All Cases

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.215 OF 2011 IN REVIEW PETITION ST. NO. 16537 OF 2011 ARISIN FROM CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 383 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 216 OF 2011 IN REVIEW PETITION ST. NO. 16539 OF 2011 ARISING FROM CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 382 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or orders or directions & Judge's orders. Registrar's orders. Shri D. Khambata, Sr. Counsel along with Shri Minoo Siodia along with Shri Agrawal Nikhil and Shri Kaushik N. Singh i/by Rustomji and Ginwala for the Applicant. Shri Vijay Thorat, Sr. Counsel along with Shri Ranjit Shetty and Shri Luckyraj Indorkar i/by Hariani & Co. for the Respondents. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE :28TH JUNE, 2011 P.C.: . Not on board. Taken on board. Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the Applicant and the learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent. Sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. Delay is condoned. The Applications are accordingly allowed. ( A.S.OKA, J )

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.241 OF 2024 Jainual Abdul Kadir Ansari … Applicant versus State of Maharashtra … Respondent None for Applicant. Mrs. Geeta P. Mulekar, APP for State. CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 18 JANUARY 2024 P.C. None present for the Applicant. Learned APP makes a grievance that copy of the application has not been served on the Respondent-State. Learned Counsel for the Applicant shall serve copy of the application on the Respondent within one week. Stand over to 29 February 2024. ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 241 OF 2024 Jainual Abdul Kadir Ansari APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR J DATE : 29th February, 2024 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 18/04/2024 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 241 OF 2024 Jainual Abdul Kadir Ansari APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR J DATE : 18th April, 2024 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 10/06/2024 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 241 OF 2024 Jainual Abdul Kadir Ansari APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANISH PITALE J DATE : 10th June, 2024 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 26/06/2024. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 241 OF 2024 Jainual Abdul Kadir Ansari APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANISH PITALE J DATE : 26th June, 2024 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 25/07/2024. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 241 OF 2024 Jainual Abdul Kadir Ansari ....APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANISH PITALE J DATE : 25th July, 2024 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 21/08/2024. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 241 OF 2024 Jainual Abdul Kadir Ansari ....APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Adv. Afreen Shaikh for Applicant. ( Mentioned out of turn at. 2.30 p.m ) Mr. Prasanna P. Malshe, APP for State-Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANISH PITALE J DATE : 21st August, 2024 P.C. : S. O. to 23/09/2024 ( H. O. B.). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 241 OF 2024 Jainual Abdul Kadir Ansari APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANISH PITALE J DATE : 23rd September, 2024 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 11/10/2024. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.2442 OF 2024 Ahmed Abdul Kadir Ansari CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.2442 OF 2024 Applicant Ahmed Abdul Kadir Ansari Applicant versus State of Maharashtra … Respondent Jainual Abdul Kadir Ansari versus WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO.241 OF 2024 Applicant Jainual Abdul Kadir Ansari … Applicant versus State of Maharashtra … Respondent Mrs. Mahalaxmi Ganapathy, APP for State. CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 1 OCTOBER 2024 P.C. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Post on 4 October 2024 for passing orders. ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

Order - Status 22: Santosh Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2024.10.04 19:55:25 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2442 OF 2024 Ahmed Abdul Kadir Ansari Versus ...Applicant The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO. 241 OF 2024 Jainul Abdul Kadir Ansari Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. Ankush Dhokale, for the Applicant in BA/2442/2024. Ms. Afreen Shaikh, for the Applicant in BA/241/2024. Smt. Mahalaxmi Ganapathy, APP for the State. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED : $4^{text{th}}$ OCTOBER, 2024 ORDER:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The applicants, who are arraigned in CR No.522 of 2021, registered with Mankhurd Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, have preferred these applications to enlarge them on bail. 3. Mohd. Hussain, the younger son of the first informant, had been to the mobile repair shop of Jainul Ansari (A1 - the 2-BA2442-2024+.DOC applicant in BA/241/2024). An altercation ensued with Ahmed Ansari (A2); (the applicant in BA/2442/2024), the brother of Jainul (A1), over replacing the display of the mobile phone handset. Jainul (A1) and Ahmed (A2) allegedly assaulted the Mohd. Hussain. The latter called the first informant. While the first informant was trying to defuse the situation and resolve the quarrel, her elder son Akbar (the deceased) came thereat on Activa Scooter. As the deceased questioned Jainul (A1) and Ahmed (A2) as to why Mohd. Hussain was assaulted, an altercation and fisticuffs ensued between the deceased and Jainul (A1). The latter allegedly picked up an iron rod and gave a blow on the chest of the deceased. While the deceased was trying to escape from the clutches of the accused by the Activa Scooter, Sarfraj (A3) and Irshad Hussain (A4) friends of Jainul (A1), accosted him. Irshad Hussain (A4) allegedly removed the key of the Scooter. Thereafter, applicant Ahmed (A2) gave a blow by means of knife on the thigh of the deceased. There was profuse bleeding and eventually the deceased succumbed to those injuries. Mr. Ankush Dhokale, the learned Counsel for Ahmed (A2) the applicant in BA/2442/2024, submitted that the incident 2-BA2442-2024+.DOC had occurred at the spur of the moment. Initial altercation was between the applicant and Mohd. Hussain. There was no premeditation. The applicant had allegedly given only one blow on the thigh. At any rate, the intention to cause the death cannot be attributed to the applicant. The applicant is a young boy and has been in custody since three years. Ms. Afreen Shaikh, the learned Counsel for Jainul (A1) the applicant in BA/241/2024, reiterated the submission that the incident had occurred at the spur of moment and without any premeditation. The presence of the deceased at the time and place of occurrence was a matter of chance. Ms. Shaikh further submitted that though the prosecution has alleged that the applicant had picked up a hot barbeque rod and assaulted the deceased, yet the injuries noted by the Autopsy Surgeon bely the said version as no burn or scalding mark was found on the person of the deceased. Inviting the attention of the Court to the postmortem report which indicates that the cause of death was 'shock and hemorrhage due to injury to left femoral vessels', Ms. Shaikh would urge that the said injury is not attributable to the applicant. Therefore, the applicant, who has been in custody since more than three years, deserves to be enlarged on bail. Smt. Ganapathy, the learned APP, stoutly resisted the prayer for bail. Smt. Ganapathy submitted that the complicity of the applicants is borne out by the statements of the eye witnesses. Over a trivial issue, the accused brutally assaulted the deceased. The injuries caused by both the applicants were sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. Therefore, the applicants cannot be permitted to draw mileage from the fact that the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to injury to left femoral vessels. It was submitted that the weapons by means of which the applicants assaulted the deceased clearly manifest the intent with which the applicants perpetrated the assault. It was further submitted that pursuant to the discovery made by the applicants the weapons of offence have been recovered. Since there is a very strong prima facie case against the applicants, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. I have perused the report under Section 173 of the Code, especially, the statements of the first informant Mohd. Hussain, Ashraf Kureshi and Asif Ahmed Shaikh. Evidently, the quarrel took place over a trivial issue. The deceased was not a party to the initial altercation. The deceased came in the frame after the first informant reached the mobile shop of Jainul (A1). After the deceased questioned Jainul (A1) and Ahmed (A2), it seems, the quarrel escalated and both the applicants allegedly assaulted the deceased. Prima facie, the witnesses have stated that Jainul (A1) assaulted the deceased by means of barbeque rod and, after the deceased attempted to escape from the clutches of the accused, Ahmed (A2) gave a blow by means of a knife on the thigh of the deceased. The injuries noted by the Autopsy Surgeon lend prima facie support to the ocular account of the witnesses. At this stage, the fact that there was no burn or scalding mark on the person of the deceased does not detract materially from the prosecution version. Prima facie, there is material to indicate that the deceased met homicidal death. The submission on behalf of the applicants that the incident was not premeditated, however, carries some substance. As noted above, the initial altercation was between the applicant Mohd. Hussain, the brother of the deceased. Even Jainul (A1) allegedly picked up a barbeque rod from the adjoining food stall. It is not the case that any of the applicants was already armed or mounted the assault after preparation. The Postmortem Report indicates that the cause of death was,'shock and hemorrhage due to injury to left femoral vessels'. As noted above, Ahmed (A2) gave a single blow by means of knife on the thigh of the deceased. Prima facie, the primary cause of death of the deceased was that, on account of the knife blow, the femoral vessels were cut. In the backdrop of the aforesaid nature of the medical evidence, the submission on behalf of the applicants that the offence may not fall within the dragnet of Section 302 of the Penal Code is required to be appreciated. As a single knife blow on a part of the body, which cannot be said to be vital, was inflicted, the pivotal question that would warrant adjudication at the trial would be, whether the offence would fall within the tentacles of Section 302 or 304 of the Penal Code. 13. Mr. Dhokale, the learned Counsel for Ahmed (A2), placed reliance on an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sk. Zuber s/o Sk. Dastagir vs. State of Maharashtra 1 , wherein in a somewhat similar fact-situation, this Court was persuaded to enlarge the accused on bail. The observations in paragraph 5 read as under: "5. In case at hand, solitary blow was given by the applicant to the deceased at his left thigh-non-vital part which has caused cut of femoral vessel. By any stretch of imagination, one cannot say that the applicant knew the location of femoral vessel and its fatal result on its cut. As per prosecution case, other four accused had caught hold the victim, meaning thereby, victim was made defenseless still the applicant gave a single blow that too on thigh instead of other vital parts of the 1 Cri. Application (BA) No.395/2021. body which is factor to be weighed in favour of the applicant. Concededly while dealing with the bail application, the Court is not expected to martial material nor to express decisive opinion about the occurrence. However, it is open to form prima facie view if the facts are Order 20 BA 395 apparent and clear. In the above circumstances, on prima facie basis intention to kill cannot be gathered. The investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant is young body aged 23 years. Trial will take considerable time for its disposal." In the case of Harjinder Singh vs. Delhi Administration 2 , the accused therein had inflicted an injury on the upper portion of left thigh of the deceased. In that context, it was held that it cannot be said with any definiteness that the accused aimed the blow at the particular part of the thigh knowing that it would cut the artery. It was, therefore, not possible to apply Clause 3 of Section 300 to the act of the accused. 15. In the case of Gokul Parashram Patil vs. State of Maharashtra 3 , wherein a single knife blow was inflicted above left clavicle cutting superior venacava, the Supreme Court observed as under: "4. ..... The solitary blow given by the appellant to the deceased was on the left clavicle - a non-vital part - and it would be too much to say that the appellant knew that the superior venacava would be cut as a result of that wound. Even a medical man perhaps may not have been able to judge the location of the superior venacava with any precision of that type. The fact that the venacava was cut must, therefore, be ascribed to a non- intentional or accidental circumstance. This was precisely the view taken in Harjinder Singh v. Delhi Administration, by Sikri, J., and in Laxman Kalu Nikalje v. The State of Maharashtra, by Hidayatullah, C.J. In the former 2 AIR 1968 Supreme Court 867. 3 (1981) 3 Supreme Court Cases 331. of these cases, the injury in question was a stab wound on the left thigh which had cut the femoral artery and vessels. In the latter, the damage caused consisted of a cut in the auxiliary artery and veins. In each of the two cases it was held that although the injury which was found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death had resulted from a blow with a sharp-edged weapon, the same could not be said to have been intended, that the only injury which could be regarded as intentional was the superficial wound resulting directly from the blow, that the assailant could not be held guilty of an offence under section 302 of the Code and that he was, on the other hand, guilty of a lesser offence falling under part II of section 304 thereof." In view of the aforesaid position in law, the aspect of complicity of the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code appears to be a matter for adjudication at the trial. To add to this, it appears that the incident had occurred at the spur of the moment and there was no premeditation. Investigation is complete. The applicants are in custody since more than three years. It is extremely unlikely that the trial can be concluded within a reasonable period. I am, therefore, inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicants. Hence, the following order: : O R D E R : (i) Applications stand allowed. (ii) Ahmed Abdul Kadir Ansari, the applicant in BA/2442/2024 and Jainul Abdul Kadir Ansari, the applicant in BA/241/2024, be released on bail in CR No.522 of 2021, registered with Mankhurd Police Station, on furnishing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, each, to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge. (iii) The applicants shall mark their presence at Mankhurd Police Station on the first Monday of every alternate month between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. for a period of two years or till conclusion of trial, whichever is earlier. (iv) The applicants shall not enter the limits of Mankhurd Police Station for a period of three years or till the conclusion of the trial, whichever is earlier, except for attending the police station on the scheduled dates. (v) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and/or give threat or inducement to the first informant and any of the persons acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing the facts to the Court or any police officer. (vi) On being released on bail, the applicants shall furnish their contact number and residential address to the investigating officer and shall keep him updated, in case there is any change. (vii) The applicants shall regularly attend the proceedings before the jurisdictional Court. (viii) By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are confined for the purpose of determination of entitlement for bail and they may not be construed as an expression of opinion on the guilt or otherwise of the applicant and co-accused and the trial court shall not be influenced by any of observations made hereinabove. Applications disposed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.235 OF 2012 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.303 OF 2012 Gokuldas R. Pai .. Appellant Vs. Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr .. Respondents Mr. Abdul Rab,for the Appellant. Ms. M. R. Bhoir,for the RespondentMCGM. CORAM : J. H. BHATIA,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 29, 2012 P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff claims to be in possession of the open plot bearing Survey No.39, City Survey No.1 at Link Road, Malad(W). On 21/03/2011, a letter was addressed by the Assistant Engineer(Bldg and Fact)P/North Ward to the plaintiff, wherein it was contended that there was a complaint received from one Jitendra Sutar that the plaintiff had placed three containers in the open plot and was using the said plot as a yard. By the said letter, he was directed to remove the containers within 24 hours, failing which they would be ata removed by the Municipal Corporation at his risk and costs. The plaintiff filed suit challenging the said letter and sought perpetual injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation from acting upon the same. By Notice of Motion, he sought temporary injunction of the same nature. The Notice of Motion was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff had no title over the property. 2 Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant pointed out that about the said property, one Krishna Patil and others had filed S. C. Suit No. 2788 of 1983 against him and that suit was dismissed in default. The plaintiff had taken out Notice of Motion No. 747 of 2010 for setting aside the dismissal and for restoration of the suit to file. However, that Notice of Motion was also dismissed by order dated 06.05.2010. Learned counsel contends that in view of this, the plaintiff is in adverse possession over the suit property for the last about 30 years. It is not necessary to make any observation about his claim about adverse possession because the real owner of the property is not a party to the suit. Learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation could not explain under which provisions of law the letter dated 21.03.2011 was issued by the Assistant Engineer to the plaintiff. She concedes that it was not a notice issued by the Municipal Corporation under any provisions of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. The Corporation does not claim :3: 235.12.ao title over the property. It is not clear who is Jitendra Sutar, who had made a complaint to the Assistant Engineer about parking of the said containers on that plot. It is not clear whether the Municipal Corporation has any right to issue such letter in respect of certain private property, particularly, when there is no allegation of any unlawful construction. Therefore, the said letter, prima facie, appears to be unauthorized, but it certainly gives a threat and creates apprehension in the mind of the plaintiff that he may be dispossessed without following due process of law. Therefore, it is necessary to give him some protection pending the suit. 3 In view of the above, the impugned order stands set aside. The Notice of Motion is allowed. The respondents are hereby restrained from taking any action against the plaintiff in respect of the suit property without following due process of law pending the suit. 4 As the appeal itself is finally disposed of, civil application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J. H. BHATIA,J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.58 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1067 OF 2004 RajeshApplicant Bachanu Dixit versus StateRespondent of Maharashtra Niranjan Mundargi for applicant. Ms.A.T.Javeri, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 28th January 2009 PC : Considering the nature of prayer made in the application, the propriety requires that the same should be placed before the learned Judge who has passed the order dated 23rd November 2004. Registry to act accordingly. (A.S.OKA, J.)

Order - Status 9: Shri Dev Kumar Singh ..... Applicant. V/s Rajesh @ Baba Bachanu Dixit and Ors. .... Respondents. Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for the applicant. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.58 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1067 OF 2004 Rajesh Bachanu Dixit ...... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent. Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for the applicant. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 20 th February, 2009 P.C:- Mentioned, not on board. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the place where the applicant has to surrender has not been mentioned in the order dated 11/2/2009 passed by this Court in the above application. Applicant is directed to surrender to Dahisar Police Station within one week from today. The order dated 11/2/2009 passed in the above application is modified accordingly. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the registry. (V.M. KANADE, J.)

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1538 OF 2014 IN WRIT PETITION NO.9282 OF 2013 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. P. N. Shekhar for the Applicant. Mr. Ajay A. Joshi for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : JUNE 25, 2014 P.C.: Mentioned. Not on board. At the request of learned counsel for the Applicant, the matter is taken on board. The learned counsel for the Respondent seeks some time to file AffidavitinReply. At his request, S.O. to 4th July 2014. JUDGE

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1538 OF 2014 IN WRIT PETITION NO.9282 OF 2013 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders None for the applicant Mr.S.P.Rajepandhare i/b Mr.A.A.Joshi for the respondent nos.1 to 3 CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATED : 04/07/2014 PC : 1 None for the applicant. 2 .Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 3 states that they have already filed an AffidavitinReply in the Registry. Same is not on record. Hence, Registry is directed to find out the same and place the same on record. 3 Stand over to 11.07.2014. (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 11: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1538 OF 2014 IN WRIT PETITION NO.9282 OF 2013 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders None for the Applicant. Mr. Ajay A. Joshi for the Respondent. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : JULY 18, 2014 P.C.: None appeared for the Applicant when the matter was called out. Office note shows that on 4 th July 2014 also none appeared on behalf of the Applicant. Hence, dismissed for default. JUDGE

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2013 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 288 OF 2008 :­ APPLICANTS :­ RESPONDENTS :- Mr. Agnel Carneivo, i/b. M/s. Mulla and Mulla and CBC for the Applicants. Mr. Pravin Kamble, for Respondent Nos. 2A, 2C to 2E. Mr. Mohan B. Jadhav, for Respondent Nos. 3 to 6B. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JUNE 28, 2013 P.C. : Heard Mr. Agnel Carneivo, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants. Issue notice to the heirs of Respondent No. 2B, returnable on 12th July, 2013. In addition to service of notice through Court, the advocate for the Applicants may serve a private notice by Registered Post A.D. and/or by Courier service and/or by hand delivery to the heirs of Respondent No. 2B and shall file affidavit of service before the returnable date. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2013 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 288 OF 2008 Nozer Sheriyar Mazda and Ors. : Applicants versus Gulab Shankar Dangat and Ors. : Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 830 OF 2013 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 803 OF 2001 Mr. Agnel Carneivo, i/b. M/s. Mulla and Mulla and CBC, for the Applicants. Mr. Anup Lahoti, for Respondent Nos. 2(B1) to 2(B3). Mr. Pravin V. Kamble, with Mr. Sharan Patole, for Respondent Nos. 2A to 2E in Second Appeal. Mr. Samrat K. Shinde, i/b. Mr. Tejas Deshpande, for Respondent Nos. 7 and 8. Mr. S. P. Joshi, for Respondent No. 1 in Second Appeal. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JULY 19, 2013 P.C. : At the request of Shri. Lahoti appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2(B1) to 2(B3), adjourned to 23rd July, 2013. The parties to note that no further adjournment would be granted. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)

Order - Status 12: can-20-13.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.20 OF 2013 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO.288 of 2008 Nozer Shriyar Mazda & Ors. : Applicants versus Gulab Shankar Dangat & Ors. : Respondents Mr. Agnel Carneivo i/b Mulla & Mulla CBC for the Applicants Mr. Mohan Jadhav for the Respondent Nos.3 to 6(B) Mr. Pravin Kamble for the Respondent Nos.2A, 2C to 2E Mr. T. D. Deshmukh for the Respondent Nos.7 and 8 CORAM: R M SAVANT, J DATED : 23rd JULY, 2013. P.C. 1 The above Civil Application has been filed for bringing the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) on record who are the Respondent Nos.2B1 to 2B3. In so far as the said heirs are concerned, they are represented by Mr. Lahoti whose appearance is shown on the cause list. The above Civil Application had appeared on 1972013 when at the request of Mr. Lahoti it was specifically adjourned for today, however today Mr. Lahoti has not appeared though the matter has been called out twice. This Court had made it clear on the last occasion that no further adjournment would be granted. The cause for filing the above Civil Application so as to join the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) as party Respondent is to facilitate the execution of the cancellation deed for cancelling the sale deed dated 217 2006. The Respondent No.2(A) to 2(E) have executed the sale deed dated 2162006 in favour of the Respondent Nos.7 and 8 which according to the Petitioners in the above Contempt Petition is in breach and violation of the order dated 2812002 passed in the above Second Appeal, by which order the parties were directed not to create third party rights in respect of the suit property. When the above Contempt Petition had come up before a Learned Single Judge of this Court on 2642013, the Learned Judge was informed by the parties that the Respondent Nos.2(A) to 2(E) would execute a cancellation deed cancelling the said sale deed dated 2172006, the order passed on the said day discloses that a draft of the cancellation deed was also produced before the Court. Since the Respondent No.2(B) has expired after the said sale deed was executed, the cancellation deed cannot be effectively executed without bringing the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) on record. As indicated above inspite of the matter being adjourned at the request of Mr. Lahoti, no appearance is put up for the heirs today. The Civil Application is accordingly allowed, resultantly the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) i.e. Respondent No.2B1, 2B2 and 2B3 are allowed to be brought on record of the Contempt Petition. Amendment can-20-13.sxw to be carried out within one week. Amended copy to be served on the concerned Advocates. The Civil Application is accordingly disposed of. 2 The parties have also agreed to cancel the partition deed between the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2(A) to 2(E), it seems that an undertaking to that effect was given before this Court which has been recorded in the order dated 2232013. 3 Since the impediment of the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) being not on record has now been removed. It is expected of the parties that they would execute the deed of cancellation of the sale deed as well as the deed of cancellation of the unregistered partition deed within one week of the time elapsing for carrying out the amendment, and report to this Court on the next date. The Contempt Petition is adjourned to 13th August, 2013. (R M SAVANT, J)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.7624 of 2004 Shri Shankar Narsaiah Samala ..Petitioner vs. 1. Administrative Officer Municipal Education Board Bhiwandi, and ors. ..Respondents Shri M.S.Lagu for petitioner Shri R.M.Agrawal with Shri G.R.Agrawal for respondent no.1. Shri R.D.Rane, Addl.G.P. for respondent nos. 2 and 3. CORAM: A.P.SHAH AND S.C.DHARMADHIKARI JJ 23rd NOVEMBER, 2004 P.C. Heard Advocates. Shri Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and Shri Rane, Addl.G.P. appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 fairly conceded that the impugned directions were issued without affording to the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. It is obvious that there was violation of the principles of natural justice. It appears that respondent no.1 has suspended the payment of trained teacher to the petitioner solely on the basis of the directions given by the Deputy Director. At no stage the petitioner was heard by any of these authorities. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of recovery. We direct the Deputy Director to grant personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. All contentions on merits are left open to the parties. Petition is disposed of.

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5757 OF 2008 Mr.Baliram Namdev Wagh. ..Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. None present. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : AUGUST 6, 2008. P.C. : None appears. Dismissed for non-prosecution. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)

Order - Status 11: mptIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5757 of 2008 Mr.Baliram .. Namdev Wagh Petitioner versus State.. of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondents ... Mr.K.H. Holambe for the petitioner. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED : 5th September 2008 P.C.: 1.Issue notice returnable on 1st October 2008. 2.In addition, petitioners to serve the respondents by advocate's notice, either personally or by courier/speed post/e-mail/fax, and file an affidavit of service before the returnable date. 3.Status quo as of today be maintained with regard to the suit property. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)

Order - Status 13: ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5757 OF 2008 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Court's or Judge's Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.B.V.Holambe-Patil for the Petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Behere for Respondent No.2. CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED : 1st October, 2008. P.C. . By consent, adjourned for two weeks. Status-quo as ordered on 5th September, 2008 to continue till then. [ ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.]

Order - Status 16: ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5757 OF 2008 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Court's or Judge's Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.B.V.Holambe-Patil i/by Mr.K.H.Holame for the Petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Behere for Respondent No.2. CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED : 17th October, 2008. P.C. . By consent, adjourned to 24/10/2008. Meanwhile, status-quo to continue till then. [ ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.]

Order - Status 20: SPB FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. I IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5757 OF 2008 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders None for the Petitioner. Mr.S.A. Rayrikar, AGP for the State. Mr.Sameer D. Pendse i/by Rajesh Behere for the respondent no.2. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 04TH DECEMBER, 2008 P.C.: 1. None present for the petitioner again. Put on Wednesday, the 10th of December, 2008 as a last chance for dismissal. (Anoop V.Mohta,J)

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5757 OF 2008 Mr. Baliram Namdev Wagh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents None present for the Petitioner. Shri Sameer D. Pendse i/b Shri Rajesh Behere for Respondent No.2. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED: DECEMBER 10, 2008 P.C: As none appeared for the petitioner on 2-12-2008, the matter was adjourned to 4-12-2008 for dismissal. On 4-12-2008 as again none appeared for the petitioner, as last chance, the matter was ordered to be listed today under the same caption. Even today when the matter is called out, none appears for the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petition is dismissed for default. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) sjs/D8wp5757.8

Order - Status 27: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5757 OF 2008 Mr.Baliram Namdev Wagh ...Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Ganesh Nagargose i/b Mr.K.H.Holambe Patil for Petitioner. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.Pankaj Das for Respondent No.2. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. MARCH 20, 2009. P.C. ...... Request for adjournment is made on the ground that the Advocate on record for the Petitioner is unwell and has been hospitalised. In the circumstances, stand over to 30th April 2009. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Order - Status 32: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5757 OF 2008 Mr.Baliram Namdev Wagh .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.K.H.Holambe-Patil for the petitioner. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P for the State. Mr.Milind D. Parab for the respondent no.2. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 12th August 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2. The petitioner is the 1st defendant. The 2nd respondent is the original plaintiff. In a suit filed by the 2nd respondent, ex-parte decree has been passed against the petitioner. The petitioner has made an application for setting aside the exparte decree and has also prayed for stay. In the meanwhile, 2nd respondent filed execution application and applied for arrest and detention of the petitioner under Rule 30 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. An application was made by the petitioner in the execution application for stay of proceedings of the execution on the ground that his application for setting aside exparte decree was pending. By the impugned order the said application has been rejected. After having considered the submissions of the petitioner, I find no fault with the impugned order. The application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the exparte decree is still pending. If at all the petitioner is entitled to stay of execution of the decree, he has to apply for stay in application for setting aside exparte decree. Unless stay is granted in application for setting aside exparte decree, the executing Court was justified in not granting stay. Unless there is a stay granted to the execution by the competent Court in appropriate proceedings, the execution has to proceed. Therefore, no case for interference is made out. However, it will be open for the petitioner to apply for stay in the pending application for setting aside the exparte decree. To enable the petitioner to do so, ad-interim relief granted by this Court can be continued for a reasonable time. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) The petition is rejected. The rejection of the petition will not preclude the petitioner from applying for appropriate interim relief in the pending application for setting aside exparte decree. (b) To enable the petitioner to take steps, ad-interim relief granted by this Court on 17th October 2008 will continue to operate for a period of six weeks from today. (A.S.OKA,J)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1087 OF 2005 State of Maharashtra V/s Applicant. Khandu Mahadu Hake Respondent. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office ) Court's or Judge'sOrders Memoranda of Coram, appearances, ) - Court's orders or directions and ) Registrar's orders. ) ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Mr.A.M. Shringarpure, APP for the State. CORAM:V.G. PALSHIKAR AND R.C. CHAVAN, JJ. 20.7.2005 PC: Heard. Application for leave to file the appeal is granted. Appeal admitted. Record and proceedings be called for. 20.7.05