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. 289 OF 2016 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL (St.) No. 14685 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. Segandh B. Deshmukh, for the Applicant / Appellant. CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & Mrs. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 26, 2016 PC. Issue notice before admission R/o. 5th December, 2016. Hamdast permitted. Sd/- [V. M. KANADE, J.] Sd/- [Mrs. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J.] ________________________________________________________________ VPH Vinayak Halemath

Order - Status 6: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C.A.M. NO.289 OF 2016 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL ST. NO.14685 OF 2016 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 : R.M. JOSHI I/c.REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 25th November, 2016 1 week granted for furnishing copy. sd/­ I/c.Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 25.11.16

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C.A.M. NO.289 OF 2016 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL ST. NO.14685 OF 2016 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 : 09th December, 2016 S.O. to 1 week. sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 09.12.16

Order - Status 11: (CAM 289 of 2016) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION No. 289 OF 2016 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL (ST) No.14685 OF 2016 Smt. Sarika Badal Shinde ...Applicant Vs. Shri Badal Vijay Shinde ...Respondent *********** Mr. Sugandh B. Deshmukh for Applicant Mr. Abhijit Patil i/b. Mr. Sushant S. Prabhune for Respondent *********** CORAM : R.M. BORDE & A.S. GADKARI, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 04, 2017 P.C. : This is an application, seeking condonation of delay of 60 days in filing the present Family Court Appeal. The decree passed by the Family Court appears to have been (CAM 289 of 2016) issued in the absence of the Appellant. In this view of the matter, the delay of 60 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Civil application for condonation of delay is allowed and disposed of. Place the Family Court Appeal for consideration on the Board on 11.1.2017 [ A.S. GADKARI, J.] [ R.M. BORDE, J.] Vaishali Tikam

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4736 OF 2004 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. ... ... .... ... Petitioner. Versus Manny C. D'Mello & Ors. ... ... Respondents. Mr. M. D. Sidia with Ms. D. S. Retiwala i/by Rustamji & Ginwala for the Petitioner. Mr. Hitesh Jain for Respondent No.1. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATED : 29TH APRIL, 2005. P.C.: Rule. Having regard to the dealership agreement dated 12th March, 1999 between the petitioner and the respondent No.1, it is clear that the respondent No.1 was inducted into the premises as dealer vide clause 2 for the purposes mentioned therein. The Petitioner itself is a Lessee of the property leased out to it by the Natu family. Clearly, this is a dispute arising out of the dealership agreement vide clause 2 thereof and is within the scope of Clause 66 which is the arbitration clause. Having regard to the admitted position that the arbitration clause has been invoked by the respondent No.1, prima facie case is made out for interim stay of the impugned order passed in a suit filed by the Respondents. Prima facie, there is no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 is a dispute between the landlord and tenant and therefore, the suit is maintainable. Even the appellate court has observed that the respondent was inducted by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner i.e. M/s. Caltex India Limited. The Respondent No.1 has himself pleaded that he has been inducted by M/s. Caltex India Limited as a dealer, vide para 4 of the plaint. There is no cogent and reliable evidence at this stage to suggest that the respondents were inducted by the Lessor of the property in question i.e. Natu family, who is the landlord of the petitioner, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. Hence, there shall be ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (c), which reads thus: (c) that pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, the impugned judgment dated 11th February, 2003 be stayed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner requests for stay of this interim order. Prayer is rejected. Sd/- (S. A. BOBDE, J. )

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2432 OF 2012 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2435 OF 2012 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 14663 OF 2012 New India Assurance Co Ltd .. Applicant Vs Dinesh Bhikuram Jaiswal & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Ramesh K. Cheulkar for the Applicant CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 25th JULY, 2012. P.C.: Issue notice to the Respondents returnable on 29th August, 2012. There will be ad-interim stay of execution and operation of the impugned judgment and award subject to condition of the Applicant depositing the entire compensation amount with the Tribunal within a period of five weeks from today. If the amount is not deposited within the stipulated time, ad-interim stay will stand vacated without further reference to the Court. [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J ] jfoanz vkacsjdj

Order - Status 11: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2432/2012 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.14663/2012 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders Appearances, court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. R. K. Cheulkar for the applicant. Mr. T. J. Mendon for respondent No.1. CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 27, 2013 P.C.: The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the application for restoration of appeal against respondent No.2 is ready and he will file the same in the Registry on or before 03/10/2013. S.O. to 04/10/2013. JUDGE

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE – CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2432 OF 2012 IN FIRST APPEAL [STAMP] NO.14663 OF 2012 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .... Applicant Vs. Dinesh Bhikuram Jaiswal & Anr. .... Respondents Mr. Ramesh K. Cheulkar for the Applicant. Mr. T.J. Mendon for Respondent No.1. CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATED: APRIL 16, 2014 P.C: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to take out appropriate application for substituted service on respondent No.2. Same is granted. The applicant to take out appropriate application for substituted service on respondent No.2 on or before 20-6-2014, failing which the civil application shall stand S.O. to 20-6-2014. (K.K. TATED, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4246 OF 2005 Pandurang Narayan Wakase. Applicant. Versus. The State of Maharashtra. Respondent. Shri V.V.Purwant for the Applicant. Shri R.Y.Mirza, A.P.P.for the Respondent. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATED : 22nd July, 2005. P.C.: Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant and the learned A.P.P. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that there was absolutely no intention on the part of the Applicant to kill the victim and in fact none of the injuries are on the vital parts of the body of the victim. The learned A.P.P. pointed out the material against the Applicant. The F.I.R. discloses that when the victim was at the place of incident, the Applicant went back to his house and brought a sickle and assaulted the victim. The medical report indicates that three fingers of the victim were chopped of and in fact there was traumatic amputation of three fingers. There is a stab wound on the right eye. It is obvious that the attempt made by the Applicant is deliberate as according to the prosecution story he went back to his house and brought the sickle. Considering the gravity of the offence it is difficult to take a different view than the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence the Application is rejected. The trial is expedited and the same should be concluded by treating it as a High Court expedited trial. Judge.

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13191 OF 2023 In CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION STAMP NO. 13129 OF 2023 Mr. Yang Yau Shin ....PETITIONER V/S Sonal Anuj Mehra ....RESPONDENT Mr. Amar Gharte for Applicant. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 14th July, 2023 P.C. : At the request of the learned Counsel for the Appellant(s)/ Applicant(s) / Petitioner(s) / Respondent No. stand over to 21/07/2023. Ad-interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13191 OF 2023 In Civil Revision Application STAMP NO. 13129 OF 2023 Mr. Yang Yau Shin ....PETITIONER V/S Sonal Anuj Mehra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 21st July, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 15/09/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13191 OF 2023 In Civil Revision Application STAMP NO. 13129 OF 2023 Mr. Yang Yau Shin ....PETITIONER V/S Sonal Anuj Mehra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH J DATE : 23rd October, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 06/11/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13191 OF 2023 In CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION STAMP NO. 13129 OF 2023 Mr. Yang Yau Shin ....PETITIONER V/S Sonal Anuj Mehra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH J DATE : 6th November, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 11/12/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.13191 OF 2023 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.13129 OF 2023 Yang Yau Shin Applicant. V/s. Sonal Anuj Mehra Respondent. Mr. Amar Gharte a/w. Ms. Aishwarya D. for the Applicant. CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 11th DECEMBER, 2023. P.C.:- Issue notice to respondent returnable on 8/1/2024. In addition to Court notice, Applicant to serve the respondent by private notice and file affidavit of service before next date. Stand over to 8/1/2024. (SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.)

Order - Status 15: KANCHAN VINOD MAYEKAR Digitally signed by KANCHAN VINOD MAYEKAR Date: 2024.01.09 13:26:12 +0530 28 - CRAST 13129 OF 2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO. 13129 OF 2023 ALONGWITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13191 OF 2023 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO. 13129 OF 2023 Mr. Yang Yau Shin ….. Petitioner/ Applicant VERSUS Sonal Anuj Mehra ….. Respondent Mr.Amar Gharte a/w. Ms.Aishwarya Dangle for the Petitioner/Applicant. Ms.Sonal A.Mehra – Respondent present in person. CORAM: RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE : 8 JANUARY, 2024 P.C. :- After the matter was heard for some time, learned counsel appearing for the applicant on instruction from his client seeks leave to withdraw the interim application for condonation of delay along with Civil Revision Application. Interim application is disposed of as withdrawn. KVM So also, the Civil Revision Application is also disposed of. The parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. [RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13191 OF 2023 In CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION STAMP NO. 13129 OF 2023 Mr. Yang Yau Shin ....PETITIONER V/S Sonal Anuj Mehra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH S. PATIL J DATE : 11th January, 2024 P.C. : Wrongly on board. Remove from the Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.5912 of 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Ms.Mamta Sharma i/b Lalit Jain for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 10th August 2010. P.C. : Colleague of Mr.Jain, advocate for the petitioner states that Mr.Jain is not well and prays for an adjournment. S.O for two weeks. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 20: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5912 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. L.V. Jain for the Petitioner. Mr. Amet Shete for Respondent No.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 28th JUNE, 2011 P.C.: Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the writ petition unconditionally. The petition is disposed of as withdrawn. ..... (D.G.KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3060 OF 2010 Mr.Vishwanath Vitthal Shetty ...Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Niranjan Mundargi i/b. Mr.Shonak Mehta for the Applicant. Mr.S.A. Shaikh, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JULY 8, 2010 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel for the applicant and APP for the State. 2 The applicant has filed this application for reduction of the amount of surety which is to be furnished by him. The Sessions Judge has directed that the applicant should furnish surety in the sum of Rs.30,000/-. Initially, the applicant was permitted to furnish cash surety of Rs.30,000/-. 3 It is submitted that it is not possible for the applicant to furnish surety for the said sum and therefore, the amount may be reduced. It is submitted that applicant is residing permanently in Kurla along with his mother. It is further submitted that after the death of his father, the flat now is transferred in the name of his mother. 4 Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the order passed by the Sessions Court is modified and the applicant is directed to execute P.R. Bond of Rs.10,000/- and furnish one or two sureties in the like amount. The remaining conditions imposed by the trial court are not altered or modified. After the surety is furnished, the amount of Rs.30,000/- deposited by the applicant may be returned to him. 5 Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 2