All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 1478 OF 2017 In WRIT PETITION 4457 OF 2014 Atul Mahadev Bhagat And Anr. ....Applicant V/S Alankar Sahkari Griha ....Respondent CORAM : SMT. S.S. JADHAV, J DATE : 6th October, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Stand over to 28/11/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 1478 OF 2017 In WRIT PETITION 4457 OF 2014 Atul Mahadev Bhagat And Anr. Applicant V/S Alankar Sahkari Griha Respondent Sandesh Shukla a/w Amit Singh and Santosh Sawant For Applicant Mihir Raut i/b Nitin Deshpande for Respondent (Orig. Petitioner) CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J DATE : 7th June, 2018 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the respondent, Stand over to 28/06/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 1478 OF 2017 In WRIT PETITION 4457 OF 2014 Atul Mahadev Bhagat And Anr. ....Applicant V/S Alankar Sahkari Griha ....Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 2589 OF 2015 In WRIT PETITION 4457 OF 2014 Alankar Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Maryadit, Through Chairman, Shri. S. K. Khadilkar ....Applicant V/S Atul Mahadev Bhagat And Anr ....Respondent Sandesh Shukla a/w Amit Singh i/b.Santosh Sawant For Applicant Nitin P. Deshpande for Respondent CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J DATE : 28th June, 2018 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the respondent , Stand over to 05/07/2018 at 3.30 p.m. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 1478 OF 2017 In WRIT PETITION 4457 OF 2014 Atul Mahadev Bhagat And Anr. ....Applicant V/S Alankar Sahkari Griha ....Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 2589 OF 2015 In WRIT PETITION 4457 OF 2014 Alankar Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Maryadit, Through Chairman, Shri. S. K. Khadilkar ....Applicant V/S Atul Mahadev Bhagat And Anr ....Respondent Santosh Sawant For Applicant None present for the respondent CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J DATE : 5th July, 2018 P.C. : Leave Note is filed by the advocate appearing for respondent. Stand over to 26/07/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 1478 OF 2017 In WRIT PETITION 4457 OF 2014 Atul Mahadev Bhagat And Anr. ....Applicant V/S Alankar Sahkari Griha ....Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 2589 OF 2015 In WRIT PETITION 4457 OF 2014 Alankar Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Maryadit, Through Chairman, Shri. S. K. Khadilkar ....Applicant V/S Atul Mahadev Bhagat And Anr ....Respondent Mr.Hafeez Patanwala i/by Mr.Santosh Sawant For Applicant Mr.N.P.Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J DATE : 26th July, 2018 P.C. : At the request of the learned Counsel for the Applicant, stand over to 13/08/2018. Ad-interim order, if any, to continue till the next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 1478 OF 2017 In WRIT PETITION 4457 OF 2014 Atul Mahadev Bhagat And Anr. ....Applicant V/S Alankar Sahkari Griha ....Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 2589 OF 2015 In WRIT PETITION 4457 OF 2014 Alankar Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Maryadit, Through Chairman, Shri. S. K. Khadilkar ....Applicant V/S Atul Mahadev Bhagat And Anr ....Respondent Sandesh Shukla a/w.Amit Singh i/b.Santosh Sawant For Applicant Nitin P.Deshpande for Respondent (Orig.Petitioner in WP) CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J DATE : 13th August, 2018 P.C. : Stand over to 16/8/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1928 OF 2018 Smita Harishchandra Landage ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ DATE : 22nd February, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Stand over to 19/04/2018. Ad-interim relief, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1928 OF 2018 Smita Harishchandra Landage ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : RANJIT MORE. & SMT. S.S. JADHAV, JJ DATE : 2nd April, 2018 P.C. : Due to discharged of board the matter is stand over to 06/06/2018. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1928 OF 2018 Smita Harishchandra Landage ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & SMT. BHARATI HARISH DANGRE, JJ DATE : 24th April, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 03/05/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1928 OF 2018 Smita Harishchandra Landage ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & SMT. BHARATI HARISH DANGRE, JJ DATE : 3rd May, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, the matter is adjourned. Stand over to 29/06/2018. Ad interim order, if any, granted earlier to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1928 OF 2018 Smita Harishchandra Landage ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI HARISH DANGRE, JJ DATE : 27th June, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for admission, Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 08.08.2018 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1928 OF 2018 Smita Harishchandra Landage ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI HARISH DANGRE, JJ DATE : 8th August, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for admission, Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 29.08.2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 17: Urmila Ingale IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1928 OF 2018 Smita Harishchandra Landage .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Mr.Dilip Bodake a/w Mr.S.T.Bhosale, for the Petitioner. Mr.V.M.Mali, AGP for Respondents No. 1 to 3 State. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & M.S.KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 22nd OCTOBER, 2018 P.C. : Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 26/11/2018. Learned AGP waives service of notice for Respondents No. 1 to 3. Humdast is granted for service of notice on Respondent No.4. (M.S.KARNIK, J.) (B.R.GAVAI, J.)

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1928 OF 2018 Smita Harishchandra Landage ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI HARISH DANGRE, JJ DATE : 30th November, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for admission, Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 08.02.2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1928 OF 2018 Smita Harishchandra Landage ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent None For Petitioner Mr V M Mali, AGP for R.no.1 To 3; Mr Gautam Hiranandani h/for Mr C G Gavnekar for R No. 4. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ DATE : 29th March, 2019 P.C. : None for Petitioner when the matter was called out. Place the matter for Dismissal on 05/04/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1928 OF 2018 Smita Harishchandra Landage …Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. …Respondents Mr.Dilip Bodake for the petitioner. Mr.V. M.Mali, AGP, for the Staterespondent nos.1 to 3. Mr.C. G. Gavnekar a/w. Mr. A.C. Gavnekar for respondent no.4. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. DATE : 5 th APRIL 2019. P.C. : . Learned AGP seeks time to take instructions from respondent no.3. At his request, the matter will stand over to 22nd April 2019 as last chance. [DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.]

Order - Status 25: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1928 OF 2018 Smita Harishchandra Landage ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent Dilip Bodake For Petitioner K.S.Thorat AGP for R.No.1 to 3 CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE & N.M. JAMDAR, JJ DATE : 4th July, 2019 P.C. : Wrongly on Board. Place before appropriate Court. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 27: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1928 OF 2018 Smita Harishchandra Landage ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent Dilip Bodake For Petitioner Shri K.S. Thorat, A.G.P. for Respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. G.S. Hiranandani a/w Mr. A.C. Gavanekar I/b Mr. C.G. Gavnekar for R. NO.4. CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE & SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, JJ DATE : 18th September, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 02/01/2020 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 29: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1928 OF 2018 Smita Harishchandra Landage ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & R. I. CHAGLA, JJ DATE : 2nd January, 2020 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 13/02/2020 . In case any ad-interim/interim relief is operating till today, the said order will continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 31: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1928 OF 2018 Smita Harishchandra Landage ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & R. I. CHAGLA, JJ DATE : 13th February, 2020 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 03/04/2020 . In case any ad-interim/interim relief is operating till today, the said order will continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 33: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1928 OF 2018 Smita Harishchandra Landage ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent Dilip Bodake For Petitioner Smt.R.A.Salunke, AGP Writ Cell R.no.1 To 3 G.S.Hiranandani i/b Gavnekar Chidambar Ganesh Resp No. 4 For Respondent CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & VIRENDRASINGH GYANSINGH BISHT, JJ DATE : 25th February, 2020 P.C. : Stand over to 04/03/2020 at 03.00 p.m. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 34: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1928 OF 2018 Smita Harishchandra Landage ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & VIRENDRASINGH GYANSINGH BISHT, JJ DATE : 4th March, 2020 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 06/03/2020 . In case any ad-interim/interim relief is operating till today, the said order will continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 35: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1928 OF 2018 Smita Harishchandra Landage ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & VIRENDRASINGH GYANSINGH BISHT, JJ DATE : 6th March, 2020 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 11/03/2020 . In case any ad-interim/interim relief is operating till today, the said order will continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 38: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1928 OF 2018 Smita Harishchandra Landage ….Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents Mr. Dilip Bodke for the Petitioner. Mr. N.C. Walimbe, AGP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Ashutosh Gavnekar i/by Mr. C.G. Gavnekar for Respondent No.4. CORAM : S. C. GUPTE AND SURENDRA P. TAVADE, JJ. DATE : 24 FEBRUARY 2021 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 and learned AGP for the Respondent-State. The subject matter of controversy in the present petition concerns appointment/absorption of the Petitioner as a Shikshan Sevak in a vacant post in Education Department (Primary), Sangli Zilla Parishad or Sangli-Miraj-Kupwad Municipal Corporation or Vita Municipal Council, Tal. Vita, District : Sangli. It is not in dispute that on merits of her case, the Petitioner is entitled to be absorbed and accommodated as a Shikshan Sevak in a vacant post under the Zilla Parishads. In fact, the Director of Education (Primary), Pune Division by addressing a letter to the Additional Chief Secretary of School Education & Sports Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai dated 15.07.2019 has required suitable directions for appointment of the Petitioner as a Shikshan Sevak. On these facts, the petition can be conveniently disposed of by directing the Respondents to issue appropriate directions for absorption of the Petitioner in the school maintained by the concerned Zilla Parishads. The Court is informed that there are adequate number of vacancies in that behalf. The Petitioner is a Scheduled Caste candidate and according to the respective roasters, there is a scope for engagement of the Petitioner as a Shikshan Sevak under the respective Zilla Parishads. The petition is accordingly disposed of by directing the Respondents to accommodate or absorb the Petitioner as a Shikshan Sevak in any suitable vacant post in the Education Department (Primary), Sangli Zilla Parishad or Sangli-Miraj-Kupwad Municipal Corporation or Vita Municipal Council, Sangli. To enable the Petitioner's transfer from Zilla Parishad, Alibaug to any of these places, suitable orders shall be issued by Respondent No.4-Education Ofcer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Raigad-Alibaug within a period of three weeks from today. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. (SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J) (S.C. GUPTE, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE FIRST APPEAL NO. 1344 OF 2003 Office notes,Office Court's or Judge's order Memoranda of Coram, appearances,Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders ------------------------------------------------------- Mr. V. D. Survey for appellant Mr. S.A. Abhyankar for respondent CORAM:-SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J. DATED:- 11-2-2005 Not on board. Mentioned urgently. The learned counsel for the parties state that the dispute involved in this appeal is settled by the parties and that they wish to file consent terms in the court. Appellant Mrs. Rukhminibai R. Maladkar and the respondents Mr. Shashikumar R. Maladkar and Mrs. Subhangi Sashikumar Maladkar are present in the court. Consent terms duly signed by the parties and their respective advocates are taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Order in terms of consent terms. Undertaking given in the consent terms are accepted by the court. First appeal disposed of in terms of consent terms. Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order. .....

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1830 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 125 OF 2009 Tanvi Dinesh Patel ... Applicant Vs State of Maharashtra & 2 ors. ... Respondents Mr. R.K. Mendadkar for the applicant. Mr. V.P. Malwankar, AGP, for the respondents No.1 to 3. CORAM: S.B. MHASE & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 24TH JULY, 2009. P.C.: Civil Application is allowed to the extent of prayer clause (a) which reads thus: "(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to permit the applicant to amend the Writ Petition No.125 of 2009 as indicated in the Schedule annexed to this Application." Since Rule has already been granted and the matter is required to be considered on merits, prayer clause (b) cannot be considered at this stage as a composite application cannot be entertained. The applicant is at liberty to file a separate application with regard to prayer clause (b) if he so desires. Civil Application, accordingly, stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (R.M. SAVANT) (S.B. MHASE, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 251 OF 2005 Vilas... Bhimrao Dhotre. Appellant. Versus. State... of Maharashtra & ors. Respondent. Shri D.J.Deshmukh for the Appellant. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATED : 23rd March, 2005. P.C.: Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant/original Plaintiff. Admittedly the Appellant was allowed to use the property in question for a limited period of 11 months. The said period has expired long back. The property of which the Appellant was put in possession under the agreement belongs to the Government and the Government has power to resume the land. Both the Courts below have held that the Appellant has no right to continue in possession after a period of 11 months. No substantial question of law arises. The Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Judge.

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1258 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant V/s. Bhimrao Mahadeo Kadam ...Respondent …. Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the appellant/State. Mr. Hemant Sharma i/b Mr. Ganesh Gole, advocate for the respondent. …. CORAM : N.B. SURYAWANSHI, J. DATE : 30TH AUGUST, 2019 P.C. : Learned advocate Mr. Hemant Sharma h/f advocate for the respondent prays for an adjournment. Stand over to 27/09/2019. ( N.B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPEAL NO. 1258 OF 2002 The State Of Maharashtra ....Appellant V/S Bhimarao Mahadeo Kadam ....Respondent Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, A.P.P.For Appellant Mr.Ganesh Gole ( For Res. No.1) For Respondent CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM, J DATE : 14th October, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 16/10/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPEAL NO. 1258 OF 2002 The State Of Maharashtra ....Appellant V/S Bhimarao Mahadeo Kadam ....Respondent CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM, J DATE : 16th October, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 17/10/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPEAL NO. 1258 OF 2002 The State Of Maharashtra ....Appellant V/S Bhimarao Mahadeo Kadam ....Respondent CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM, J DATE : 17th October, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 18/10/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.1258 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra …..Appellant Versus Bhimrao Mahadeo Kadam …..Respondent None for Appellant. None for Respondent. CORAM : SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATE : 29th NOVEMBER, 2019 P. C. : Neither the parties nor their counsel are present, stand over after four weeks. [ BHARATI DANGRE, J. ]

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1258 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra )….Appellant V/s. Bhimrao Mahadeo Kadam ) Age about 32 years, R/o. Gude, Tal.Panhala ) Dist. Kolhapur )....Respondent ---- Ms.Pallavi Dabholkar APP for appellant/State. Mr.Dheeraj Patil a/w Ms.Tanuja Parashave i/by Mr.Drupad S.Patil for respondent no.1. CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J DATE : 14.1.2020 ORAL JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal impugning an order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge & Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolhapur acquitting accused of offences punishable under sections 7 (Offence relating to public servant being bribed), section 13(1)(d) (Criminal misconduct by a public servant), read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (the said Act). The facts in brief are that accused was working as a candidate in record section in the office of Tahasildar, Panhala, Kolhapur. I am told, the candidate's role in the office of Tahasildar is to work as an Assistant to the Record Keeper. One Sambhaji Rajaram Jadhav-complainant (PW-1) had applied for certified copies of mutation entries on 22.9.1997. Photocopying charge etc. was actually coming to Rs.36.45/- but when complainant approached accused on 25.9.1997, accused demanded a sum of Rs.100/- which included Rs.36.45/- as copying fee and the balance as bribe/illegal gratification. Accused therefore, filed complaint to Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) for taking necessary action. After obtaining sanction, a trap was decided to be laid. Two panchas were called and necessary instructions and formalities were completed. The raiding party thereafter went to the office of accused on 29.9.1997 and caught accused red handed with the marked currency note of Rs.100/-. The post trap panchanama was also drawn and the crime was registered against accused. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was lodged, charges were framed, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The stand of accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was that when complainant had come to apply for certified copy, he did not have money with him so accused helped him by borrowing Rs.100/- from somebody else and on 29.9.1997 complainant came to return that money of Rs.100/-. I have to be candid that I find this stand rather strange because it is not the case of accused that complainant was known to him very well or is a close friend. At the same time, I am not discarding that stand as imaginary because one never knows there could be some good people who help others. To drive home the charge, prosecution relied on evidence of 5 witnesses viz. Sambhaji Rajaram Jadhav (PW-1), Complainant ; Dastagir Babasaheb Mulla (PW-2) who was the Stenographer in the office of Tahasildar ; Jaywant Vasantrao Kothawale (PW-3) Clerk/Record keeper in the office of Tahasildar ; Shivajirao Satyappa Kambale (PW-4) Nayab Tahasildar at Panhala ; and Vinayak Shivram Tilekar (PW-5), Police Inspector in ACB. The trial Court after considering the evidence and the documents that were filed, by giving a very detailed order and judgment dated 9.8.2002 acquitted accused and this order of acquittal is impugned in this appeal. For the sake of brevity, I am not going into all those details which the trial Court has gone into, because I feel certain facts as stated by Complainant and the prosecution witnesses itself are enough to dismiss this appeal. PW-1 who is complainant, in his examination-in-chief states that accused went through the contents of his application and asked him to attend the office on 25.9.1997 and when complainant went back on 25.9.1997 and asked accused, accused informed complainant (PW-1) that he will have to deposit a sum of Rs.36.45/- by way of legal charges against 3 mutation entries. PW-1 also says that accused asked him to deposit Rs.100/- so that the balance amount after paying Rs.36.45/- to the Government will be his bribe which is a condition precedent to issue the mutation extracts. As per PW-1 he did not have that much money with him and accused asked complainant to attend the office again on 27.9.1997 with money. In his cross-examination PW-1 says that it is not correct to say that accused demanded sum of Rs.36.45/- by way of copying fees and the remaining amount by way of bribe. This itself goes to the root of the matter and this contradiction itself is enough to knock the matter down. PW-3 is a Record Keeper in the office of Tahasildar. In his cross-examination he says that he received all the papers from accused on 25.9.1997 and thereafter no work remained with accused after 25.9.1997. He also says that employee candidates/accused used to sit outside the record room. The employee candidates were not empowered by him to collect money or copying fees and the employee candidates used to direct clients to contact PW-3 for paying the fees. Therefore, PW-3 who is the prosecution witness says that accused was never empowered to collect any money and all the applicants are directed to him for paying the necessary fees. PW-4 who is Nayab Tahasildar says that copying candidates like accused are not paid by Government and they do not receive salary or remuneration from Government and he was also not a Government employee or Government servant. Therefore, the applicability of section 7 of the said Act itself is in question. Prosecution has not led any evidence to prove PW-4 wrong. Exh.14 is copy of the application made by complainant and Exh.15, 16 & 17 are the extract of mutation entries. PW-4 says that extract was ready on 25.9.1997 and all compliance was done. He also says that he has endorsed papers and sent them to record section for delivering copies. PW-4 says that general record book is maintained by record keeper and record keeper used to deliver copies to applicant. PW-4 also endorsed what PW-3 says that it is the responsibility of record keeper to receive fees from applicant, issue receipt and receive amount. He says that Exh.15, 16 & 17 are the copies that were ready and prepared on 25.9.1997 under his signature. PW-4 also says it is not the responsibility of the employee candidate to receive fees, prepare copies and deliver the copies. If one looks at Exh.15, 16 & 17 it says the application was received on 22.9.1997 [ uDdy vtZ vkyk rkjh[k ], the copies were ready on 23.9.1997 [ uDdy r;kj rkjh[k ] and the copies were given on 25.9.1997 [ uDdy fnyh rkjh[k ]. Therefore, Exh.15, 16 & 17 state that those extracts were given to applicant on 25.9.1997. This means that on 22.9.1997 itself or latest by 25.9.1997 itself the photo copying charges have been paid, because Exh.15,16 & 17 also indicate the photo copying charges paid. It is therefore, difficult to believe the case of the prosecution that on 25.9.1997, complainant did not have money with him and accused asked him to bring money on 29.9.1997. The onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused committed the offence as prescribed under Section 13(1) (d) read with section 13(d) of the said Act. Prosecution has failed in discharging this burden. There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption in favour of accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to accused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. For acquitting accused, the Trial Court observed that prosecution had failed to prove its case. In the circumstances, in my view, the opinion of the trial Court cannot be held to be illegal or improper or contrary to law. The order of acquittal, in my view, cannot be interfered with. Appeal dismissed. (K.R.SHRIRAM,J)

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1258 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra )….Appellant V/s. Bhimrao Mahadeo Kadam ) Age about 32 years, R/o. Gude, Tal.Panhala ) Dist. Kolhapur )....Respondent ---- Ms.Pallavi Dabholkar APP for appellant/State. Mr.Dheeraj Patil a/w Ms.Tanuja Parashave i/by Mr.Drupad S.Patil for respondent no.1. CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J DATE : 14.1.2020 ORAL JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal impugning an order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge & Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolhapur acquitting accused of offences punishable under sections 7 (Offence relating to public servant being bribed), section 13(1)(d) (Criminal misconduct by a public servant), read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (the said Act). The facts in brief are that accused was working as a candidate in record section in the office of Tahasildar, Panhala, Kolhapur. I am told, the candidate's role in the office of Tahasildar is to work as an Assistant to the Record Keeper. One Sambhaji Rajaram Jadhav-complainant (PW-1) had applied for certified copies of mutation entries on 22.9.1997. Photocopying charge etc. was actually coming to Rs.36.45/- but when complainant approached accused on 25.9.1997, accused demanded a sum of Rs.100/- which included Rs.36.45/- as copying fee and the balance as bribe/illegal gratification. Accused therefore, filed complaint to Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) for taking necessary action. After obtaining sanction, a trap was decided to be laid. Two panchas were called and necessary instructions and formalities were completed. The raiding party thereafter went to the office of accused on 29.9.1997 and caught accused red handed with the marked currency note of Rs.100/-. The post trap panchanama was also drawn and the crime was registered against accused. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was lodged, charges were framed, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The stand of accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was that when complainant had come to apply for certified copy, he did not have money with him so accused helped him by borrowing Rs.100/- from somebody else and on 29.9.1997 complainant came to return that money of Rs.100/-. I have to be candid that I find this stand rather strange because it is not the case of accused that complainant was known to him very well or is a close friend. At the same time, I am not discarding that stand as imaginary because one never knows there could be some good people who help others. To drive home the charge, prosecution relied on evidence of 5 witnesses viz. Sambhaji Rajaram Jadhav (PW-1), Complainant ; Dastagir Babasaheb Mulla (PW-2) who was the Stenographer in the office of Tahasildar ; Jaywant Vasantrao Kothawale (PW-3) Clerk/Record keeper in the office of Tahasildar ; Shivajirao Satyappa Kambale (PW-4) Nayab Tahasildar at Panhala ; and Vinayak Shivram Tilekar (PW-5), Police Inspector in ACB. The trial Court after considering the evidence and the documents that were filed, by giving a very detailed order and judgment dated 9.8.2002 acquitted accused and this order of acquittal is impugned in this appeal. For the sake of brevity, I am not going into all those details which the trial Court has gone into, because I feel certain facts as stated by Complainant and the prosecution witnesses itself are enough to dismiss this appeal. PW-1 who is complainant, in his examination-in-chief states that accused went through the contents of his application and asked him to attend the office on 25.9.1997 and when complainant went back on 25.9.1997 and asked accused, accused informed complainant (PW-1) that he will have to deposit a sum of Rs.36.45/- by way of legal charges against 3 mutation entries. PW-1 also says that accused asked him to deposit Rs.100/- so that the balance amount after paying Rs.36.45/- to the Government will be his bribe which is a condition precedent to issue the mutation extracts. As per PW-1 he did not have that much money with him and accused asked complainant to attend the office again on 27.9.1997 with money. In his cross-examination PW-1 says that it is not correct to say that accused demanded sum of Rs.36.45/- by way of copying fees and the remaining amount by way of bribe. This itself goes to the root of the matter and this contradiction itself is enough to knock the matter down. PW-3 is a Record Keeper in the office of Tahasildar. In his cross-examination he says that he received all the papers from accused on 25.9.1997 and thereafter no work remained with accused after 25.9.1997. He also says that employee candidates/accused used to sit outside the record room. The employee candidates were not empowered by him to collect money or copying fees and the employee candidates used to direct clients to contact PW-3 for paying the fees. Therefore, PW-3 who is the prosecution witness says that accused was never empowered to collect any money and all the applicants are directed to him for paying the necessary fees. PW-4 who is Nayab Tahasildar says that copying candidates like accused are not paid by Government and they do not receive salary or remuneration from Government and he was also not a Government employee or Government servant. Therefore, the applicability of section 7 of the said Act itself is in question. Prosecution has not led any evidence to prove PW-4 wrong. Exh.14 is copy of the application made by complainant and Exh.15, 16 & 17 are the extract of mutation entries. PW-4 says that extract was ready on 25.9.1997 and all compliance was done. He also says that he has endorsed papers and sent them to record section for delivering copies. PW-4 says that general record book is maintained by record keeper and record keeper used to deliver copies to applicant. PW-4 also endorsed what PW-3 says that it is the responsibility of record keeper to receive fees from applicant, issue receipt and receive amount. He says that Exh.15, 16 & 17 are the copies that were ready and prepared on 25.9.1997 under his signature. PW-4 also says it is not the responsibility of the employee candidate to receive fees, prepare copies and deliver the copies. If one looks at Exh.15, 16 & 17 it says the application was received on 22.9.1997 [ uDdy vtZ vkyk rkjh[k ], the copies were ready on 23.9.1997 [ uDdy r;kj rkjh[k ] and the copies were given on 25.9.1997 [ uDdy fnyh rkjh[k ]. Therefore, Exh.15, 16 & 17 state that those extracts were given to applicant on 25.9.1997. This means that on 22.9.1997 itself or latest by 25.9.1997 itself the photo copying charges have been paid, because Exh.15,16 & 17 also indicate the photo copying charges paid. It is therefore, difficult to believe the case of the prosecution that on 25.9.1997, complainant did not have money with him and accused asked him to bring money on 29.9.1997. The onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused committed the offence as prescribed under Section 13(1) (d) read with section 13(d) of the said Act. Prosecution has failed in discharging this burden. There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption in favour of accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to accused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. For acquitting accused, the Trial Court observed that prosecution had failed to prove its case. In the circumstances, in my view, the opinion of the trial Court cannot be held to be illegal or improper or contrary to law. The order of acquittal, in my view, cannot be interfered with. Appeal dismissed. (K.R.SHRIRAM,J)

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1258 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra )….Appellant V/s. Bhimrao Mahadeo Kadam )....Respondent CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J DATE : 21.1.2020 P C. . :- 1 Suo motu called for speaking to the minutes. 2 In the order dated 14th January 2020, after paragraph 13, add the following as paragraph 14 : The State Government/Appropriate Authority shall pay over to respondent, within a period of 30 days from today, all pensionary or other benefits/dues stalled, in view of pendency of this appeal. No authority shall demand certified copy for reimbursing the benefits/dues as directed above. All to act on authenticated copy of this order. Certified copy expedited. 3 Rest of the order remains unaltered. Original order to be corrected accordingly. (K.R.SHRIRAM,J)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 704 OF 2019 Mr. Dhulappa Jagannath Shelke And Ors ....Petitioner V/S The Prin. Secretary, The Gen. Administration ....Respondent Dept. And Ors Dr Sudhakar Avhad i/by Mr Chetan R Nagare, Advocate For Petitioner Mr Y S Khochare, AGP for Respondents-State. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATE : 21st January, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 24/01/2019. Writ Petition No. 92/2019 to be heard along with this Writ Petition. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 704 OF 2019 Dhulappa Jagannath Shelke & ors. Petitioners Versus The Principal Secretary, The Gen. Adminsitration Department & ors. Respondents Mr. Chetan Nagare, I/b Dr. Sudhakar Avhad, for the Petitioner. Mr. Y. S. Khochare, AGP for the State/Respondent. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATED: 25th January, 2019 PC: 1. The Petitioner has directly approached this Court bypassing the alternate remedy available to him of filing an Original Application before the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. 2. The petition is, therefore, rejected with liberty to file an application before the appropriate forum. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

Order - Status 7: ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4296 OF 2015 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.1089 OF 2015 The National Insurance Co.Ltd. ...Applicant vs. Smt.Anuja Ramachal Patel & Ors. ...Respondents Ms Poonam Mittal for the Applicant CORAM :K.K.TATED,J. DATE : AUGUST 27, 2019 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. By this application the applicant is seeking stay of operation and implementation Judgment and Award dated 2nd August 2014 passed by MACT,Mumbai in Claim Petition No.2370 of 2007 holding that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.11,86,671/ with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. 2 The learned counsel for the applicant submits that they have challenged the impugned Judgment on quantum basis. She submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. She further submits that if the entire amount is recovered by the respondents by filing execution application, then nothing survives in the present application. She submits that the applicant is ready and willing to deposit the entire amount with interest within three weeks from today. Statement is accepted. She submits that pending the final disposal of the present First Appeal, this Court be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned Judgment. 3 It is to be noted that in the present proceedings accident occurred on 3rd July 2007. Claimant No.1 lost her husband and the claimant Nos.2 and 3 lost their father. At the time of accident the age of the deceased was 45 years. He was running the medical shop under the name and style of Ashish Medical and General Stores,Kandivali, Mumbai. He was earning nearby 1,10,943/ p.a from his business. Considering this aspect, the claimant No.1wife and claimant Nos.3 and 4 being minors, I am of the opinion that they can be permitted to withdraw the amount. 4 Hence I pass the following order : (a) The operation and implementation of the impugned Judgment and Award dated 2nd August 2014 passed by MACT,Mumbai in Claim Petition No.2370 of 2007 is stayed during the pendency of the First Appeal with condition that the Applicant to deposit entire compensation amount with interest in MACT, Mumbai on or before 21st September 2019 failing which Civil Application shall stand dismissed. (b) If the entire amount of compensation with interest is deposited within stipulated time, Applicant No.1Smt.Anuja Ramachal Patel and claimant No.2Master Gaurav Ramachal Patel are entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.2 lakh each with accrued interest thereon without furnishing any security subject to final outcome of the First Appeal. (c)The Tribunal is directed to invest remaining amount in Fixed deposit in any nationalised bank initially for a period of one year and to continue till further order. (d)Liberty is granted to the respondents claimants, if they so desire, to apply for withdrawal of the amount, which shall be decided on its own merits. (e)Civil Application is disposed of with no order as to costs. (K.K.TATED,J.)

Order - Status 8: Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3097 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20874 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Surendra Dhanji Shah & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3099 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20878 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Hansa Jayendra Shah & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3101 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21020 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Bindu Kiran Sampat & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3103 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20891 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Pramila Dhirajlal Parekh & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3105 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20881 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Surendra Dhanji Shah & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3109 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21002 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Tersih Keshavji Raigoga & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3116 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21007 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Bindu Kiran Sampat & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3118 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21013 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Kumud Tersih Raigoga & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3120 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21016 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Sangeet Vinay Raigoga & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3122 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20869 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Jayendra Dhanji Shah & Ors. Respondents Mr.Vimal Chandrakant Shah, Applicant, present in person. . Mr.Ramesh Jain, Advocate, for the Respondents. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 21ST JANUARY, 2008. P.C.: Heard applicant appearing in person and Advocate for the original plaintiff. The impugned decree is a money decree passed in a Summary Suit. Hence, execution of the said decree cannot be stayed unless the entire decretal amount is deposited by the applicant. Hence, Application is disposed of by passing following order:- "O R D E R" (a). There will be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to condition of applicant depositing the entire decretal amount with the Trial Court within a period of six weeks from today. (b). If the entire decretal amount is not deposited with the Trial Court within stipulated time, the interim stay will stand vacated without further reference to the Court. (c). If decretal amount is deposited within stipulated time, the Trial Court will permit the original plaintiff to withdraw the said amount on furnishing adequate security. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]