All Cases

Order - Status 5: Sequeira IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2082 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or Judge's Orders order or Directions and Registrar's Orders Mr.Shriram Kulkarni for the Petitioner. None for Respondents. CORAM : N.M.Jamdar, J. Thursday, 22 September 2016. P.C. : Place the Petition on board on 17 October 2016. If the Petitioner makes an application for adjournment, the learned Civil Judge, Daund, Pune will grant the same. (N.M.Jamdar, J.)

Order - Status 7: dik IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2082 OF 2016 Raghunath Sahebrao Konde ...Petitioner vs Ramakant Dattatraya Deshpande & Ors. ...Respondents ..... Mr S.S.Kulkarni for the Petitioner None for the Respondents CORAM : N. M. JAMDAR, J. 17 OCTOBER, 2016 P.C. : None for the Respondents. S.O. to next CMIS date i.e. 2 March 2017. The Petitioner will give notice of the next date to the Respondents and file an affidavit of service. Earlier liberty to continue till the adjourned date. ..... ( N.M.JAMDAR J. )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2082 OF 2016 Raghunath Sahebrao Konde .. Petitioner V/s. Ramakant Dattatraya Deshpande ... Respondent Mr.Shriram Kulkarni a/w Ms.Madhura Deshmukh for the petitioner CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATED : MAY 2, 2018 P.C. : 1 Heard. 2 By this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner plaintiff is challenging the order dated 19.11.2015 passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune rejecting Petitioner's Application below Exhibit 53 in Regular Civil Suit No.193 of 2010 for amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3 In the present Writ Petition, Petitioner plaintiff initially filed Regular Civil Suit No.193 of 2010 for an order of injunction restraining Respondent original defendant from disturbing his possession in respect of suit property as described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. In that Suit, Respondent defendant filed written statement as well as counter claim. Thereafter Petitioner plaintiff filed Application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on 25.10.2012 for allowing him to carry out amendment and claimed specific performance of agreement dated 06.08.1996 on payment of court fees and also for joining Sou.Chinga alias Kunda Suresh Deshpande as defendant no.5. 4 Bare reading of the Application filed by the plaintiff for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 dated 25.10.2012 shows that though the Suit was filed in 2010, amendment Application was filed on the basis of document executed in the year 1996. Not only, that plaintiff wanted to carry out amendment by converting suit for injunction in Suit for specific performance. 5 It is to be noted that even Apex Court in the matter of North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur vs. Bhagwan Das (D) by Lrs., 2008(8) SCC 511 held that the principles governing the question of granting or disallowing the amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are well settled. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 postulates amendments of pleadings at any time of the proceedings. All amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy two conditions (a) of not working any injustice to the other side; and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real question of controversy between the parties. Amendment should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleadings had been originally corrected, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be Mohite 2/3 compensated in costs. In the case in hand, the original Plaintiff – Petitioner filed simplicitor suit for injunction inspite of having entire knowledge about the earlier agreement dated 06.08.1996 and by way of amendment he wants to convert the same for specific performance of the said agreement dated 06.08.1996. On delay a reference can be made to the Apex Court judgment in the matter of Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. Ramesh Chander (2010) 14 SCC 596. 6 Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned order. 7 Hence, Writ Petition stands rejected. 8 At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner may be permitted to make appropriate application before the Trial Court for joining Sou.Chinga alias Kunda Suresh Deshpande as defendant no.5. 9 Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, liberty granted to the petitioner to make application in the Trial Court for joining Sou.Chinga alias Kunda Suresh Deshpande as party defendant no.5 in Suit within 8 weeks from today. 10 If such application is filed, Trial Court to decide the same on its own merits, after hearing both the sides. ( K.K. TATED, J. )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 744 OF 2012 The State of Maharashtra Applicant vs. Prakash Uttareshwar Nanavare Respondent (orig. Accused) Ms. M.H.Mhatre, APP, for the Applicant-State. CORAM: SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV,J. DATE : 1 st April, 2013. P.C. Admit. Action under Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, I direct that the Court before which the respondent is brought shall forthwith enlarge him on appropriate bail. (SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 7: 914-CAS-1334-2018.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1334 OF 2018 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO.3953 OF 2017 Shri Sahebamin Mashaksaheb Patil … Applicant Vs Smt. Khajabi Peeransaheb Patil ... Respondent … Mr. J. Yadav I/by Mr. A.A.Joshi for the Applicant. CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J. DATE : APRIL 11, 2019 P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 It is an application for condonation of delay of 4 days occurred in filing appeal against the judgment and decree dated 2nd November,2016 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.40 of 2010. That for the reasons stated in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the application, delay is condoned and the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Place this appeal as per the CMIS date. (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1380 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3891 OF 2016 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1380 OF 2016 IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance .. Appellant Vs. Ganesh Rangrao Akurde & Ors. .. Respondents Ms.Varsha Chavan, Advocate for appellant. None for respondents. CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. DATE : 21ST NOVEMBER 2018 P.C. FIRST APPEAL NO. 1380 OF 2016 1 Not on board. Taken upon production. 2 Heard. 3 Admit. 4 Call for record and proceedings. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3891 OF 2016 5 Issue notice of the application, returnable on 30th January 2019. 6 On the applicant depositing the entire amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal within a period of four weeks from today before the Claims Tribunal, Kolhapur, execution proceedings shall remain stayed until further orders. (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

Order - Status 6: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3891 OF 2016 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1380 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's orders Coram, Appearances, court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Ms.Varsha Chavan for the applicant Mr.Vikrant A. Desai for the respondent no.1 CORAM : K. K. TATED, J DATE : APRIL 1,2019 P.C.: . At the request of advocate for the applicant, stand over to 10.04.2019 to enable the Applicant to take instruction whether they complied the order dated 21.11.2018 i.e. to deposit entire awarded amount in the Tribunal. (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3891 OF 2016 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1380 OF 2016 Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Applicant V/s. Ganesh Rangrao Akurde & anr. Respondents Mr. D.S. Joshi I/b. Ms. Varsha Chavan for the applicant. Mr. Vikrant A. Desai for respondent no.1. CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. DATED : 25th JUNE, 2019. P.C.: . Mr. D.S. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant states that the entire compensation as per the judgment and award has been deposited before the Claims Tribunal on 14/12/2018. In the light of said statement, interim relief is granted in terms of prayer clause (a). Civil Application stands disposed of. (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.13748 OF 2018 Vijesh K. Khimasia & Ors. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents --- Mr.P.J. Thorat i/by Mr.S.P.Thorat for the petitioner. Mr.S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for the respondent no.1-State. Mr.P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate and Ms.Manorama Mohanty i/by M/s.S.K. Srivastav & Co. for the respondent nos.2 and 3. CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. DATE : 2nd May 2018 P.C.: . Papers are allowed to be produced at 3.00 p.m. Mr.Thorat, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks liberty to withdraw this petition with liberty to file appropriate proceedings after election of managing body of the respondent no.2 is held on 6th May 2018. Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed. No order as to costs. R.D. DHANUKA, J.

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5479 OF 2008 Mr. L.M.Jamkar ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents Mr. M.L.Patil, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. M.P.Thakur, Addl.G.P. for the Respondents. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & J.H.BHATIA,JJ. DATED: 10th October, 2008. P.C. After an enquiry by the Director of Education of Secondary & Higher Secondary, Maharashtra State, Pune, by his letter dated 24.9.2007 informed the Chief Secretary, Education & Sports Department, to dissolve the society and appoint an administrator. However, on 18.10.2007, he withdrew the letter seeking appointment of an Administrator on the ground that he had received a letter from the society dated 15.10.2007 requesting that the discrepancies shown to the Society had been removed and, therefore, they may be given another opportunity 1 before the matter was decided by the Director. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the letter dated 18.10.2007 on the ground that once the Director had made up his mind after conducting enquiry, he should not have withdraw the letter addressed by him to the Government. We do not feel that the Director of Education has done anything wrong. If some fresh application was made before him by the Society and he was convinced that an opportunity can be given to the Society, he could withdraw the letter earlier written by him in case he has not decided the matter and he will draw his conclusion after giving an opportunity to the Secretary of the Society, who had claimed that he had removed the discrepancies. With these observations, we do not find any merit in this Writ Petition. It is dismissed. However, we direct the Director of Education (Secondary & Higher Secondary) to decide the matter on merits and as expeditiously as possible. (BILAL NAZKI,J.) 2 (J.H.BHATIA,J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1167 OF 2019 = 2019 M/s. Suprim Engineering Versus Petitioner The State of Maharashtra and others WITH Respondents WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.13138 OF 2019 OF 2019 … M/s.Shalaka Polymers Versus Petitioner The State of Maharashtra and others. Respondents Mr. Sachin Gite, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs.S.S.Bhende AGP for Respondent No.1. Ms.G.U.Shinde AGP for State. Adv.Khushbu Marwadi i/b Jay & Co. for the Respondents Nos.2 & 3. CORAM : A.A. SAYED & PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. DATED : 18 OCTOBER 2019 1/1 P.C.: On the request of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the Petitions are allowed to be withdrawn and to stand disposed of. The letters dated 16-10-2019 of the Petitioners to their Advocate are taken on record. (PRAKASH D. NAIK,J.) (A.A.SAYED, J.)