All Cases

Order - Status 4: NITIN DINKAR JAGTAP Digitally signed by NITIN DINKAR JAGTAP Date: 2021.10.09 12:06:01 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel … Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents Mr.S.G.Kudle for the Petitioner. Mr.S.B.Kalel, AGP for the State. Mr.Saurabh Oka for Respondent No. 8. CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 8TH OCTOBER, 2021 P.C. : The Respondents shall file their respective Affidavits-in-Reply within a period of one week from today. Stand over to 18th October, 2021. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ) ( S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. )

Order - Status 6: 69.6555-21-wp.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel ….. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….. Respondents Mr. S.G.Kudale for the petitioner Mr.Prashant Suryawansh i/b Mr.G.M.Savagave for the respondents Smt.A.A.Purav, A.G.P. for the State Mr.Saurabh Oak for the respondent no.1 CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA & VINAY JOSHI, JJ. DATED : APRIL 12, 2022 P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner was apprised of the fact that the order that is sought to be challenged is passed in Second Appeal. The proper procedure is to move the second appellate court if the petitioner feels that fraud is being played by the respondents. The order passed in Second Appeal i.e. Civil Court cannot be challenged by way of Writ Petition. The Second Appeal is under the Civil Jurisdiction. The order is passed below Exhibit 1 in Regular TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Digitally signed by TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2022.04.18 15:14:04 +0530 Darkhast also. If the petitioner contends that the fraud has been played by the respondents then the proper procedure is to challenge the said order obtained by fraud before the appropriate forum and not in Writ Petition. Provisions of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure would come into play. The learned counsel for the petitioner may consider this aspect. Stand over to 07.06.2022. (VINAY JOSHI, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel Thr Her Att Nasir Nuruddin Patel ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....RESPONDENT Mr. Shikur Gafur Kudle for Petitioner Mr. N.K.Rajpurohit, AGP for Respondent-State Mr. Prashant R. Suryawanshi i/b Mr. G.M.Savagave, Advocate for R.No.6 & 7 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ DATE : 7th June, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 28/06/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel Thr Her Att Nasir Nuruddin Patel ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ DATE : 28th June, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 03/08/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel Thr Her Att Nasir Nuruddin Patel ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. M. SATHAYE, JJ DATE : 13th February, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 27/03/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 6555 OF 2021 VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Shankerabanu Afsar Patel ….Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ….Respondents Digitally signed by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date: 2023.03.10 14:32:26 +0530 Mr. S.K. Kudle, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. N.K. Rajpurohit, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 Mr. P.r. Suryawanshi i/by Mr. G.M. Savagave for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 Mr. Ketan Dhavle i/by Mr. Saurabh Oka, Advocate for Respondent No.8 Mr. T.J. Pandian, Advocate for Respondent No.5 Mr. S.S. Aradhye, Advocate for Respondent No.6 CORAM:- R.D. DHANUKA & GAURI GODSE, JJ. DATE :- 6TH MARCH, 2023. P. C.: The Petitioner has impugned the order passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 690 of 2014 in this Writ Petition, on the ground that fraud is committed by some of the Respondents in obtaining the order in Second Appeal No. 690/2014. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 raises an issue regarding maintainability of this Writ Petition. Our attention is invited to the order dated 12th April, 2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. By the said order, dated 12th April, 2022, this Court has already observed; if the Petitioner contends that the fraud has been played by the Respondents then the proper procedure is to be challenge the said order obtained by fraud before the appropriate forum and not in Writ Petition. Provisions of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure would come into play. This Court after making these observations, directed the learned counsel for the Petitioner to consider this aspect. Mr. Kudale, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that since the fraud is committed in obtaining the order in Second Appeal, this Court can set aside the order passed in Second Appeal, in Writ Petition. We are afraid, we cannot accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner . Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the correctness of the order passed in Second Appeal for want of jurisdiction. If any appropriate proceedings are filed by the Petitioner, the same shall be decided on its own merits. All contentions of the parties are kept open. (GAURI GODSE, J.) ( R.D.DHANUKA, J. )

Order - Status 8: CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1141 OF 2016 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1142 OF 2016 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 16356 OF 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .. Applicant Vs. 1. Shri Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Devendranath S. Joshi, Advocate for applicant. CORAM : N.J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 13TH MARCH 2019 P.C. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1141 OF 2016 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 4th June 2019. Hamdast granted. Private service is permitted. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1142 OF 2016 1 The learned counsel for the applicantinsurer makes a statement that that the applicantinsurer will deposit the entire amount of compensation along with interest and costs as awarded by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mumbai by the impugned order dated 6th February 2015 in Application (ECA) No. 4/C3/2009. 2 The statement made by the learned counsel for the applicantinsurer is accepted. The applicantinsurer shall deposit the entire amount of compensation along with interest till date and costs as awarded by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mumbai within a period of four weeks from today, before the learned Commissioner. 3 In the meanwhile, there shall be adinterim stay to the execution and operation of the impugned order. It is, however, made clear that in the event, the applicantinsurer fails to deposit the aforesaid amount as directed above, the adinterim stay shall stand vacated automatically. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Regional Office-i ....APPELLANT V/S Shri. Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole And Anr....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7046 OF 2024 In First Appeal STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole ....PETITIONER V/S The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Region Office-no.2 ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 1142 OF 2016 In First Appeal STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Regional Office-i ....APPLICANT V/S Shri. Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole And Anr....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 1141 OF 2016 In First Appeal STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Regional Office-i ....APPLICANT V/S Shri. Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole And Anr....RESPONDENT None for the appellant VISHWAMBHAR MAHADEV PARKAR for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE KISHORE C. SANT J DATE : 27th March, 2024 P.C. : At the request of learned counsel for the Respondent , stand over to 24/04/2024 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Regional Office-i ....APPELLANT V/S Shri. Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole And Anr....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 1142 OF 2016 In First Appeal STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Regional Office-i ....APPLICANT V/S Shri. Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole And Anr....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 1141 OF 2016 In First Appeal STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Regional Office-i ....APPLICANT V/S Shri. Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole And Anr....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7046 OF 2024 In First Appeal STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole ....PETITIONER V/S The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Region Office-no.2 ....RESPONDENT Adv. V. M. Parkar for Appellant. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE KISHORE C. SANT J DATE : 2nd May, 2024 P.C. : S. O. to 09/05/2024 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5870 OF 2018 Sunanda Suresh Bhandalkar Petitioner Vs. Deputy Charity Commissioner & Ors. Respondents --- Ms.Manjiri S. Parasnis for the petitioner. Mr.R.P. Kadam, AGP for the respondent no.1. CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. DATE : 31st October 2018 P.C.: . Issue notice upon the respondent nos.2 to 6, returnable on 10th December 2018. Learned counsel waives service for the respondent no.1. In addition to the Court notice, the petitioner is permitted to serve the respondent nos.2 to 6 by private notice through Registered A.D./Speed post/ Fax/Courier/hand delivery in advance and file affidavit of service before the returnable date. Humdust is permitted. There shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (c) and (d). The petitioner is directed to convey this order to the respondent nos.2 to 6. Parties as well as the District Judge to act on the authenticated copy of this order. R.D. DHANUKA, J.

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5870 OF 2018 Sunanda Suresh Bhandalkar ....Petitioner V/S Deputy Charity Commissioner And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : K.K. TATED, J DATE : 23rd January, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, S. O. to 28/02/2019. Interim protection, if any, granted earlier and in force as on today, to continue till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5870 OF 2018 Sunanda Suresh Bhandalkar ....Petitioner V/S Deputy Charity Commissioner And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : K.K. TATED, J DATE : 28th February, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, S. O. to 01/04/2019. Interim protection, if any, granted earlier and in force as on today, to continue till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5870 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12574 OF 2018 Sunanda Suresh Bhandalkar ...Petitioner vs. Deputy Charity Commissioner and ors. ...Respondents. Ms. Manjiri S. Parasnis for the Petitioner. Ms. M.S. Bane, AGP. For Respondent No.1. Mr. Pratap Patil for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. ---- CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J. DATE : 16th DECEMBER, 2019 P.C. Both these petitions are between the same parties and involve connected questions and as such, they are being disposed off by this common order. Ramrajya Shikshan Sanstha is a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act ("Act" for short). On 5.4.2001 the lenared Deputy Charity Commissioner, Pune in C.R. No.700 of 2000 had directed the parties to apply for settlement of a scheme for the said trust and accordingly, an Application No.77 of 2002 was filed. The 1st respondent by an order dated 4.4.2005 framed a scheme for the said trust. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed Misc. Civil Application No.353 of 2005 purportedly under Seciton 72 of the Act challenging the said scheme. A similar application was filed by Sambhaji Ganpat Shirsat and others being Misc. Civil Application No.1039 of 2017. The learned District Judge, Pune by a common Judgment dated 28.6.2011 allowed both these applications and while setting aside the order dated 4.4.2005 remitted the matter back for fresh enquiry and decision under Section 50(A) of the Act to the 1st respondent. That was challenged by the trust along with Sambhaji Ganpat Shirsat in First Appeal No.1796 of 2011. Suresh Jagannath Bhandalkar also challenged the said order in a separate Appeal being First Appeal No.1797 of 2011 before this Court. This court by a common Judgment and Order dated 26.2.2014 allowed both these appeals placing reliance on the decision of this court in the case of Vasantrao Vishwanathrao Mane and others 2008(3) Mah.L.J. 242 and Gaffar Sattarkhan Pathan and others vs. Marutirao Tatyaba Sarpate and anr. 2012 (3) Mah.L.J. 211 holding that the District Judge acting under Section 72 of the Act had no power of remand. Consequently, M.C.A. No. 353/2005 and M.C.A.No.1039 of 2007 were restored to the file of the learned District Judge, for deciding the same within the confines of Section 72 of the Act. The said applications are pending before the learned District Judge at Pune. The applicants before the learned District Judge filed an application Exh.64 purportedly under Section 72(1)(A) of the Act, for production of additional evidence. It is contended that the main ground of challenge to the order dated 4.4.2005 is that a fraud has been played when the scheme was framed. In short, it was contended before the learned District Judge that except the first and last page of the scheme which was submitted before the first respondent, other pages were changed. By a result of which, an altogether different scheme, than what was proposed and envisaged came to be framed on 4.4.2005. In short, it was claimed that it is necessary to afford an opportunity to lead evidence to bring out the said alleged fraud. The application was opposed on behalf of the present petitioner on the ground that the same is not maintainable and no such claim for leading of additional evidence was made in the first round of litigation, prior to the order of remand. The first respondent by impugned order dated 6.1.2018 has allowed the application Exh.64 which order is subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.5870 of 2018. In pursuance of the said order, an affidavit in evidence of Mr. Dattatraya Bhosale came to be filed before the learned District Judge at Exh.95. The said witness was orally examined on 22.10.2018 and the cross examination of the said witness on behalf of the petitioner has been closed and by a separate order of even date the matter is fixed for final arguments. These orders are subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.12574 of 2018. I have heard Ms. Manjiri Parasnis, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. I have also heard Ms. Bane,AGP. for the 1st respondent. Perused record. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable, inasmuch as the applicant in M.C.A. No.353 of 2005 and 1039 of 2007 had never made any request for leading additional evidence in the first round i.e. prior to the order of remand dated 28.6.2011. It is submitted that, in any event, the respondents (applicants) in the aforesaid two applications cannot now enlarge scope of challenge and permission to lead evidence in two applications would enlarge the scope of challenge. The learned counsel strenuously urged that, the impugned order is in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon the District Judge particularly when order in First Appeal No.1796/2018 does not contemplate or envisage the leanred District Judge allowing any further/additional evidence. It is submitted that this court has restored the aforesaid two applications on the file of the lenared District Judge only on the ground that the learned District Judge had no power to remand, while entertaining a challenge under Section 72 of the Act. It is thus, submitted that the impugned order dated 6.1.2018 (below Exh.64) cannot be sustained. In so far as W.P. No.12574/2018 is concerned, it is submitted that if the order permitting additional evidence is set aside, there is no occasion for further evidence of Mr. Dattatraya Bhosale being led. In the alternative, it is submitted that if this court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 6.1.2018 (below Exh.64) which is subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.5870/2018 then permission be granted to the petitioner to cross examine Mr. Dattatraya Bhosale. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has supported the impugned order. It is submitted that, it has all along been the case made out by these respondents that there has been fraud played wherein except the first and last page, other pages of the scheme were changed, as a result of which the scheme different than the one which was envisaged came to be approved by order dated 4.4.2005 He submitted that there are wide powers conferred on the District Judge under Section 72 of the Act which includes power to allow additional evidence being led, particularly when District Judge has been held to have no power to remand the matter. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the decision of this court in the case of Vasantrao Vishwanathrao Mane (supra). Ms. Parasnis, the lenared counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of Vasantrao Vishwanathrao Mane (supra) is distinguishable on facts and is not applicable. I have considered the rival circumstances and the submissions made and I do not find that any case for interference is made out in the impugned order dated 6.1.2018, which is subject matter of challenge in W. P. No.5870/2018. It has all along been the case of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that there has been fraud played in the matter of framing of scheme on 4.4.2005 as except first and last page all other pages of the proposed scheme were changed. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to go into the question as to whether the case made out can be accepted or not, inasmuch as the said matter is still subjudise before the learned District Judge. Section 72 of the Act has since been deleted by Maharashgtra Act 55 of 2017 with effect from 10.10.2017. However, Section 33 of the Amending Act provides that nothing in the said amending Act shall affect applications and/or appeals pending before any civil court on the date of commencement of the said Amendment Act, 2017. There is no dispute about the said aspect. This is only mentioned to put the record straight. Section 72(1A) of the Act, as it stood prior to its deletion and which is relelvant for the purpose reads thus:- "(1A) No party to such application shall be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, before the Court, unless the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner or the Charity Commissioner has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted or the Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause the Court thinks if necessary to allow such additional evidence: Provided that whenever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by the Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission. (2) The court after taking evidence if any, may confirm, revoke or modify the deciion or remit the amount of the surcharge and make such orders as to costs as it thinks proper in the circumstances." It can thus be seen that the Deputy or the Assistant Charity Commissioner can in a given case admit evidence including the examination of any witness in the circumstances as set out in Section 72(1A) of the Act. This court in the case of Vasantrao Vishwanathrao Mane (supra) has held that the Deputy Charity Commissioner acting under Section 72 of the Act has specific powers only to confirm, revoke or modify the decision and there is no power of remand. It has been further held in this context that the specific power avaialble to the court under sub section (2) of Section 72 is inclusive of the power to take evidence if any. This court in Para 30 of the Judgemnt has held that, it is implicit that no special case is required to be made out as per the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure in order to adduce additional evidence. It has further been held that this specific inclusion of the power to take evidence, will show that the intention of the Legislature is to avoid remand. As noticed earlier, it has all along been the case of repsondent Nos. 2 to 4 that there has been fraud played when the scheme was framed by order dated 4.4.2005 by change of certain pages and in that view of the matter, the lenared District Judge has thought it fit to allow such additional evidence being led. The record disclosed that, in pursuance of the said order an affidavit in examination-in-chief of Mr. Dattatraya Bhosale is already filed. The impugned order in my considered view is not amenable to interference particularly, when it does not result into any manifest injustice on the petitioner. The contention that such a request was not made prior to the remand, to my mind cannot be accepted. Only because at that point of time request was not made, cannot preclude the first respondent to permit such evidence being led, if a case to that effect is made out, In that view of the matter, W.P.No.5870 of 2018 has to fail. This takes me to WP No.12574/2018 in which the challenge is to the closure of the cross examination on behalf of the petitioner of Mr. Dattatraya Bhosale. In my considered view for a fair trial and in the interest of justice opportunity to cross examine Mr. Dattatraya Bhosale needs to be granted. The possibility of petitioner having failed to cross examine the said witness as petitioner was contemplating challenge to the order dated 6.1.2018 cannot be ruled out, However, once that challnge has failed, I find that such an opportunity needs to be granted. Ms. Parasnis, the lenared counsel for the petitioner at this stage submitted that, taking advantage of the order dated 6.1.2018, the petitioner may lead evidence which may not be strictly relevant for deciding Civil Misc. Application No.353/2005. The apprehension in my considered view is misplaced as the learned District Judge has to ensure that the evidence being led is strictly relevant for deciding the issues arising in Misc. Civil Applciation NO.353/2005 and such additional evidence shall only be restricted to the grounds of challenge as raised in Misc. Civil Application No.353/2005. In the result, following order is passed. ORDER a) Writ Petition No.5870 of 2018 is hereby dismissed. The order dated 6.1.2018 (below Exh.64) permitting to lead additional evidence is hereby confirmed. Needless to mention that such evidence shall be confined to the grounds of challenge as raised in Misc. Civil Application No.353 of 2005. b) Writ Petition No.12574 of 2018 is allowed. The impugned orders dated 22.10.2018 (below Exh.95) and below Exh.109 are herebty set aside. c) The petitioner is permitted to cross examine the witness Dattatraya Bhosale (Exh.95). d) In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. e) At this stage Ms. Parasnis, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for extension of interim relief for a period of four weeks. On hearing the lenared counsel for the parties, it is directed that ad-interim relief granted on 31.10.2018 in terms of prayer clause (c) and (d) shall continue to operate for a period of four weeks from today. [C.V. BHADANG, J.]

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5870 OF 2018 ….. Sunanda Suresh Bhandalkar Petitioner vs. Deputy Charity Commissioner & Ors. Respondents Ms. M. S. Parasnis, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A. R. Metkari, AGP for Respondent No.1 / State. Mr. Pratap Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J. DATE : 13th JANUARY, 2020 P.C. . Not on board. Taken on board. This is mentioned for extension of the ad-interim relief which was continued for a period of four weeks on 16/12/2019. On hearing learned counsel for the parties, ad-interim relief shall continue to operate for period of three weeks as a last chance. No further extension shall be granted. Stand over to 3/2/2020. C.V. BHADANG, J.

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5870 OF 2018 ….. Sunanda Suresh Bhandalkar Petitioner vs. Deputy Charity Commissioner & Ors. Respondents Ms. Priya Shetty i/b. Ms. M. S. Parasnis, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A. R. Metkari, AGP for Respondent No.1 / State. Mr. Pratap Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J. DATE : 3rd FEBRUARY, 2020 P.C. . The petition is already disposed of on 16/12/2019. Hence, removed from board. C.V. BHADANG, J. Mamta Kale

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5870 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12574 OF 2018 Sunanda Suresh Bhandalkar ..Petitioner vs. Deputy Charity Commissioner & Ors. ..Respondents Ms. Priya Shetty i/b. Ms. M. S. Parasnis, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A. R. Metkari, AGP for Respondent No.1 / State. Mr. Pratap Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. ….. CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J. DATE : 3rd FEBRUARY, 2020 P.C. . The petition is already disposed of on 16/12/2019. Hence, removed from board. C.V. BHADANG, J.

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1063 OF 2008 IN S.C.SUIT NO.313 OF 2008 ....................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda . of Coram, appearances, Court's . Orders or directions and . Registrar's Order Court's or Judge's Order ....................................................... Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b.L.J.Law for the Appellant. Mr.G.S.Godbole for Respondents. CORAM : S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 17TH OCTOBER, 2008. P.C. :- . Leave to the Appellant to make an application for removal of the debri alone before the Trial Court. (S.J.VAZIFDAR, J.)

Order - Status 8: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1063 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1304 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, appearances, Court's . orders or directions and . Registrar's orders . -------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Sanjay Jain for the Appellant. Mr.G.S. Godbole i/b Ms.J.V. Kanade for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J . DATED : 10TH NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C. : Admit. 2.The impugned order does not warrant any interference. Prima-facie, it does appear that the Plaintiff had some right in the suit structure purchased from the predecessor-in-title of the Appellant. There is nothing at this stage which indicates that the agreement dated 10.10.1988 is of no effect. Added to this is the fact that the Appellant issued the bills in respect of the Plaintiff's structure after they acquired rights in respect of the suit property. 3.It further appears that the confusion regarding the identity of the structure and co-relation thereof with the municipal numbers is on account of certain construction activity/demolition which has taken place recently. Unless these aspects are considered at the final hearing of this Appeal from Order, it would not be correct to grant interlocutory order virtually allowing the Appeal at this stage. 4.In the circumstances, no interim orders staying the operation of the impugned order. The pendency of this Appeal from Order will not be a reason for the trial Court not to proceed with the trial.

Order - Status 12: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE DISTRICT : APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1063 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1304 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's of Coram, appearances, Court's orders orders or directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b.M/s.L.J.Law for the Appellant. Mr.Girish Godbole i/b.Mr.J.V.Kanade for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 17TH DECEMBER, 2008 P.C : Order in terms of the consent terms/Minutes of the Order, tendered in Court and marked 'X' and 'X1' respectively. The consent terms have been signed by he parties and their Advocates. The compliance regarding registration shall be informed to the Court. ***

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 467 OF 2002 AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 468 OF 2002 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or orders or directions & Judge's orders. Registrar's orders. Shri Mohan N. Dhamal for the Appellant. Shri L.S. Gaikwad for Respondent Nos.1B, 2 and 3. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18TH MARCH, 2011 P.C.: . Learned counsel appearing for the parties state that both the parties are present in the Court. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant on instructions of the Appellant who is personally present in the Court seeks permission to withdraw the Appeals. Accordingly, the Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. The Appellants will be entitled to refund of Court fees as per the rules. Civil Application No.1956 of 2002 in First Appeal No.467 of 2002 does not survive and the same is disposed of. ( A.S.OKA, J )

Order - Status 6: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5828 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court s Court s or orders or directions & Judge s orders. Registrar s orders. Mr.Sanjeev Sawant i/by Mr.M.V.Kode for the petitioners. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 20th July 2009. P.C.: . Not on board. Taken on board. To be placed for admission on 27th July 2009. Considering the controversy involved, parties are put to notice that petition will be decided finally at the stage of admission. Till the next date, decree for possession shall not be executed. (A.S.OKA,J)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION N0.5828 OF 2009 Smt.Geeta S. Joshi & Another ..Petitioners versus Shri Kantilal N. Baldota & Others ..Respondents Mr.Sanjiv Sawant i/b.H.V.Kode for the petitioner Mr.D.B.Lonkar for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 30th JULY, 2009. P.C: By order dated 20.7.2009 this Court directed that the writ petition shall be decided finally at the stage of admission. Accordingly, I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and 1 st to 4th respondents. It will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case in brief. The 1st to 4th respondents filed a Civil Suit against the petitioners. A decree was passed in the said suit filed by the 1st to 4th respondents. The decree was passed on 20.1.2006. According to the case of the petitioners they became aware of the decree when on 23.7.2006 they were served with the notice of execution proceedings filed by the 1st to 4th respondent for executing the decree. The case of the petitioners is that they made an application before the Court of Small Causes for setting aside the ex-parte decree. It is their case that delay in filing the said application was condoned. On 27.6.2008 the application for setting aside ex-parte decree was dismissed for default. According to the petitioners they became aware of the said order of dismissal when on 15.7.2008 the bailiff visited their premises. Therefore, on 1.8.2008 the petitioners applied for restoration of the said application for setting aside the exparte decree. By order dated 7.4.2009, the said application for restoration was dismissed by the Court of Small Causes. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the District Court. By impugned Judgement and Order dated 24.6.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Pune the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that a very hyper technical view has been taken by the District Court. He invited my attention to the findings recorded by the District Court in the impugned Order. He submitted that the delay in filing application for setting aside ex-parte decree was already condoned by the trial court and therefore the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree ought to have been directed to be heard on merits. The learned Counsel appearing for the 1st to 4th respondent opposed the petition by pointing out the conduct of the petitioners. His submission is that the petitioners have been totally negligent in prosecuting the proceedings. He submitted that the decree has been passed in January 2006 and by filing various proceedings, the petitioners have protracted the execution. He has relied upon the reply filed by the respondents in which it is pointed out that the petitioners were served with the summons of the suit, but they did not appear. He pointed out that there was absolutely no reason for the petitioners not to contest the suit on merits. He submitted that considering the gross delay and negligence on the part of the petitioners, no interference is called for. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. As stated earlier the decree was passed on 20.1.2006. An application for setting aside ex-parte decree was filed on 19.9.2006. There was a delay in filing the said application. It appears that after the condonation of delay, the application for setting aside exparte decree was registered. The said application came to be dismissed on 27.6.2008. An application was made on 1.8.2008 praying for restoration of the said application for setting aside the ex- parte decree. By Order dated 7.4.2009, the said application for restoration was dismissed, which was challenged by filing an appeal before the District Court which has been dismissed by the impugned Order. The conduct of the petitioners during the pendency of the suit and the effect of their failure to appear before the court will have to be considered in the application for setting aside ex-parte decree filed by the petitioners. Unless a case is made out for setting aside the ex-parte decree it is obvious that the Court will not set aside the ex-parte decree. The only question in this petition is whether the said application deserves to be restored. As stated earlier, the delay in filing the application for setting aside ex-parte decree was condoned. It is true that the said application was dismissed due to the default on the part of the petitioners. An occasion for filing an application for restoration arises when normally there is some default on the part of a litigant. The application for restoration was filed on 1.8.2008 and the application for setting aside ex-parte decree was dismissed on 27.6.2008. It is true that due to all this, the respondents Nos.1 to 4 plaintiffs have suffered prejudice. The District Court could have allowed the appeal by restoring the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree by directing the petitioners to pay heavy costs to 1 st to 4th respondents. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners expressed willingness to pay costs of Rs.20,000/- to 1st to 4 th respondents. Accordingly, a demand draft in the sum of Rs.20,000/- drawn in favour of the 4th respondent has been handed over to the advocate for the 1st to 4th respondents in this Court. As the petitioners have compensated 1st to 4th respondents, in the facts of the case, in my view, an opportunity deserves to be granted to the petitioners to prosecute their application for setting aside ex-parte decree. The contentions which are raised by the 1st to 4th respondents in this petition as regards the conduct of the petitioners will have to be examined when the trial court deals with the application for setting aside ex-parte decree. While setting aside the order in appeal it must be clarified that notwithstanding the fact that the delay in filing the application for setting aside ex-parte decree has been condoned, the application for setting aside the exparte decree will have to be heard on its own merits and the same cannot be decided in favour of the petitioners only because the delay has been condoned. Though this court is restoring the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree, it is made clear that the petitioners will not be entitled to seek any adjournment on any unreasonable ground and the petitioners will have to co-operate with the Court of Small Causes for expeditious hearing of the said application. Hence, I pass the following order. ORDER i. The impugned judgment and order dated 24.6.2009 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.148 of 2009 is quashed and set aside. The said appeal is allowed by setting aside the Order dated 7.4.2009 passed by the Court of Small Causes, subject to payment of costs of Rs.20,000/- by the petitioners. The amount of costs has been already paid by the petitioners to the 1st to 4th respondents. ii. Misc. Application No.78 of 2007 is restored to the file of the Court of Small Causes. iii. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 17.8.2009 at 11.00 a.m. It is made clear that no further notice of the date fixed of the said application shall be served to the petitioners. iv. The trial Court will decide the said application for setting aside ex-parte decree as expeditiously as possible and in any event on or before 31.10.2009. v. It is made clear that the petitioners will not be entitled to seek an adjournment on any unreasonable ground and they will co-operate with the learned trial Judge for early disposal of the said application. vi. It is made clear that all contentions of the parties in the application for setting aside exparte decree are expressedly kept open. Vii. Petition is partly allowed with the abovesaid orders. Viii. Learned Counsel appearing for the 1st to 4 th respondents, upon instructions, states that the said respondents will not execute the decree till the application for setting aside exparte decree is decided by the Trial Court. (A.S.Oka, J.)

Order - Status 5: 16 wp 443-20=.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 443 OF 2020 Sunny Rajesh Lot … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent None for the Petitioner. Mr. S.R.Shinde APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI,& N.R.BORKAR, JJ. DATE : 28th JANUARY 2020 P.C. Issue notice to Respondent, returnable on 06.03.2020. Learned APP waives notice for State. High Court Legal Aid Committee to appoint panel Advocate for the Petitioner. (N.R.BORKAR,J.) (B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 443 OF 2020 Sunny R. Lot … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent ---------------- Mr. Aniesh S. Jadhav (appointed) for the Petitioner. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for the Respondent – State. ---------------- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE & N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : MARCH 6, 2020. P.C. 1] For the reasons recorded in the order passed today in Criminal Writ Petition No. 4256 of 2018, which we have allowed, this petition can be conveniently disposed of with following directions: "We fnd both orders are unsustainable and the same are quashed and set aside. We direct the frst authority to pass fresh orders, in accordance with law, within four weeks from the date of communication of this order to it." 2] Here, the prisoner was under trial from 25th September 2015 to 5th May 2017 and thereafter, as a convict from 6th May 2017 to 30th November 2019. 3] Thus, he has never been released either on bail or on any other leave and hence, the adverse police report against him is not justifed. 4] Hence, with similar liberty and directions as mentioned in our earlier order supra, we partly allow this petition and dispose of it. 5] This order be communicated to the prisoner in Jail. (N.R. BORKAR, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)