All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2592 OF 2019 Hema Manoj Date And Anr. ....Petitioner V/S M/s. Eashkrupa Shiping And Logistics (i) Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. ....Respondent Mr.Akshay Prakash Shinde for Petitioners. Mr.A.R.Kapadnis- APP for the State. CORAM : SURENDRA PANDHARINATH TAVADE, J DATE : 2nd January, 2020 P.C. : Stand over to 30/01/2020 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2592 OF 2019 Petitioners Respondents Mr. Manoj Badgujar i/b Mr. Akshay Prakash Shinde for the Petitioners None for the Respondent No.1 Mr. A. R. Patil, A.P.P for the Respondent No.2–State CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. (THROUGH VIDEO-CONFERENCING) THURSDAY, 6th JANUARY 2022 P.C. : 1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2 By this petition, the petitioners have impugned the order issuing process as against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1 is the wife of Manoj Date, the proprietor of M/s. Anuj Textiles and the petitioner No. 2 is the mother of Manoj Date. He submits that both the petitioners are not concerned with the proprietary concern i.e. M/s. Anuj Textiles. He further submits that Manoj Date, as a proprietor of M/s. Anuj Textiles, had issued the cheques in question, which are dishonoured and that the petitioners have been arraigned as accused by virtue of their relations with Manoj Date and that they are not concerned with the said transaction. 3 Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 3rd February 2022. Learned A.P.P waives notice on behalf of the respondent No. 2-State. In addition to Court notice, petitioners to serve the respondent No.1 by Advocate's notice and file an affidavit of service before the returnable date. 4 In the meantime, till the next date, the proceedings qua the petitioners, is stayed. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2592 OF 2019 Hema Manoj Date And Anr. ...Petitioners Versus M/s. Eashkrupa Shiping And Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Manoj Badgujar i/by Mr. Akshay Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioners. …. Mr. Govinda S. Gupta h/f Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate for Respondent No.1. …. Mr. A. R. Patil, APP for the Respondent – State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2022. PER COURT : The petition was circulated at the instance of respondent No.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Govind Gupta submits that the arguing counsel appearing for respondent No.1 is in difficulty and hence the petition may be adjourned. Stand over to 14th November, 2022. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2592 OF 2019 Hema Manoj Date And Anr. ...Petitioner Versus M/s.. Eashkrupa Shiping And Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. ...Respondents …. Mr. Manoj Badgujar i/by Mr. Akshay P. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner. None for respondent No.1. Mr. A. R. Patil, APP for the Respondent – State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2022. PER COURT : Not on Board. Taken on Board. Papers are produced for extension of interim relief granted by this Court. By order dated 06.01.2022, the proceedings before the trial Court were stayed qua the petitioner till the next date of hearing. Thereafter, the petition was listed on 28.09.2022 at the instance of the respondent and it was adjourned to 14.11.2022 but interim order dated 06.01.2022 has not been extended. Hence, the interim order is extended till the next date of hearing i.e. on 14.11.2022. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) Sajakali Jamadar 1 of 1

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2592 OF 2019 Hema Manoj Date & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. Eashkrupa Shiping & Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. … Respondents Mr. Manoj Badgujar i/by Mr. Akshay Shinde for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Verma for the respondent No.1. Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for the State. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 14, 2022 P.C.: Stand over to 2nd December, 2022. Ad-interim relief granted earlier is extended till 5th December, 2022. (AMIT BORKAR, J.)

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2592 OF 2019 Hema Manoj Date & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. Eashkrupa Shipping & Logistics (I) Pvt Ltd. & Anr. … Respondents Mr. Manoj Badgujar i/by Mr. Akshay P. Shide for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Kumar Verma for respondent no.1. Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for the respondent no.2/State. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : DECEMBER 2, 2022 P.C.: The petitioners are accused nos.3 and 4. From the averments in the complaint, it is clear that accused no.1 is a proprietary firm of which accused no.2 is the sole proprietor. As per averments in the complaint, accused no.3 is the wife of accused no.2 and accused no.4 is the mother of accused no.2. In relation to the proprietary firm, it is stated in the complaint that accused nos.2, 3 and 4 jointly handled the day-to-day business affairs of respondent no.1 firm and, therefore, accused nos.3 and 4 are vicariously liable for the cheque issued by the accused no.1. Since accused no.1 is neither a firm nor a company, the provisions of section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are not attracted. Arguable questions are raised. Rule. There shall be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) qua the petitioners only. (AMIT BORKAR, J.)

Order - Status 18: Ghuge IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2592 OF 2019 Hema Manoj Date and Anr … Petitioners V/s. M/s. Eashkrupa Shipping and Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd and Anr … Respondents Mr. Manoj Badgujar i/b Mr. Akshay Shinde for the petitioners. Mr. Ashwinkumar Verma for the respondent No.1. Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for the State/respondent No.2. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : APRIL 26, 2023 P.C.: Learned advocate for the respondent No.1, on instructions, of the complainant the complainant has no objection to set aside the order dated 19th January, 2019. The order order dated 16th June, 2017 passed against the petitioners. He states that the complainant has no objection to quash the complaint against the petitioners. In view of consent of the complainant/respondent No.1, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). (AMIT BORKAR, J.)

Order - Status 2: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 15223 OF 2018 Tetra Park India Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner V/S The Union Of India And Ors. ....Respondent Mr Prakash Shah i/b Pds Legal For CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI HARISH DANGRE, JJ DATE : 4th June, 2018 P.C. : Mentioned at 11.00 a,m, Place the matter on board for urgent admission on 11/06/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6151 OF 2018 Tetra Park India Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner V/S The Union Of India And Ors. ....Respondent Mr Prakash Shah, i/b Pds Legal For Petitioner Mr Pradeep S.Jetly a/w D.P.Singh for Respdt. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI HARISH DANGRE, JJ DATE : 11th June, 2018 P.C. : Stand over to 12/06/2018 at 3.00 p.m,. Mr Jetly has tendered affidavit in Court is kept in matter. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6151 OF 2018 Tetra Pak India Pvt. Ltd. } Petitioner versus The Union of India and Ors. } Respondents Mr. Prakash Shah i/b. M/s. PDS Legal for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly with Mr. D. P. Singh for respondent nos. 1 to 3. CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ. DATE :- JUNE 12, 2018 P.C. :- After this writ petition was heard on the earlier occasion and even today, Mr. Jetly, on seeking instructions from the Joint Director General, Foreign Trade, who is also the deponent of the affidavit and present in court, states that the said Joint Director General will grant the petitioner the licences which are subject matter of the petition, namely, licence authorisation under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS) and the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) and allow the petitioner to avail of the benefits of the schemes, that of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2015-2020. However, this is subject and without prejudice as well to the powers conferred in the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade/Directorate of Foreign Trade under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. We accept these statements made on instructions by Mr.Jetly as undertakings given to this court. In the light thereof, we are of the opinion that once licences would be granted in pursuance of the petitioner's applications, then, the orders of rejection of these applications made earlier do not survive. They stand quashed and set aside. Needless to clarify that once the above statements are made on behalf of the Union of India, Ministry of Commerce and the Director General and the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, then, respondent no. 4-Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva shall not preclude or prevent the clearance of the consignments of the petitioner provided the petitioner can seek the benefit of the licences. The communication dated 14th May, 2018 from the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva Customs House Exhibit "II" to the petition to stand quashed and set aside. The writ petition is disposed of. (SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Order - Status 10: FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3167 of 2009 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders 3 or directions and Registrar's Orders None present for the applicant. respondent no.2. Ms.S.N.Dabhodkar i/b Mr.Samir Vaidya for Mr.S.A. Shaikh A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 11th March 2010. P.C. : Applicant and his counsel are absent when called. Application is dismissed for non prosecution/ default. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4542 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant V/s. Avit A. Bole .. Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3167 OF 2009 Ravindra M. Jadhav .. Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Another .. Respondents. Mrs. A.S.Pai, A.P.P. for State-Applicant in Cr. Appln. No.4542 of 2009. Shri C.K.Pendse, for Applicant in Cr. Appln. No.3167 of 2009. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J DATED : JUNE 30th, 2010. P.C. Criminal Application No.3167 of 2009 is already dismissed for default vide order dated 11th March, 2010 by another bench. Presently, there is no restoration application before this Court. However, the learned Advocate Shri Pendse submitted that Criminal Application No.392 of 2010 is already preferred for restoration. So far as Criminal Application No.4542 of 2009 is concerned, which is filed by the State, it is submitted by the learned A.P.P. for State, that applicants/original accused has violated certain conditions imposed while granting him bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay. She further states that she will take instructions from concerned Investigating Officer regarding stage of the matter and whether charge is framed and in that event, the present application can be conveniently disposed off, if not pressed by the State. S.O. to 14th July, 2010. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)

Order - Status 15: apln3167&4542-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION [1] CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3167 OF 2009 Ravindra Madhukar Jadhav. Applicant. Vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra, & 2. Avit Anant Bhole. Respondents. ALONG WITH [2] CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4542 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Vs. Avit Anant Bole. ..Respondent. .......... Mr.C.K. Pendse, Advocate for the Applicant in Cri.Application No.3167/2009. Mr.S.A. Vaidya, Advocate a/w. Mr.R.B. Mokashi, Advocate for respondent No.2 in Cri.Application No.3167/2009 and respondent in Cri.Application No.4542/2009. Mrs.A.S. Pai, A.P.P. for the State in both applications. .......... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 06TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. By the present order both these applications for cancellation of regular bail are being disposed of, as what is challenged in both the applications, respectively by the orig.complainant and by the State, is the order dated 1st July, 2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay granting regular bail to the present respondent/orig.accused. Prior to appreciating the rival submissions so far as cancellation or otherwise of the regular bail, certain factual position as per the narrations in the FIR is required to be mentioned. The incident happened on the night of 31st May, 2009. The first informant was proceeding towards his home after consuming some liquor along with his three friends. At about 11:40 p.m. the complainant and his friends left the liquor bar and started for their respective homes. When his 2 friends left him, the complainant was alone proceeding on the road. That time, he was hit on his head by stump like wooden bamboo. The impact was grave and due to which the complainant shouted for help. By that time, his two friends who had just left him, rushed to the spot and found that the respondent/accused had given blow on the head of the complainant just above the eyebrow. The assault was also on the right hand and right leg. After the assault, present respondent/accused ran away from the spot. The complainant was removed to the hospital by his two friends and through them the identity of the present respondent/accused was revealed and the complainant knew that the present respondent/accused assaulted him by means of a cricket stump and that leaving the said stump on the spot the respondent had ran away. Accordingly on 1.6.2009, first information report was lodged with Chembur police station. During the investigation, initially the offence was registered for Section 326 of Indian Penal Code vide C.R. No. 202 of 2009. Present respondent was arrested. He preferred first application for bail bearing Bail Application No.1223 of 2009. Said bail application was rejected on the ground that the investigation was in progress. The victim/complainant was still in hospital and reportedly he had lost the vision of one eye due to the assault and also suffered the fracture. By making these observations, the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay rejected the bail at that juncture vide order dated 17.6.2009. Thereafter still during pendency of the investigation, another Bail Application No.1309 of 2009 was filed before the same Additional Sessions Judge and it was disposed of vide order dated 1st July, 2009 granting bail to the present respondent in the sum of Rs.15,000/ with directions to attend the concerned police station once a week during 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. till filing of the chargesheet. This is the order which is impugned in both the present applications for cancellation of bail. During the arguments, learned Advocate for the orig.complainant brought to the notice of the Court that during the investigation steps were taken by the investigating agency to apply the provisions of the penal Section 307 instead of Section 326 of IPC considering the gravity of the injury and the part of the head on which the assault was inflicted by means of a cricket stump. It is also argued and brought to the notice of the Court that a detailed report was filed by the concerned police station dated 10.6.2009 objecting the first bail application. Virtually similar such report was filed by the police prior to the order on the second bail application. However, with specific mention that the injured is discharged from the hospital. Vide said reply, objection was raised for the grant of bail. However, inspite of such written submission, further argued, the investigating officer gave no objection for grant of bail which was second time filed by the respondent/accused. This conduct on the part of the investigating officer has been deprecated by the complainant. Moreover the State has also filed the application for cancellation of bail on the ground that just within a span of about 13 days, there was no much changed circumstances, however, the same Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay allowed the bail application when the investigation was still continuing. Counter to the above arguments, it is vehemently submitted by the learned Advocate Shri Vaidya for the respondent that the investigation was virtually over and infact the victim was already discharged from the hospital and there was nothing brought before the Court as to any steps being taken by the investigating agency for application of Section 307 of IPC under the circumstances of the case. It is also vehemently submitted on behalf of the respondent that there is nothing perverse in the said order passed, in as much as, legal requirement to quash the same and take the respondent in the custody during pendency of the trial. Reliance was placed on behalf of the respondent to 6 the ratios propounded by the following authorities : [i] (1984) 1 Supreme Court Cases 284 Bhagirathsinh s/o Mahipat Singh Vs. State of Gujarat [ii] AIR 1993 SUPREME COURT 1 Aslam Babalal Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra. [iii] (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 368 Rizwan Akbar Hussain Syyed Vs. Mehmood Hussain and Another. [iv] 2009 Cri.L.J. 4290 Savitri Agarwal & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Considering the ratios and the parameters required to be considered in order to undone the order of grant of bail, it is to be seen under the specific circumstances of the present matter whether the order of grant of bail is of such a perverse nature so that it is required to be undone and whether there is a legal necessity to put the respondent in custody during the trial, still if it is considered that the matter is punishable under Section 307 of IPC and when the chargesheet is already filed and that after framing of the charge the matter can be expeditiously taken for recording of the evidence. In order to answer the above point, the wordings of the impugned order, appearing in paragraph Nos.3 & 4 are reproduced for ready reference, as under : "3. The I.O. is present. He has no objection to grant bail to the applicant accused. The investigation is almost over. The victim has been discharged from the hospital. There is a history of dispute between the family of the complainant and the applicant/accused. The applicant has been behind the bars for about a month. It would take time for trial of the case. Pretrial detention is, in the circumstances, unwarranted. The application is, therefore, allowed." After ascertaining the above factual position and reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and considering the release of the respondent since July, 2009, it cannot be said that the circumstances do warrant arrest of the accused and send him in custody till conclusion of the trial still considering that he is to face the charge punishable under Section 307 of IPC. This is more so when according to the learned APP for the State, the process of applying Section 307 instead of Section 326 of IPC started sometime by end of September, 2009 i.e. much after passing of the impugned order. In view of the above, there is nothing to reverse the impugned order of grant of bail. However, certain directions can be given to the concerned learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, the order: :: O R D E R :: [i] Both Criminal Application Nos.3167/2009 & 4542/2009 stand rejected. [ii] Direction are given to the learned Additional Sessions Judge who is seized of the matter to dispose of the matter as early as possible. [iii] The learned Additional Sessions Judge shall not be influenced by any observations made in the present order so far as merits of the case are concerned and shall deal with the matter according to law. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) PPD

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7887 OF 2024 Vishwas S/o Babasaheb Deshmukh And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary Social Justice And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ DATE : 4th March, 2025 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 05/03/2025. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7887 OF 2024 Vishwas S/o Babasaheb Deshmukh And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary Social Justice And Ors ....RESPONDENT Mr. S. R. Barlinge (appeared through VC) a/w Mr. Deepak Pote for Petitioner Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl.G.P. a/w Mr. A.C. Bhadang, AGP for Respondents-State CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ DATE : 5th March, 2025 P.C. : S. O. to 06/03/2025 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: TRUPTI SADANAND signed by TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Date: 2025.03.13 17:38:25 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7887 OF 2024 Vishwas s/o. Babasaheb Deshmukh & Ors. … Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents Mr.Ketan Pote (through VC) h/f. Mr.Deepak Pote for the Petitioners. Mr.P.P.Kakde, Addl.GP with Mr.A.C.Bhadang, AGP for the Respondent -State. Mr.Rajiv More, Law Officer is present. Mr.Prashant Gaikwad, Medical Social Worker is present. CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ. DATE : 6TH MARCH, 2025 P.C. :- The Petitioners have put forth prayer clauses (A), (B) and (C), as under : "A] By a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or order or directions in the like nature, respondent No. 2 be directed to consider the petitioners for absorption in any other aided School meant for physically challenged students. B] By a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or order or directions in the like nature, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 may kindly be directed to pay salary of the petitioners for a period from 2017 till the date of their absorption. C] Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, respondent No. 2 be directed to consider the petitioners absorption as per their seniority in the waiting list maintained by respondent No. 2 without waiting for the list to be submitted by respondent No. 4 Management". The learned Addl.GP submits, on instructions, that an Appeal was filed by Respondent No.4 Management, challenging the decision of the Government to close down the said Institution. The said Appeal was allowed on 25th January, 2018. However, thereafter, the Management has not started the said Institution. Therefore, these Petitioners are still in the lurch. We are informed that the proposals of these Petitioners, for absorption, have been forwarded by Respondent No.3 to Respondent No.2. The learned Addl.GP submits that the said proposals could not be acted upon since the department requires the service books along with the appointment orders of these Petitioners and the Institution is closed. If the Petitioners tender self attested copies of the service books along with their appointment orders, Respondent No.2 would consider the same and take a decision as regards the absorption of these Petitioners. He, therefore, prays that the Petitioners should cooperate. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits, on instructions, that the Petitioners are willing to cooperate. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed off with the following directions : (a) The Petitioners shall prepare additional copies of their service books along with their appointment orders and tender them to Respondent no. 2; (b) Depending upon the availability of posts on which these Petitioners would be eligible, the appropriate Authority would start issuing orders of absorption of these Petitioners and similarly situated employees who have not approached the Court, strictly as per their seniority list; 3 of 4 (c) Insofar as the payment of salary to a surplus teacher is concerned, in the light of the Government Resolution dated 15th March, 2024, we direct the concerned Authorities to ensure that the said Government Resolution is scrupulously followed and the surplus teachers be paid their due amounts, within a period of 60 days, and to be paid until they are absorbed. (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3165 OF 2017 ................... Sundari Somnath Salian .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents .................... Mr. Sunil Karandikar for Petitioner. Mr. S.H.Kankal, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. None for Respondent No.5. CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 23, 2022. P.C. : Heard Mr.Karandikar, learned Advocate for Petitioner. By Order dated 25.05.2008, Tahasildar granted access of 16 sq.mtr. for road to the Petitioner with one pre-condition that Petitioner shall keep the said area open and not construct any compound on the same seeking exclusivity. It is submitted that Respondent No.5 society being aggrieved, challenged the above condition before the Collector. By Order dated 19.09.2008, Collector confirmed the Order of Tahasildar rejecting the said challenge. By order dated 14.10.2009, Additional Commissioner dismissed the revision. In second revision before the State, specifically pertaining to the said condition which emanated from the order of the Tahasildar, the State passed order cancelling the original allotment and grant of 16 sq.mtr. area for road by Tahasildar to the Petitioner. Prima-facie it is seen that the subject matter in appellate proceedings and revision proceedings was limited to the extent of challenge to the condition only i.e. restricting the constructions of compound by Petitioner. In that view of the matter cancelling the original allotment of the subject land to the Petitioner was never in dispute or the subject matter of challenge in Appeal proceedings or in the subsequent revision proceedings. In view of the above, issue notice to Respondents. In addition to service of notice through Court, Petitioner shall serve Respondents by any permissible mode of service and file affidavit of service with tangible proof thereof before the returnable date. Mr. Kankal waives notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Petitioner shall serve a copy of the order on Respondent No.5. In the meanwhile, impugned order dated 31.10.2014 shall stand stayed. Reply to be filed within four weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, to be filed within one week thereafter. Stand over to 11th January, 2023. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3165 OF 2017 Smt. Sundari Somnath Salian ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 11th January, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 15/02/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3165 OF 2017 Smt. Sundari Somnath Salian ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 15th February, 2023 P.C. : Mentioned out of turn. At the request of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Respondent, stand over to 21/02/2023. Ad-interim relief, if any, to continue till the next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: 1 of 7 2-wp-3165-17 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3165 OF 2017 Smt. Sundari Somnath Salian ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Sunil G. Karandikar for petitioner. Mr. Avinash H. Fatangare i/b. Archana S. Shelar for Respondent No.5. Mr. C. D. Mali, A.G.P. for the State/Respondent Nos.1 to 4. __________ __________ CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 10 MARCH 2023 PC : The petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 22/04/2014 passed by the Secretary and Special Executive Officer (Appeals) in the Revision Application S-30/2710/P.K.139/G-4 P.K.524(01)/2012/AVPU, as well as, the order dated 31/10/2014 rejecting the review of that particular order. The petitioner had requested for a road for accessing her plot at City Survey No.7754. The Tahsildar, Ambernath vide order dated 25/03/2008 directed that the plot admeasuring 16 Sq.mtr. from the plot No.81 owned by the respondent No.5 Society be allotted to the petitioner for a road accessing to her plot after depositing certain amount. That order was challenged by the respondent No.5 Society before the Collector, Thane. The said authority vide order dated 19/09/2008 rejected the objection raised by the society and upheld the order passed by the Tahsildar. However, vide Clause 3 of the said order dated 19/09/2008 it is clarified that the said portion could be used by the petitioner only for accessing her plot as a road to her plot. She was directed not to erect any compound around that particular portion. This particular clause of the Collector's order was challenged by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner (Konkan Division) Mumbai. That appeal was dismissed vide order dated 14/10/2009 and the order passed by the Collector was confirmed. In this particular appeal before the Additional Commissioner, the petitioner had challenged only the restriction on putting up a compound around that portion. There was, of course, no challenge by the petitioner for grant of that particular portion for her use. The petitioner thereafter filed the Revision U/s.257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966 (for short 'M.L.R.Code') 3 of 7 2-wp-3165-17 before the Government of Maharashtra. That Revision application was rejected vide order dated 22/04/2014. While rejecting that revision application, the Secretary and Special Executive Officer (Appeals) for Government of Maharashtra also set aside the orders dated 25/03/2008 passed by the Tahsildar, Ambernath, the order dated 19/09/2008 passed by the Collector, Thane and the order dated 14/10/2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Konkan Division) Mumbai. The petitioner then preferred a review application of that order before the same authority. That review was also dismissed. The petitioner in these circumstances has approached this court challenging the order passed by the Government of Maharashtra U/s.257 of the M.L.R. Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State Government exceeded the scope of revision application preferred by the petitioner. The Government could only have taken into consideration the objection raised by the petitioner and the contentions raised by the petitioner. It was not open for the 4 of 7 2-wp-3165-17 Government to have considered the legality or validity of the order passed by the Tahsildar, Ambernath, the Collector, Thane and the Additional Commissioner (Konkan Division) Mumbai. Therefore, prejudice is caused to the petitioner because she was not given notice that all these three orders would be set aside by the impugned order. He further submitted that the Revisional Authority had taken into consideration Section 143 of the M.L.R. Code, but the petitioner was not heard and in consonance of the principles of natural justice, she at least deserved hearing before any adverse order was passed in her own revision application. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.5 submitted that the said respondent had filed their written submissions before the revisional authority, therefore, the petitioner was very much aware of the stand taken by the society. Therefore, the petitioner was not taken by surprise when the order was passed by the revisional authority. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.5 relied on the Judgment passed by a Single Judge of this Court in the case of Pandurang Chandrabhan Bauche and another Vs. Jalindhar Sarandhar Tupe & Ors. 1 to contend that the powers U/s.143 of the M.L.R. Code could be used only in respect of an agricultural land and not for the lands which are situated within the city limits. I have considered these submissions and I have perused the impugned orders passed by the revisional authority. The revisional authority has referred to Section 143 of the M.L.R. Code and has observed that the Tahsildar does not have power to pass any order in respect of a road leading to a plot which was not an agricultural land. To that extent, I do not find any infirmity in that order. However, the fact remains that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to make her submissions. Therefore, only to that extent and in the interest of justice, the petitioner deserves some hearing before any adverse order was passed by the revisional authority in the petitioner's own revision application. In such a case, the petitioner could have come up with other factual aspects of the matter and some solution could have been found between the parties. Some workable consequential relief could have been considered. The Judgment relied on by learned counsel for the 1 2009 (3) Mh.L.J. 467 Respondent No.5 also supports the reasoning given by the revisional authority. Therefore, legally, I do not see that the revisional authority had committed any error. The only difficulty is that the petitioner was not heard when an adverse order was passed in her own revision application. She was not put to notice that such order was contemplated. Therefore, only because of that, I am inclined to remand back this revision proceeding before the revisional authority. Except for the power of the Tahsildar U/s.143 of the M.L.R. Code referred to herein above, the other contentions of the petitioner, as well as, of the respondent No.5 are left open. It is also necessary to take care of the consequences of cancellation of the order passed by the Tahsildar which can be decided by the revisional authority and for that purpose it is also necessary to remand back the revision application to the revisional authority. Hence, the following order: O R D E R i) The Writ Petition is allowed. ii) The Revision Application filed by the petitioner is remanded back to the Revisional Authority. iii) It is made clear that, all other contentions of both the parties, except with reference to Section 143 of the M.L.R. Code, are left open. iv) The Revision Application shall be decided within a period of three months from today. v) The Writ petition is disposed of. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 245 OF 2018 Viraj Anand Ubale Indian Inhabitant, Aged – 15years, through his Legal Guardian/Father, Anand Ubale Residing at 510/5, Riddhi Siddhi Apartments, Papnas Wadi Lane, Agast Kranti Marg, Mumbai 400 036. ...Petitioner Vs. 1. Swapna Pradeep Salunkhe Indian inhabitant, Aged – 35 years, residing at 807/8, Riddhi Siddhi Apartments, Papnas Wadi Lane, Agast Kranti Marg, Mumbai 400 036. The State of Maharashtra through the Senior Police Inspector of Gamdevi Police Station, Mumbai ...Respondents Ms. Anandini Fernandes i/by Deepal A. Thakkar, Advocate for the petitioner. …........ Mr. Rajesh R. Shah, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, A.P.P. State. …........ WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 246 OF 2018 Pradeep Kashinath Salunkhe Indian Inhabitant, Aged – 43 years, residing at 807/8, Riddhi Siddhi Apartments, Papnas Wadi Lane, August Kranti Marg, Mumbai 400 036. Mrs. Swapna Pradeep Salunkhe Indian Inhabitant, Aged – 35 years, residing at 807/8, Riddhi Siddhi Apartments, Papnas Wadi Lane, August Kranti Marg, Mumbai 400 036. Dipak Prakash Patil Indian Inhabitant, Aged – 33 years, residing at 503/5, Riddhi Siddhi Apartments, Papnas Wadi Lane, August Kranti Marg, Mumbai 400 036. Suresh Ramchandra Panwalkar Indian Inhabitant, Aged – 48 years, residing at 810/8, Riddhi Siddhi Apartments, Papnas Wadi Lane, August Kranti Marg, Mumbai 400 036. ...Petitioners Vs. Viraj Anand Ubale Indian Inhabitant, Minor, Aged – 15years, through his Legal Guardian/Father Anand Ubale Residing at 510/5, (9) & (10) WP 245-18 & 246-18.doc Riddhi Siddhi Apartments, Papnas Wadi Lane, Agast Kranti Marg, Mumbai 400 036. The State of Maharashtra (Through the Senior Police Inspector of Gamdevi Police Station. Mr. Rajesh R. Shah, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Anandini Fernandes i/by Deepal A. Thakkar, Advocate for respondent No.1. …........ Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, A.P.P. State. …........ CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI ACTING C.J. AND M.S.KARNIK, J. DATE : 23rd JANUARY, 2018. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, A.C.J.) : Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally by consent of parties. In Writ Petition No. 245 of 2018 the petitioner, who is 15 years old, through his legal guardian is seeking quashing of C.R.No. 226 of 2016 which is numbered as C.C.No. 256/JW/2017 pending before the Juvenile Justice Board, Dongari, Mumbai. The said case is under Sections 354(A) (1) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. In the said case Smt. Swapna Salunkhe, who is the mother of the victim girl, has lodged the said FIR wherein it is stated that the petitioner caught hold of the hand of her daughter in the lift and told her that he loves her. In Writ Petition No. 246 of 2018, the petitioner No.1 is Pradeep Salunkhe who is the father of the victim girl in C.R.No.226 of 2016. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of petitioner No.2 Smt. Swapna Salunkhe who is the complainant in C.R.No. 226 of 2016. Petitioner No.3 and petitioner No.4 are the neighbours of Smt. Swapna Salunkhe. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 246 of 2018 are seeking quashing of C.R.No. 225 of 2016 of Gamdevi Police Station, Mumbai. The said case is numbered as SCST Case No.6 of 2017 and it is pending before the Sessions Court, Mumbai. The said case is under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This FIR has been lodged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 245 of 2018 against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 in Writ Petition No. 246 of 2018. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 245 of 2018, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 246 of 2018, learned Counsel for the complainant in both the matters and the learned APP for the State. The accused persons in both the petitions are present before the Court. So also, the complainant in both the matters are present before the Court. Learned Counsel for the respondent/original complainant in both the petitions stated that the cases are cross cases and the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. They have stated that with the help of well wishers and common friends both parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and have resolved all the disputes between them and they have stated that they do not wish to pursue their complaints and the complaints may be quashed. Looking to the fact that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and looking to the fact that the complainants in both the cases do not want to pursue the case, we are of the opinion that no purpose would be achieved by continuing with the prosecution in the said case. In this view of the matter, C.R.No. 226 of 2016 and C.R.No. 225 of 2016 and the proceedings relating thereto are quashed. The Writ Petitions are disposed of in above terms. Rule is made absolute in above terms. (M.S.KARNIK, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 658 of 2013 Janardhan Prabhakar Mhatre & anr. Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents Mr. Ravindra P. Sankpal, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.D. Rairikar, AGP for respondents 1 and 2. Ms. Sarika Padmakar Mhatre for respondent no.3. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J. 31st January, 2013. P.C. : No case is made out warranting interference in the concurrent orders. Rejected. (B.R.GAVAI, J.) L.S. Panjwani, P.A.

Order - Status 2: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN AO STAMP NO. 14060 OF 2018 In APPEAL FROM ORDER STAMP NO. 14057 OF 2018 Mr. Suresh Damji Shah And Anr ....Applicant V/S Buddha Co-operative Housing Society Limited And Ors ....Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN AO STAMP NO. 14058 OF 2018 In APPEAL FROM ORDER LODGING NO . 14057 OF 2018 Mr. Suresh Damji Shah And Anr ....Applicant V/S Buddha Co-operative Housing Society Limited And Ors ....Respondent Mr Swanand Ganoo a/w Mr Amit Mehta i/b Mahimtura And Company For Applicant Mr Vijay Thorat Sr Adv a/w Mr Vaibhav Sugdare i/b chitnis & Co. for Resp NO.1 Mr Sanjay Jain a/w Mr Jigar Dedhia i/b L.D. shah and Co for Resp NO.4 CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J DATE : 16th July, 2018 P.C. : By consent, Stand Over to 30/07/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN AO STAMP NO. 14060 OF 2018 In APPEAL FROM ORDER STAMP NO. 14057 OF 2018 Mr. Suresh Damji Shah And Anr ....Applicant V/S Buddha Co-operative Housing Society Limited And Ors ....Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN AO STAMP NO. 14058 OF 2018 In APPEAL FROM ORDER LODGING NO . 14057 OF 2018 Mr. Suresh Damji Shah And Anr ....Applicant V/S Buddha Co-operative Housing Society Limited And Ors ....Respondent Mr.Swanand Ganoo i/by Mahimtura And Company For Applicant. Mr.Vijaysinh A.Thorat,Sr.Counsel a/w Vaibhav Sugdare i/by L.D.Shah & Co.,For R.No.4. Mr.Sanjay Jain i/by Chitnis & Co., For R.No.1. Mr.Preet Chheda, For R.No.2, 3a and 3b. CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J DATE : 11th December, 2018 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the applicant, Stand over to 11.01.2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 3: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2661 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1360 OF 2009 Pratap Shivram Mandhare & Anr. .. Applicants V/s. Gulab Maruti Mandhare & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. P.J. Pawar for the Applicants. Mr. P.G. Karande for Respondent No.1. Mr. S.V. Sonawane, AGP, for Respondent No.2. ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2657 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1361 OF 2009 Pratap Shivram Mandhare & Anr. .. Applicants V/s. Maharashtra Housing & Area Develop. Board & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. P.J. Pawar for the Applicants. Mr. S.V. Sonawane, AGP, for Respondent No.1. Mr. P.G. Karande for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C.: There shall be interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (b) of the Civil Applications. However, if the prosecution launched against the applicants-appellants results in their conviction, the MHADA and/or the other respondents may move this Court for dismissal of the First Appeals. The Civil Applications are disposed of. .......