. In these circumstances, and especially, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, [(2008) 4 SCC 582] , we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision as well as in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014 AIR SCW 2065] we are of the considered view that there is no impediment in quashing the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)

Order - Status 11: SSK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2265 OF 2014 Sakshi Naresh Nagwani ….Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and ors. ….Respondents None for the petitioner. Ms. K. H. Rajani, advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM : RANJIT MORE & ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. DATED : 5th MARCH, 2015. P.C.: The matter is placed on board for speaking to the minutes of order dated 12th January, 2015. It is submitted that certain inadvertent mistakes have crept in the said order. The said mistakes are rectified and are, accordingly, read and substituted as under : In paragraph 1, instead of "OA No.256 of 2013", it be read and substituted as "OMA No.658 of 2013". In paragraph 2, line 4, "Section 407" be read and substituted "Section 497". In cause-title as well as in paragraphs 2 and 4, the words "respondent No.3", be read and substituted as "respondent No.4". The order dated 12th January, 2015, stands corrected accordingly. (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.) Shubhada S Kadam 1/1