All Cases

Order - Status 6: srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1874 OF 2011 Jogindar Rikai Paswan Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents Mr.D.G.Khamkar for petitioner. Dr.F.R.Shaikh, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. July 27, 2011. P.C. Heard. The learned APP seeks further time of two weeks. Time granted by way of last chance. S.O. for two weeks. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)

Order - Status 11: 10WP.1874-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1874 OF 2011 Jogindara Rikai Paswan. ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another. ..Respondents. .......... Mr.D.G. Khamkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs.M.H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR AND P. D. KODE, JJ. .......... DATED : 22nd AUGUST, 2011. P.C. Learned APP, on instructions, states that the petitioner's case for premature release was duly considered by the appropriate authority and the petitioner has been categorized under Category No.4(d). That decision has been taken on 4th August, 2011. If the said decision is not communicated to the petitioner, we hope and trust that the appropriate authority will do the needful in that behalf. In view of the above, nothing survives for consideration in the matter. Accordingly, Petition is disposed of. (P. D. KODE, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.) 1

Order - Status 5: RUPALI RAJESH WAKODIKAR Digitally signed by RUPALI RAJESH WAKODIKAR Date: 2022.01.25 16:14:33 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 63 OF 2022 Ganesh Milind Todkari ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr. Ritesh M. Thobde for the Applicant. Mr. S.S.Pednekar, A.P.P for the Respondent-State. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 21ST JANUARY, 2022 (Through Video Conferencing) P.C. : Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The applicant has impugned the order dated 29th December, 2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, by which, the learned Judge was pleased to issue non-bailable warrant as against the applicant. The applicant has also impugned another order of the same date i.e. 29th December, 2021, by which, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, rejected the applicant's application seeking anticipatory bail, on the ground, that the said application was not maintainable. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there were sufficient grounds made out by the applicant for cancellation of the nonbailable warrant as well as for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. Learned APP vehemently opposes the application. He submitted that the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant, pursuant to the issuance of non-bailable warrant was not maintainable and as such, was rightly rejected by the Trial Court. He submits that it was always open for the applicant to file an appropriate application seeking cancellation of the non-bailable warrant, issued by the Trial Court, as against the applicant. Perused the papers. From the order dated 29th December, 2021, it appears that on the said date, despite repeated calls, neither the accused nor his Advocate is present. The learned Judge observed that the evidence cannot be recorded in the absence of the applicant/accused and as such, issued non-bailable warrant to the applicant/accused and notice to the surety. After the non-bailable warrant was issued, another application was filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail application. Learned Judge, after observing that the bail bond has been forfeited and non-bailable warrant has already been issued and hence, the application seeking anticipatory bail was not maintainable and accordingly, rejected the same. As far as the order dated 29th December, 2021 is concerned, the observation of the learned Judge in the said order that, an anticipatory bail application was not maintainable, cannot be faulted with, inasmuch as, the applicant ought to have filed an application seeking cancellation of the non-bailable warrant instead of filing an application seeking anticipatory bail. Without going into the merits, for the reasons for nonappearance of the applicant/accused on the said date i.e. on 29th December, 2021, liberty is granted to the applicant to file an appropriate application before the Trial Court seeking cancellation of the non-bailable warrant issued to the applicant. If an application is filed seeking cancellation of the nonbailable warrant issued by the Trial Court on 29th December, 2021, the learned Judge to consider the same on its own merits after hearing the parties. Leaned APP also has no objection if the applicant is permitted to file an appropriate application seeking cancellation of his non-bailable warrant before the Trial Court. The application is accordingly disposed of on the aforesaid terms. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the application and as such, all contentions of the applicant are kept open. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

#VALUE!

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1349 OF 2021 Ramchandra Dhondiba Dhawale ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4987 OF 2021 Govind Krishna Bhanage. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4985 OF 2021 Vinod Shankar Bhatose. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4989 OF 2021 Hariba Tanaji Bhatose. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4986 OF 2021 Shri Narayan Raghu Sapkal. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4988 OF 2021 Shri Ramesh Vithal Gaikwad (Barbar). ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4991 OF 2021 Shri Bajrang Ganpat Jadhav(Rodat). ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1347 OF 2021 Nasima Abdul Deshmukh. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1353 OF 2021 Krishana Haribhau Kadam. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4982 OF 2021 Raziya Bashir Deshmukh.. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1363 OF 2021 Deepak Vithal Sutar. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1350 OF 2021 Lilabai Bhimrao Kadam. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1358 OF 2021 Bhambu Govind Dhawale. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4990 OF 2021 Shri Chandrakant Ramji Jadhav. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4981 OF 2021 Shri Madhukar Sitaram Bhatose. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4983 OF 2021 Ramchandra Dhau Dhawale. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4984 OF 2021 Yogesh Bhivram Jadhav. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. Mr. Dhananjay Chavan a/w. Mr. Vijay R. Garad i/b. Mr. R.A. Choudhari, advocate for Petitioners. Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for State in WP Nos. 1349/2021, 4988/2021, 1353/2021, 1350/2021. Ms. Ashwini A. Purav, AGP for State in WP Nos. 4985/2021, 4991/2021, 1347/2021, 1358/2021. Ms. R.M. Shinde, AGP for State in WP Nos. 4986/2021, 4989/2021, 4990/2021. Ms. M.S.Bane, AGP for State in WP Nos. 4987/2021, 4982/2021, 4990/2021, 4981/2021. Mr. Siddhesh Kalel, AGP for State in WP Nos. 4988/2021, 4983/2021 and 4984/202. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 2, 2021. ARUNA S TALWALKAR Digitally signed by ARUNA S TALWALKAR Date: 2021.09.07 10:52:06 +0530 P.C. 1 In all these petitions, a common order is passed today because it involves the same question; only the factual aspect differs for each petitioner. 2 The petitioners are Project Affected Persons whose lands were acquired for Koyna Dam Project way back in the year 1961. All these petitioners are still waiting for allotment of lands in lieu of the lands, which were acquired. The petitioners have made applications before the authorities as follows :- Sr. No. Name Date of application 1 Shri Ramchandra Dhondiba Dhawale(WP/1349/2021) 29/5/2020 2 Shri Govind Krishna Bhanage(WP/4987/2021) 29/7/2020 3 Shri Vinod Shankar Bhatose(WP/4985/2021) 24/6/2020 4 Shri Hariba Tanaji Bhatose(WP/4989/2021) 24/6/2020 5 Shri Narayan Raghu Sapkal(WP/4986/2021) 24/6/2020 6 Shri Ramesh Vithal Gaikwad(Barbar)(WP/4988/2021) 24/6/2020 7 Shri Bajarang Ganpat Jadhav(RODAT)(WP/4991/2021) 24/6/2020 8 Sou. Nasima Abdul Deshmukh(WP/1347/2021) 29/6/2020 9 Shri Krishana Haribhau Kadam (WP/1353/2021) 29/7/2020 10 Sou. Raziya Bashir Deshmukh(WP/4982/2021) 2/6/2020 11 Shri Deepak Vithal Sutar (WP/1363/2021) 29/7/2020 12 Sou. Lilabai Bhimrao Kadam (WP/1350/2021) 29/5/2020 13 Shri Bhambu Govind Dhawale (WP/1358/2021) 29/5/2020 14 Shri Chandrakant Ramji Jadhav (WP/4990/2021) 24/6/2020 15 Shri Madhukar Sitaram Bhatose(WP/4981/2021) 24/6/2020 16 Shri Ramchandra Dhau Dhawale(WP/4983/2021) 29/5/2020 17 Shri Yogesh Bhivram Jadhav (WP/4984/2021) 5/10/2020 The Petitioners have mentioned in their applications that lands in different survey numbers situated in village Kundevahal, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad be allotted to them. 3 The said applications are still not decided. The petitioners have prayed for allotment of lands. Applications are pending for quite sometime. The petitioners have not been given alternate lands for many years. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are directing the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to decide the applications of the petitioners for allotment of alternate lands of their choice within 8 weeks from today. With these directions, the petitions are disposed of. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J) (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST) NO.649 OF 2019 Vaibhav Dattaram Mantri & Anr. ... Appellants V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Karansingh Rajput and Hrishikesh A., Advocate for the Appellants. ..... Mrs.S.V.Sonawane, APP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State. Mr.Rohan V. Bhosle h/f. Mr.Sandeep Karnik, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 .... CORAM : INDRAJIT MAHANTY & A.M.BADAR JJ. DATED : 2nd MAY 2019. P.C. : 1 Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. The learned APP waive notice for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned Counsel Mr.Sandeep Karnik waives notice for Respondent No.3. 2 In the meantime, as an adinterim measure, we direct that the seal put on the concerned premises be removed and the possession of the premises be handed over to the Appellant. The Appellants shall not part the premises with any other person and shall remain in the premises till further orders passed by this Court in the present proceedings. The Appellants shall abide by any such direction that might have been passed in the present proceedings. This Order shall remain in operation till the next date. 3 Stand over to 3 rd June 2019 for hearing along with the connected matters. 4 All the concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this Order. (A.M.BADAR, J.) (INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 763 OF 2019 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 12/2019, 157/2019(APPST), 207/2019, 208/2019, 514/2019, 580/2019, 606/2019, 664/2019, 729/2019 with APPA. 637/2019, APEAL. 1486/2018, 1523/2018, 1528/2018, 1536/2018, 1537/2018, 1538/2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders __________________ Mr. R. K. Bhagatsingh, for the Appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 763/2019. Mr. Chaitanya Pendse i/b Siddhi Bhosale, for the Appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 514 / 2019. Mr. Niranjan Mundargi & Dinesh Parmar i/b DSR Legal, for Appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 157/2019. Mr. Rajiv Patil, Sr. Counsel a/w Sangeeta Salvi & Muzaffar Baig, for the Appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 12/2019. Mrs. S. V. Sonawane, APP for the Respondent. CORAM : INDRAJIT MAHANTY, & A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : JUNE 3, 2019 PC. On the prayer of the learned counsel 18 - APEAL. 763-19, connected matters for Respondent No. 3, four weeks further time is granted to file reply. On earlier occasion also, time was granted. If no reply is filed by the next date, the matter shall proceed in accordance with law. S.O. 1st July, 2019. Adinterim order to continue till the next date. Sd/ [INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J.] Sd/ [A. M. BADAR, J.] Vinayak Halemath

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.763 OF 2019 VAIBHAV DATTARAM MANTRI AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1486 OF 2018 VASUDHA BHIKAJI BHARATI AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1538 OF 2018 JYOTI VASANT BADHA AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1528 OF 2018 LATA RAJARAM JAGDALE AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1523 OF 2018 MAHESH CHANDRAKANT GAWADE & ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1536 OF 2018 PARAG MUNGALE AND OTHERS )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1537 OF 2018 AJIT B. SHIRODKAR )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS avk 2/10 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.207 OF 2019 DAYANAND N. NAIK AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.208 OF 2019 SURENDRA MARUTI RANE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.12 OF 2019 VISHNU VISHWANATH KARMARKAR )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.514 OF 2019 GANPATI G. BHATTE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.664 OF 2019 SUNIL SHANTARAM KAMATH AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.729 OF 2019 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.637 OF 2019 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.729 OF 2019 SURESH DATTA KAKDE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL (STAMP) NO.157 OF 2019 SUCHETA SUNIL KARNIK AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.580 OF 2019 KUMUDINI DATTATRAY SANT )...APPELLANT V/s. SUBHASH KARKHANIS AND OTHERS )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.606 OF 2019 MITA VIJAY WALA )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS Mr.Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr.Rajput Karansingh, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1486 of 2018. Mr.Rajput Karansingh, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos.207/2019, 208/2019, 608/2019, 1523/2018, 1528/2018, 1536/2018, 1537/2018. Mr.Chaitanya Pendse i/b. Ms.Siddhi Bhosale, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.514 of 2019. Mr.Subodh Desai a/w. Ms.Jayshri Surve, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.664 of 2019. Mr.Dinesh Parmar i/b. DSR Legal, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal (Stamp) No.157 of 2019. Mr.Rajput Karansingh a/w. Mr.Hrishikesh Ambre, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.763 of 2019. Mr.Rajiv Patil, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr.Ameya Tamhane i/b. Ms.Sangita Salvi, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2019. Mr.Mayur Faria, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.580 of 2019. Mr.Sandeep Karnik, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 in all matters except in Criminal Appeal Nos.514 of 2019 and 580 of 2019. Mr.Sandeep Karnik, Advocate for the Respondent No.4 in Criminal Appeal No.514 of 2019 and for Respondent No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.580 of 2019. Mrs.S.V.Sonawane, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM : INDRAJIT MAHANTY & A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 18th JULY 2019 P.C. : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties in this batch of appeals filed under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act (hereinafter referred to as MPID Act). In these appeals, orders dated 26th October 2018 passed in Miscellaneous Application Nos.840 of 2018, 841 of 2018 and 842 of 2018 arising out of MPID Case No.5 of 2001 have come to be challenged. In this batch of applications, it appears from the impugned order, that these three applications were filed by the applicantaccused/respondent no.3. Directions were issued by the Designated court inter alia allowing the said applications and directing respondent no.2 (Competent Authority) with the assistance of respondent no.1 i.e. the State of Maharashtra, EOW, Unit VII, to take physical possession of rented premises from various tenants/purchasers of tenanted rights/premises locked. 2 At the very outset, senior learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the respondent no.3/applicantavk 7/10 accused had filed such an application did not possess the necessary "locus standi" and further without making the appellants herein (tenants), who are necessary parties, parties in the application before the Designated court. On perusal of the impugned order and on query to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3/applicantaccused, he fairly admitted that the present appellants were necessary parties, since directions had been sought in the said applications for their removal and for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises from them. 3 After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, without entering into the merits of the other contentions placed, we are prima facie satisfied that the present batch of applications, at the behest of respondent no.3/applicantaccused ought not to have been entertained by the Designated court, for the simple reason that necessary parties against whom directions had been sought had not been impleaded in the said applications. We are constrained to record our concern as to how the Designated court proceeded to pass the impugned order, without avk 8/10 ensuring that the parties who were likely to be adversely impacted, upon the directions sought for being issued. 4 Accordingly, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned orders on the ground that the applicant(accused) had failed to implead necessary parties in his application before the Designated court. Consequently, we set aside the order dated 26th October 2018. 5 We, further, grant liberty to the respondent no.3, if he is so advised, to initiate appropriate proceedings by making all necessary parties, party to such proceedings, but at the same time, leave open the issues raised by the appellants herein, questioning the locus standi of the applicantaccused/respondent no.3 for initiating such a proceeding. 6 Before parting, we hereby direct that the order of the Designated court relating to deposit of rent with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and/or other directions must be adhered to and complied by the appellant. 7 We further direct that by various interim orders passed from time to time, this court had directed continuation of possession in the hands of the appellants subject to deposit of rent with the Economic Offences Wing. We observe that those directions shall continue subject to any modification that may be made by the Designated court from time to time, if such circumstance arise. 8 In terms of the aforesaid directions, all appeals stand disposed. With disposal of these appeals, all pending applications also stand disposed off. (A. M. BADAR, J.) (INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.763 OF 2019 VAIBHAV DATTARAM MANTRI AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1486 OF 2018 VASUDHA BHIKAJI BHARATI AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1538 OF 2018 JYOTI VASANT BADHA AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1528 OF 2018 LATA RAJARAM JAGDALE AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1523 OF 2018 MAHESH CHANDRAKANT GAWADE & ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1536 OF 2018 PARAG MUNGALE AND OTHERS )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1537 OF 2018 AJIT B. SHIRODKAR )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS avk 2/10 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.207 OF 2019 DAYANAND N. NAIK AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.208 OF 2019 SURENDRA MARUTI RANE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.12 OF 2019 VISHNU VISHWANATH KARMARKAR )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.514 OF 2019 GANPATI G. BHATTE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.664 OF 2019 SUNIL SHANTARAM KAMATH AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.729 OF 2019 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.637 OF 2019 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.729 OF 2019 SURESH DATTA KAKDE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL (STAMP) NO.157 OF 2019 SUCHETA SUNIL KARNIK AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.580 OF 2019 KUMUDINI DATTATRAY SANT )...APPELLANT V/s. SUBHASH KARKHANIS AND OTHERS )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.606 OF 2019 MITA VIJAY WALA )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS Mr.Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr.Rajput Karansingh, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1486 of 2018. Mr.Rajput Karansingh, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos.207/2019, 208/2019, 608/2019, 1523/2018, 1528/2018, 1536/2018, 1537/2018. Mr.Chaitanya Pendse i/b. Ms.Siddhi Bhosale, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.514 of 2019. Mr.Subodh Desai a/w. Ms.Jayshri Surve, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.664 of 2019. Mr.Dinesh Parmar i/b. DSR Legal, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal (Stamp) No.157 of 2019. Mr.Rajput Karansingh a/w. Mr.Hrishikesh Ambre, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.763 of 2019. Mr.Rajiv Patil, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr.Ameya Tamhane i/b. Ms.Sangita Salvi, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2019. Mr.Mayur Faria, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.580 of 2019. Mr.Sandeep Karnik, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 in all matters except in Criminal Appeal Nos.514 of 2019 and 580 of 2019. Mr.Sandeep Karnik, Advocate for the Respondent No.4 in Criminal Appeal No.514 of 2019 and for Respondent No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.580 of 2019. Mrs.S.V.Sonawane, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM : INDRAJIT MAHANTY & A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 18th JULY 2019 P.C. : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties in this batch of appeals filed under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act (hereinafter referred to as MPID Act). In these appeals, orders dated 26th October 2018 passed in Miscellaneous Application Nos.840 of 2018, 841 of 2018 and 842 of 2018 arising out of MPID Case No.5 of 2001 have come to be challenged. In this batch of applications, it appears from the impugned order, that these three applications were filed by the applicantaccused/respondent no.3. Directions were issued by the Designated court inter alia allowing the said applications and directing respondent no.2 (Competent Authority) with the assistance of respondent no.1 i.e. the State of Maharashtra, EOW, Unit VII, to take physical possession of rented premises from various tenants/purchasers of tenanted rights/premises locked. 2 At the very outset, senior learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the respondent no.3/applicantavk 7/10 accused had filed such an application did not possess the necessary "locus standi" and further without making the appellants herein (tenants), who are necessary parties, parties in the application before the Designated court. On perusal of the impugned order and on query to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3/applicantaccused, he fairly admitted that the present appellants were necessary parties, since directions had been sought in the said applications for their removal and for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises from them. 3 After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, without entering into the merits of the other contentions placed, we are prima facie satisfied that the present batch of applications, at the behest of respondent no.3/applicantaccused ought not to have been entertained by the Designated court, for the simple reason that necessary parties against whom directions had been sought had not been impleaded in the said applications. We are constrained to record our concern as to how the Designated court proceeded to pass the impugned order, without avk 8/10 ensuring that the parties who were likely to be adversely impacted, upon the directions sought for being issued. 4 Accordingly, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned orders on the ground that the applicant(accused) had failed to implead necessary parties in his application before the Designated court. Consequently, we set aside the order dated 26th October 2018. 5 We, further, grant liberty to the respondent no.3, if he is so advised, to initiate appropriate proceedings by making all necessary parties, party to such proceedings, but at the same time, leave open the issues raised by the appellants herein, questioning the locus standi of the applicantaccused/respondent no.3 for initiating such a proceeding. 6 Before parting, we hereby direct that the order of the Designated court relating to deposit of rent with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and/or other directions must be adhered to and complied by the applicantaccused/respondent no.3. avk 9/10 7 We further direct that by various interim orders passed from time to time, this court had directed continuation of possession in the hands of the appellants subject to deposit of rent with the Economic Offences Wing. We observe that those directions shall continue subject to any modification that may be made by the Designated court from time to time, if such circumstance arise. 8 In terms of the aforesaid directions, all appeals stand disposed. With disposal of these appeals, all pending applications also stand disposed off. (A. M. BADAR, J.) (INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J.)

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.763 OF 2019 VAIBHAV DATTARAM MANTRI AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1486 OF 2018 VASUDHA BHIKAJI BHARATI AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1538 OF 2018 JYOTI VASANT BADHA AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1528 OF 2018 LATA RAJARAM JAGDALE AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1523 OF 2018 MAHESH CHANDRAKANT GAWADE & ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1536 OF 2018 PARAG MUNGALE AND OTHERS )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1537 OF 2018 AJIT B. SHIRODKAR )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.207 OF 2019 DAYANAND N. NAIK AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.208 OF 2019 SURENDRA MARUTI RANE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.12 OF 2019 VISHNU VISHWANATH KARMARKAR )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.514 OF 2019 GANPATI G. BHATTE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.664 OF 2019 SUNIL SHANTARAM KAMATH AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL (STAMP) NO.157 OF 2019 SUCHETA SUNIL KARNIK AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.580 OF 2019 KUMUDINI DATTATRAY SANT )...APPELLANT V/s. SUBHASH KARKHANIS AND OTHERS )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.606 OF 2019 MITA VIJAY WALA )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS Mr.Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr.Rajput Karansingh, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1486 of 2018. Mr.Rajput Karansingh, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos.207/2019, 208/2019, 608/2019, 1523/2018, 1528/2018, 1536/2018, 1537/2018. Mr.Chaitanya Pendse i/b. Ms.Siddhi Bhosale, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.514 of 2019. Mr.Subodh Desai a/w. Ms.Jayshri Surve, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.664 of 2019. Mr.Dinesh Parmar i/b. DSR Legal, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal (Stamp) No.157 of 2019. Mr.Rajput Karansingh a/w. Mr.Hrishikesh Ambre, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.763 of 2019. Mr.Rajiv Patil, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr.Ameya Tamhane i/b. Ms.Sangita Salvi, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2019. Mr.Mayur Faria, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.580 of 2019. Mr.Sandeep Karnik, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 in all matters except in Criminal Appeal Nos.514 of 2019 and 580 of 2019. Mr.Sandeep Karnik, Advocate for the Respondent No.4 in Criminal Appeal No.514 of 2019 and for Respondent No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.580 of 2019. Mrs.S.V.Sonawane, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM : INDRAJIT MAHANTY & A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 18th JULY 2019 P.C. : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties in this batch of appeals filed under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act (hereinafter referred to as MPID Act). In these appeals, orders dated 26th October 2018 passed in Miscellaneous Application Nos.840 of 2018, 841 of 2018 and 842 of 2018 arising out of MPID Case No.5 of 2001 have come to be challenged. In this batch of applications, it appears from the impugned order, that these three applications were filed by the applicantaccused/respondent no.3. Directions were issued by the Designated court inter alia allowing the said applications and directing respondent no.2 (Competent Authority) with the assistance of respondent no.1 i.e. the State of Maharashtra, EOW, Unit VII, to take physical possession of rented premises from various tenants/purchasers of tenanted rights/premises locked. 2 At the very outset, senior learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the respondent no.3/applicantavk 7/10 accused had filed such an application did not possess the necessary "locus standi" and further without making the appellants herein (tenants), who are necessary parties, parties in the application before the Designated court. On perusal of the impugned order and on query to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3/applicantaccused, he fairly admitted that the present appellants were necessary parties, since directions had been sought in the said applications for their removal and for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises from them. 3 After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, without entering into the merits of the other contentions placed, we are prima facie satisfied that the present batch of applications, at the behest of respondent no.3/applicantaccused ought not to have been entertained by the Designated court, for the simple reason that necessary parties against whom directions had been sought had not been impleaded in the said applications. We are constrained to record our concern as to how the Designated court proceeded to pass the impugned order, without avk 8/10 ensuring that the parties who were likely to be adversely impacted, upon the directions sought for being issued. 4 Accordingly, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned orders on the ground that the applicant(accused) had failed to implead necessary parties in his application before the Designated court. Consequently, we set aside the order dated 26th October 2018. 5 We, further, grant liberty to the respondent no.3, if he is so advised, to initiate appropriate proceedings by making all necessary parties, party to such proceedings, but at the same time, leave open the issues raised by the appellants herein, questioning the locus standi of the applicantaccused/respondent no.3 for initiating such a proceeding. 6 Before parting, we hereby direct that the order of the Designated court relating to deposit of rent with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and/or other directions must be adhered to and complied by the applicantaccused/respondent no.3. avk 9/10 7 We further direct that by various interim orders passed from time to time, this court had directed continuation of possession in the hands of the appellants subject to deposit of rent with the Economic Offences Wing. We observe that those directions shall continue subject to any modification that may be made by the Designated court from time to time, if such circumstance arise. 8 In terms of the aforesaid directions, all appeals stand disposed. With disposal of these appeals, all pending applications also stand disposed off. (A. M. BADAR, J.) (INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J.)

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.763 OF 2019 VAIBHAV DATTARAM MANTRI AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1486 OF 2018 VASUDHA BHIKAJI BHARATI AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1538 OF 2018 JYOTI VASANT BADHA AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1528 OF 2018 LATA RAJARAM JAGDALE AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1523 OF 2018 MAHESH CHANDRAKANT GAWADE & ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1536 OF 2018 PARAG MUNGALE AND OTHERS )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1537 OF 2018 AJIT B. SHIRODKAR )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.207 OF 2019 DAYANAND N. NAIK AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.208 OF 2019 SURENDRA MARUTI RANE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.12 OF 2019 VISHNU VISHWANATH KARMARKAR )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.514 OF 2019 GANPATI G. BHATTE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.664 OF 2019 SUNIL SHANTARAM KAMATH AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.729 OF 2019 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.637 OF 2019 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.729 OF 2019 SURESH DATTA KAKDE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT WITH avk 4/6 CRIMINAL APPEAL (STAMP) NO.157 OF 2019 SUCHETA SUNIL KARNIK AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.580 OF 2019 KUMUDINI DATTATRAY SANT )...APPELLANT V/s. SUBHASH KARKHANIS AND OTHERS )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.606 OF 2019 MITA VIJAY WALA )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS Ms.Siddhi Bhosale, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.514 of 2019. Mr.Dinesh Parmar i/b. DSR Legal, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal (Stamp) No.157 of 2019. Mr.Subodh Desai a/w. Ms.Jayshri Surve, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.664 of 2019. Mr.P.Pawar i/b. Mr.Rajput Karansingh, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos.1486 of 2018, 207/2019, 208/2019, 608/2019, 1523/2018, 1528/2018, 1536/2018, 1537/2018 and 763 of 2019. Mr.Sandeep Karnik, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 in all matters except in Criminal Appeal Nos.514 of 2019 and 580 of 2019. Mr.Sandeep Karnik, Advocate for the Respondent No.4 in Criminal Appeal No.514 of 2019 and for Respondent No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.580 of 2019. Mrs.S.V.Sonawane, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM : INDRAJIT MAHANTY & A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 24th JULY 2019 P.C. : 1 Motion is moved for speaking to minutes of the order dated 18th July 2019. In the last line in paragraph six, inadvertently the words "applicantaccused/respondent no.3" are typed instead of the word "appellant". It be corrected accordingly. With this, motion stands disposed off accordingly. (A. M. BADAR, J.) (INDRAJIT MAHANTY, 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. ]