All Cases

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO.7046 OF 2004 Khimjibhai Keshavji Patel, .. Petitioner Vs Jaswant Kumar Hassanand Bhatia & ors. Respondents Mr Rajiv Patil, for the petitioner. Mr P.D.gharge, for respondent no.1. Mr Uday Warunjikar, for respondent no.3. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 4th November, 2004. PC: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.7.2004 by which the warrant of possession was issued in respect of shop no.16 in dispute in the suit. I am informed that the warrant of possession has already been executed and respondent no.3 has taken possession thereof. In view thereof, respondent no.3 has filed the undertaking stating that he will not create third party interest nor will part with possession of shop no.16 and that he will hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the decree holder within a period of 30 days from the date of decree subject to his right of appeal. Similarly respondent no.1 - Builder has also filed an undertaking stating that shop no. 6 which, according to him was allotted to respondent no.3, is still vacant and he will keep it vacant till the disposal of the suit. The undertakings given by respondent no.3 and respondent no.1 are taken on record and marked "X-I" and "X-II" for identification. The undertakings are accepted. Keeping that in view, in my opinion, I need not examine the merits of the case and the proper course would be to dispose of this petition with directions to the trial Court to dispose of the suit within timeframe. Hence, the following order. (i) The trial Court shall dispose of Spl.Civil Suit No.27 of 2004 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today. (ii) The petitioner to communicate this order to the learned Judge within four weeks from today. (iii) The trial Court will decide the suit uninfluenced by the observations made in the orders passed at interlocutory stage. The writ petition is disposed of. . An authenticated copy of this order may be made available to the parties. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7046 OF 2004 Khimjibhai Keshavji Patel .. Petitioner Vs. Jaswant Kumar Hassanand Bhatia & Ors. ..Respondent None for the parties CORAM : S.U.KAMDAR, J DATED : 2ND DECEMBER, 2005 P.C.: . Time to dispose of the matter pending before the Civil Judge, S.D.Panvel, Dist; Raigad is extended by 4 months. Civil Judge, S.D.Panvel, Dist: Raigad is directed to ensure that the matter is disposed of within the said time.

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. 1 Writ Petition No.5259 Of 2013. Niles Dinubhai Patel & Ors. .. Petitioners. Versus Jamnadas Khimji Jethwa & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Vaibhav Mehta i/by V. Mehta & Associates, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Haresh Lulia, Advocate for Resp.Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM => S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE => 22nd JULY, 2013. P.C. :- The petitioners are assailing the order granting interim compensation @ Rs.15,000/- per month. (2) The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that the courts below have not considered all the relevant factors while arriving at the conclusion that the petitioners (original defendants) have to pay Rs.15,000/- per month as compensation at a time of granting stay to the decree of the trial court. (3) The learned counsel submits that there are various factors which are required to considered while passing an order about compensation. The learned counsel relied on following reported cases :- (i) Chandrakant Dhanu & Ors., Versus Sharmila Inder Kumar Kapur & Ors., reported in 2009(1) BOM.C.R. 698. (ii) Marjorie Passanah & Ors., Versus Mumtaz Iqbal Shaikh, reported in 2008(6) BOM.C.R. 72. (4) The learned counsel submits that the building is constructed in the year 1971. Lift facility is not available to the said building. Averment of the present petitioners that it will not possible for them to pay said amount, has not been considered. It is also not considered that the respondent is not required to spend for the building as the tenants have formed an Association and they are taking care of the management and expenses. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, leave & license agreement relied upon is not in respect of the similarly situated property. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the fact the adjacent premises has been taken up for redevelopment and the occupiers therein are relocated in another locality and for that Rs.40/- per sq.fts. is being paid by the developer. Said agreement did not have any nexus with the present matter and would be in respect of the altogether different property and in altogether different situation. (5) The learned counsel for the respondent supports the order. The respondent has produced on record leave and licence agreement, which is in respect of the property situated in the same locality. It shows that, rent was @ Rs.40/- per sq.fts. The petitioners have not produced on record any agreement showing that similar property is given at lesser rate. (6) No doubt, while considering an application for stay and imposing conditions about the payment of the amount more than the contractual one, the court is required to consider various facets of the matter and is not required to be guided only by other agreement. However, the court is required to have some material on record to arrive at just conclusion. Agreement produced on record is registered agreement. Even if I consider case of the petitioners that building is constructed in the year 1971 to which, lift facility is not available, so also tenants are expending the amount; still the courts have awarded the amount as per the leave & licence agreement produced on the record, which is of the year 2010. The petitioners claims to be in possession of 900 Sq.Fts. of the area where-as respondents contend that same is more. The court has directed payment @ Rs.15,000/- per month as compensation amount, which would be approximately @ Rs.15/- per sq.fts. Order is passed on 26th April, 2013. The property is situated in the Goregaon, Mumbai locality. (7) Considering the area occupied by the petitioners, the court has directed the payment @ Rs.15,000/- per month towards the compensation. Considering the above, discretion exercised by the court cannot be said to be unreasonable one. Discretion has been exercised in plausible manner. In the light of above, the impugned order does not suffer from an error on the face of record, warranting interference of this court. Therefore, in the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. (8) The petitioners shall pay arrears of compensation as directed by the courts below by 31st December, 2013 and shall thereafter pay the amount regularly on or before 10th day of each calender month. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

#VALUE!

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 998 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.16135 OF 2017 Balu Waman Alhat …Applicant Versus Union of India through the General Manager …Respondents Mr.Kuldip Singh for the applicant. CORAM : PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J. DATE : 7 th MARCH 2019. P.C. : Issue notice to respondents, returnable on 22nd March 2019. In addition to the regular mode, the applicant is permitted to serve through other modes as are permissible in law and file affidavit of service accordingly. [PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.]

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.998 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.16135 OF 2017 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders None Present. CORAM : V.R. KACHARE REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 19th March, 2019 Returnable date is extended by 6 weeks. sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 19.03.19

Order - Status 9: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.998 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.16135 OF 2017 Mr. Balu Waman Alhat ...Applicant Versus Union of India Through The General Manager ...Respondent ...... None for the Applicant. ...... CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATED : AUGUST 29th, 2019 P.C. 1 None for the Applicant. By this Civil Application, Applicant/Claimant is seeking condonation of 647 days delay in filing First Appeal, challenging the Judgment and Award dated 16th April 2015 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal Mumbai in Original Application No. OA 1044 of 2010. When the matter is called out, no one appeared on behalf of the Applicant hence, dismissed for non prosecution. (K.K.TATED, J.) 1/1

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6025 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Order or Directions and Registrar's Orders ------------------------------------------------------------------- ¦ Court's or Judge's ¦ Orders ¦ ¦ Mr.Arshad Shaikh with Mr.R.M.Pethe for the petitioner. Mr.N.M. Ganaji for Respondent No.2. Mr.Farhan Dubash i/by Naik Naik Iyer & Co. for Respondent No.3. Mr.Vishal Kanade i/by M/s. V. Deshpande for Resp.No.4. CORAM: SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 21ST SEPT., 2007. P.C.: 1. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are represented by their respective advocates. 2. The advocate for the petitioner to take steps to serve respondent No.1 within four weeks from today. 3. S.O. for four weeks. $ldots ldots$

Order - Status 8: vss : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6025 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda¦ Court's or Judge's of Coram, appearances, Court's¦ Orders Order or Directions and ¦ Registrar's Orders ¦ ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Arshad Shaikh with R.M. Pethe for the Petitioner Mr.Vishal Kanade for Respondent No.4 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: OCTOBER 19, 2007 P.C.: . Mr.Pethe for the petitioner seeks leave to amend the cause title by substituting the address of Respondent No.1. Leave granted. Amendments to be carried out within a week from today. Issue fresh notice to Respondent NO.1 on the amended address returnable in four weeks.

Order - Status 11: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6025 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3063 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's Memoranda of Coram, orders appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders ------------------------------------------------------ Mr. R.M. Pethe for petitioner. Mr.N.M. Ganaji for respondent no.2. Mr. Farhan Dubash i/by Naik Naik Iyer and co. for respondent no.3. Mr. Vishal Kanade i/by M/s.V. Deshpande for respondent no.4. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. 10/12/2007. P.C.: . Rule. . Respondent nos.2 to 4 waive service. . The learned Advocate for the petitioner is at liberty to serve the respondent no.1 by publishing a notice in an English daily published from Calcutta. The proof of such court within eight weeks. publication shall be placed before this . Rule be made returnable in the week commencing from 3rd March, 2008. . Civil Application No. 3063 of 2007 is disposed off accordingly. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)

Order - Status 14: ISM 1.wp.6025.07.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6025 OF 2007 Saifuddin Karachiwala ….PETITIONER V/s. The Indian Standard Metal Company Limited, & others …..RESPONDENTS Mr. R.M. Pethe, Advocate for the Petitioner. None for Respondent. CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE: JUNE 17, 2022. P.C.: On instructions, a motion is made by the Counsel for the petitioner for withdrawal of the Petition. Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. If the prayer for withdrawal of the amount is made, same be considered in accordance with law. [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]

Order - Status 7: Kambli IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.207 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 9196 OF 2009 ... ... ... Dr.Mrs.P.S.Purva Shashikant ...Applicant v/s. The Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Uday Warunjikar for the Applicant. Mr.S.M.Railkar for Respondents Nos. 2 & 3. Mr.P.P.George i/b R.R.Shetty for Respondent No.1. CORAM: D.K.Deshmukh & S.P.Deshmukh, JJ DATED: 24th January, 2012 P.C.: Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant. Petition is already expedited. No fix date can be given. Civil Application disposed of. (S.P.Deshmukh, J.) (D.K.Deshmukh, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.788/05 Ajit... Khanderao Deshpande Appellant. Versus Smt. Nalini Khanderao Deshpande Mr.A.L. Kumar for appellant. CORAM: S.B.MHASE & S.R.SATHE,JJ. DATE : 4/7/05. PC: 1.Notice before admission. Notice Returnable in six weeks. (S.R.SATHE) (S.B.MHASE) &... Ors Respdts.

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL No.788 OF 2005 Office notes, : office memoranda : of coram, : appearances, : Court's orders : Court's or Judge's directions & : order Registrar's : orders : Ms. Deepti Mistry , Advocate for the appellant. CORAM: J. N. PATEL, AND A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : JULY 30, 2007. P.C.: The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that this being a family dispute, it has been settled out of Court, and therefore the appellant be permitted to withdraw the appeal. The statement is accepted. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the appeal. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 2.The appellant is entitled for refund of Court Fees, as per Bombay Court Fees Act & Rules. Sd/- [ A. A. SAYED, J.] [ J. N. PATEL, J.]

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 252 OF 2013 Mr. Prakash Bapu Wani Appellant vs. Mr. Parashuram Ramchandra & Anr. Respondents Mr. Dundapa B. Patil,Advocate for the appellant. Ms. S.V.Gajare,APP,for the respondent-State CORAM: SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV,J. DATE : 18th June, 2013. P.C. Heard. Issue notice to respondent No.1. Learned APP waives service for respondent No.2. Notice returnable ten weeks. (SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.252 of 2013 Prakash Bapu Wani .. Applicant Versus Parashuram Ramchandra Rahate and anr .. Respondents Mr.D.B.Patil, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.D.S.Mhaispurkar, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mrs.S.V.Gajare, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 2 nd MARCH, 2015 P.C. : 1 Heard. 2 Leave granted. 3 The Application for leave to Appeal be treated as a Memo of Appeal, and be numbered accordingly. The appeal is admitted. 4 Necessary amendment be carried out within two weeks. 5 The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 waives service of notice for final hearing. 6 The respondent no.1 shall, however, execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ before the trial court within a period of six weeks from today.