All Cases

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE. WRIT PETITION NO. 4961 OF 2006 ordersOrders. or directions and Registrar's orders. OfficeCourt's Notes, Office Memorada or Judge's Shri Sachin Manale for the petitioner None for the Respondent. CORAM; V.G.PALSHIKAR Acg.C.J.& V.M.KANADE, J. DTAED: 8TH AUGUST, 2006. P.C. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the respondent to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. His claim was rejected on the ground that the disease for which the petitioner's father retired was not the one of a serious nature. Hence appointment on compassionate ground cannot be granted. We see no fault in the reasoning. Hence petition is rejected. ...

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4558 OF 2005. IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1315 OF 2006. The State of Maharashtra. Applicant. Versus. Madhu Dhondiba Gadade. Respondent. Shri K.K.Tated for the Applicant. CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED : 15th June, 2006. P.C.: 2.Rule returnable on 14th February 2007. 3.In addition to service through Court, the Applicant is directed to serve private notice to the Respondent by Registered Post A.D. and/or Speed Post A.D. and/or by hand delivery. Hamdast allowed. 4.There will be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b), subject to condition that the Applicant shall deposit the entire amount due and payable as per the impugned Judgment and Award with the Reference court within a period of 12 weeks from today. If the amount is not deposited within the stipulated time, the ad-interim relief granted will stand vacated without further reference to the Court. 5.If the amount is deposited, the Claimant will be permitted to withdraw the said amount on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Reference Court.

Order - Status 9: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATESIDE C.A. No. 4558/05 in FA No.1315/06 with C.A.No.4561/05 in FA No.1318/06 with C.A. No.4562/05 in FA No.1319/06 with C.A. No.4563/05 in FA No.1320/06 with C.A.No.4564/05 in FA No.1321/06 with C.A.No.4565/05 in FA No.1322/06 with C.A. No.4566/05 in FA No.1323/06 with C.A. No.4567/05 in FA No.1324/06 with C.A. No.4568/05 in FA No.1325/06 with C.A. No.4569/05 in FA No.1327/06 with C.A. No.4571/05 in FA No.1329/06 with C.A. No.4572/05 in FA No.1330/06 with C.A. No.4573/05 in FA No.1331/06 with C.A. No.4575/05 in FA No.1333/06 with C.A. No.4576/05 in FA No.1334/06 with C.A. No.4577/05 in FA No.1335/06 with C.A. No.4578/05 in FA No.1336/06 with C.A. No.4579/05 in FA No.1337/06 with C.A. No.4580/05 in FA No.1338/06 with C.A. No.4583/05 in FA No.1326/06. Office Notes, Office Memorandum Court's or Judge's orders. of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrars orders. Mr. Y.M. Nakhwa, AGPfor the State. Mr. P.H. Potnis for Respondent. CORAM: A. S. OKA, J. DATE : 15th February, 2007 P.C: Heard the learned advocate for the parties. Adinterim relief granted earlier will continue to operate as an interim relief. Application is disposed of. (A.S. OKA, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.421 OF 2004 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL (ST.) NO.21881 OF 2004 ALONGWITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL (ST.) NO.21881 OF 2004 ------------------------------------:---------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court's or Judge's orders. coram, appearances, Court's orders : or directions and Registrar's : orders. : ------------------------------------:------------------------------------ None for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM: V.G.PALSHIKAR & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. DATED: 25TH OCTOBER, 2005 P.C. : . No plausible reason for condoning the delay is made out hence application for condonation of delay is dismissed and as a consequence thereof letters patent appeal is also dismissed. We may add that such appeal against the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court is certainly not maintainable. ...

Order - Status 6: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 924 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's Orders Orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar Sr.Adv i/by. Ajay Patil for the petitioners. Mr.J.A.Shah for the respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 11TH FEBRUARY,2008. P.C. : 1.This petition is by the original defendant in Short Cause Suit No. 987 of 2006. She applied for staying of hearing of this suit until her suit being RAD Suit No. 829 of 2006 is decided by the court of Small Causes. That application is rejected by the impugned order. 2.After the matter was argued for some time, Mr.Dhakephalkar learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner does not press the matter, insofar as , the relief of stay of suit is concerned. Even otherwise the suit in the Civil court and the Court of exclusive jurisdiction containing distinct reliefs, so also, the powers in law being not identical that relief has been rightly refused. However, insofar as , the issue of jurisdiction is concerned, the Trial court to frame the issue of jurisdiction in Suit No. 987 of 2006 and decide the same alongwith other issues on its own merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by the order passed on the application of stay made under Section 10 of CPC. All contentions of both sides are kept open. Petition dismissed, subject to above directions. No order as to costs. sd/- (JUDGE)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FARAD CONTINUNATION SHEET WRIT PETITION NO.5398 OF 2006 ............................................................. Office Notes,Office memorandum of Coram, appearances,Court's Court's or orders or directions Judge's orders & Registrar's orders. ............................................................. Mr.Anil Singh i/b Mr.D.R.Shah for the Petitioner CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 5,2007. P.C.: Rule returnable early. Prayer for Ad-interim relief cannot be granted. The Trial court cannot be prevented from hearing the Application, if any, for grant of leave to defend the suit. Rule on interim relief is made returnable on 12th April 2007. In the meanwhile, the Trial Court can proceed with the hearing of the Application for leave, if any. However, trial of the suit cannot proceed till further orders. JUDGE

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5398 OF 2006 Office notes, office memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders. · • • • Shri D.R.Shah Shri D.R.Shah for the Petitioner. ••• CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED : APRIL 12, 2007. P.C.: 1.If Bhatta is not paid within a period of two weeks from today, the Writ Petition will stand dismissed for non prosecution without further reference to the Court. If Bhatta is paid within the stipulated time, office will issue notice returnable on 13th June, 2007. JUDGE

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5398 OF 2006 M/s.Kalpana Industries Ltd. Petitioner versus Jaiprakash Devoo Kamble Respondent Mr.Yadav for petitioner. Ms.Foziya Shaikh for respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18th June 2007 PC : Heard advocates appearing for the parties. By the impugned order the learned Trial Judge has rejected the application made by the petitioner under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for stay of the proceedings of Summary Suit No. 3 of 2005 on the ground that the civil suit bearing T.S.No.693 of 2005 is pending between the same parties in the City Civil Court, at Kolkata. The learned advocate for the respondent has produced for my perusal a copy of the order dated 23rd February 2007 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, at Kolkata which shows that the Suit No.693 of 2005 has been dismissed for default. In view of dismissal of the said suit for default, nothing survives in this petition and the same is disposed of. In the event, the Suit No.693 of 2005 is restored, the petitioner will be entitled to apply for restoration of this petition. (A.S.OKA, J.)

Order - Status 4: 519.BA.2153.2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2153 OF 2022 Rajesh Dagadu Salave Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.Shailesh Chavan, Advocate for applicant. Mr.A.A.Palkar, APP, for State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 11th October 2022 PC : Not on board. Taken on board. Learned APP seeks time to file affidavit-in-reply. Reply be filed before next date of hearing. Stand over to 22nd November 2022. High on board. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) MST Digitally signed by MANISH SURESH THATTE Date: 2022.10.13 11:49:45 +0530

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 2153 OF 2022 Rajesh Dagadu Salave ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI J DATE : 22nd November, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 08/12/2022 . 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. 2153 OF 2022 Rajesh Dagadu Salave APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr. Shailesh Chavan Adv. for Applicant Mr. A. A. Palkar, APP for Respondent - State CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. R. BORKAR J DATE : 19th December, 2022 P.C. : At the request of the learned APP, stand over to 13/01/2023 . Ad-interim/ Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 2153 OF 2022 Rajesh Dagadu Salave ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Mr. Shailesh Chavan Adv. for Applicant Mr. A. A. Palkar, APP for Respondent - State CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. R. BORKAR J DATE : 13th January, 2023 P.C. : S. O. to 06/02/2023 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: 41-ba-2153-22.doc DINESH SADANAND SHERLA Digitally signed by DINESH SADANAND SHERLA Date: 2023.04.22 16:58:53 +0500 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2153 OF 2022 Rajesh D. Salave …Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. Mr. Shailesh Chavan a/w. Mr. Sachin Arade for the Applicant. Mr. Amit Palkar, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 06.02.2023. P.C. : This is an application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure for bail. The applicant came to be arrested in Crime No.459 of 2021 registered at Manchar Police Station, Pune (Rural) for the ofences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3 read with 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(i)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999 (MCOC Act). I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent – State. According to the prosecution, there was an enmity between the deceased and the co-accused Santosh Jadhav, who according to the prosecution, is a member of organized crime syndicates formed by co-accused Pawan Thorat. It is alleged that they thus hatched the conspiracy and committed the murder of the deceased on 1 August 2021. The allegations against the present applicant are that prior to the alleged incident, he gave Rs.2000/- to one of the gang member on the instructions of gang leader and even promised him to bear the expenses for their bail after the alleged incident. There appears to be no enmity between the deceased and the present applicant. Prima facie, the applicant appears to have provided or promised to provide fnancial help due to fear. The learned APP submits that in view of presumption under Section 22 of the MCOC Act, the applicant may not be released on bail. However, considering the overall facts and circumstances and as there are no other criminal antecedents, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail. In the result, the following order is passed. O R D E R A] Bail Application is allowed. B] The applicant be released on bail in C.R. No.459 of 2021 registered at Manchar Police Station, Pune (Rural) for the ofences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3 read with 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(i)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999 (MCOC Act) on furnishing P.R Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with one or two sureties in the like amount. C] The applicant shall attend the concerned police station once in a month, i.e., on frst Saturday between 11.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial. [N.R.BORKAR, J.]

Order - Status 7: 1 1p.aba173.143.15.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 173 OF 2015 Shekhar Bhagwanrao Gore .....Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent WITH CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 143 OF 2015 Arvind Gyanchand Bansal and another ….Applicants V/s The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 129 OF 2015 IN CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 143 OF 2015 Sandeep Ghadge Intervener IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Arvind Gyanchand Bansal and another Applicants V/s The State of Maharashtra Respondent WITH CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 144 OF 2015 Rakesh Tikaram Vishwakarma and another ….Applicants V/s The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 128 OF 2015 IN Talwalkar 1/3 2 1p.aba173.143.15.sxw CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 144 OF 2015 Sandeep Ghadge Intervener IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Rakesh Tikaram Vishwakarma and another Applicants V/s The State of Maharashtra Respondent WITH CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 145 OF 2015 A. Parthiban and another ….Applicants V/s The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 130 OF 2015 IN CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 145 OF 2015 Sandeep Ghadge Intervener IN THE MATTER BETWEEN A. Parthiban and another Applicants V/s The State of Maharashtra Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 41 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 143 OF 2015 Smt. Shubhangi Sandip Yadav. ….Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ….Respondent. ….. Talwalkar 2/3 Mr. Prashant Patil, advocate for Applicant in ABA 173 of 2015. Ms. Veera Shinde APP for the State. Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, advocate for applicant in APPP 41/16 in ABA 143/15. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV,J DATE : SEPTEMBER 26, 2016 P.C.: 1 Not on board. Upon production taken on board. 2 This is for speaking to the minutes of the order dated 26/2/2015. In second line of paragraph5 of the order, the name "Sandeep mane" be read as "Sandip Uttam Yadav". Corrections be carried out accordingly. 3 In view of the above order correcting the order dated 26/2/2015, the Criminal Application No. 41 of 2016 is allowed and disposed of accordingly. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV,J) Talwalkar 3/3