All Cases

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO.4980 OF 2006 Bhimrao Vithal Patil, .. Petitioner. Vs Shankar Yashwant Bansode & ors .. Respondents Mr V.B.Naik i/b Mr I.M.Khairdi, for the petitioner. Mr Uday V Warunjikar, for respondent no.1. CORAM : : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 22.08.2006 PC: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Rule. There shall be ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer caluses (c) and (d). Pendency of this petition shall not operate as stay to the proceedings before the Assistant Charity Commissioner in Change Report Nos 1886 of 2005 and 1225 of 2005. The Assistant Charity Commissioner shall endeavour to dispose of both the aforestated change reports, after giving an opportunity of being heard to both sides, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. (D.B.BHOSALE,J.)

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4980 OF 2006 Bhimrao Vitthal Patil ....Petitioner V/S Shankar Yashwant Bansode And Ors. ....Respondent Mr. I. M. Khairdi For Petitioner Mr. P. P. Pujari, AGP for State. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 26th August, 2019 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the Petitioner, Place the petition for final hearing Board week commencing from 23/09/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4980 OF 2006 Bhimrao Vitthal Patil ....Petitioner V/S Shankar Yashwant Bansode And Ors. ....Respondent Mr. I. M. Khairdi For Petitioner Mr. A. R. Metkari, AGP For State. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 23rd September, 2019 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the petitioners / respondent / applicant , Stand over to 18/11/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4980 OF 2006 Bhimrao Vitthal Patil … Petitioner vs. Shankar Yashwant Bansode & Ors. … Respondents Mr.I.M.Khairadi, for the Petitioner. Mr.R.P.Kadam, AGP for the State. CORAM :- G. S. KULKARNI, J. DATE :- APRIL 1, 2021 PC : This petition has been notified as per the list of matters as received from the office of the learned Government Pleader to have become infructuous. As per the office notice dated 16 March 2021, the Advocate for the petitioner/petitioner were called upon to give a praecipe in advance in case the petition has not become infructuous. Such praecipe has been received in regard to this petition. It is informed on behalf of the petitioner that the petition has not become infructuous. List the petition for hearing before the regular Court. (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

Order - Status 2: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 3: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2016 Shri. Daji Ratnu Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. ....Petitioner V/S Vithal Krishna Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. ....Respondent MR.Rajdeep Gude i/by Khandeparkar And Associates For Petitioner. CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J DATE : 19th August, 2016 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the petitioners Stand over to 24/08/2016, ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2016 Daji Ratnu Gudekar @ Kumbhar & Ors. ….. Appellants VERSUS Vithal Krishna Gudekar @ Kumbhar since deceased through his legal heirs & Ors. ….. Respondents Mr.A.S.Khandeparkar, a/w. Mr.Prerak Sharma and Mr.Rajdeep Gude for the Appellants. CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2016 P.C . Issue notice before admission returnable on 26th September, 2016 . In addition to the court notice, appellants are also permitted to serve the respondents by private notice i.e. by Registered A.D., courier or Hand Delivery and shall file affidavit of service before the next date. [R.D. DHANUKA, J.]

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2016 Shri Daji Ratnu Gudekar @ Kumbhar ..... Appellants (since deceased through his L.Rs.) Govind Daji Gudekar @ Kumbhar & Ors. Versus Vithhal Krishna Gudekar @ Kumbhar ..... Respondents (since deceased through his L.Rs.) Rukmini Vitthal Gudekar & Ors. Mr. Rajdeep D. Gude h/f Khandeparkar & Associates for Appellants. None for Respondents. CORAM : S.C.GUPTE, J. DATE : 5 JANUARY 2017. P.C. . Learned Counsel for the Appellants informs the Court that Appellant No.2 has expired and they have yet to take out an appropriate application for bringing his legal heirs on record. Stand over to 6 February 2017. (S.C.Gupte, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.7 OF 2016 Shri Daji Ratnu Gudekar @ Kumbhar (Since deceased through his LRS) Govind Daji Gudekar @ Kumbhar & Ors. …Appellants Versus Vithhal K. Gudekar & Kumbhar (Since deceased through his LRS) Rukmini V. Gudekar & Ors. …Respondents ….. Mr. Rajdeep Gude with Amogh Karandikar i/by Khandeparkar & Associates, Advocates for the Appellants . ….. CORAM : S.C.GUPTE, J. DATE : 10 FEBRUARY 2017 P.C. : . The learned counsel for the Appellants informs the Court that Appellant No.2 has expired and that names of legal heirs of the deceased have been made available to the Advocates for the Appellants only recently. He seeks time to take out an application for bringing legal heirs on record. To that end, the Second Appeal is stood over to 21.3.2017. 2 In the meantime, Appellants may also issue notice to Respondent Nos.6,7,9 and 11 returnable on 21.3.2017. (S.C.GUPTE, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2016 Shri Daji Ratnu Gudekar @ Kumbhar, since deceased through his legal representatives 1a. Govind Daji Gudekar @ Kumbhar & Ors. ...Appellants vs. Vitthal Krishna Gudekar @ Kumbhar, since deceased through his legal heirs, 1a. Rukmini Vitthal Gudekar & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Amogh Karandikar I/b. Khandeparkar & Associates for Appellants. CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J. 21 MARCH 2017 P.C.: Learned Counsel for the Appellants informs the court that though notices issued to Respondent Nos.6, 7, 9 and 11 have been returned unserved, the Appellants will make one more attempt of service, since new addresses of the Respondents are now available with the Appellants. S.O. to 11 April 2017. The Appellants are also permitted to effect a private service of the second appeal and file an affidavit of service by the next date. (S.C. GUPTE, J.)

Order - Status 15: Rane (sr.9) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Second Appeal NO. 7 OF 2016 Shri. Daji Ratnu Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. ...Applicants Versus Vithal Krishna Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. . ..Respondents WITH Civil Application in SA NO. 609 OF 2017 IN Second Appeal NO. 7 OF 2016 Sushma Shashikant Malevadkar ...Applicant Versus Vithal Krishna Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. ...Respondents WITH Civil Application in SA NO. 610 OF 2017 IN Second Appeal NO. 7 OF 2016 Shri. Daji Ratnu Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. ...Applicants Versus Vithal Krishna Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. ...Respondent(s) Mr. Rajdeep Gude i/by. Khandeparkar and Associates, Advocate for the Appellants/Applicants in all Civil Applications. None for the Respondents. CORAM: N.M. JAMDAR, J DATED: 21st April, 2017. PC:- The Appellants will take necessary steps as regards the unserved Respondents within period of eight weeks from today failing which the Appeal/Applications will stand dismissed as against the unserved Respondents. Stand over to 14 July, 2017. (N.M. JAMDAR,J.)

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9 OF 2016 Shri. Daji Ratnu Gudekar @ Kumbhar, since deceased through LHs Govind Daji Gudekar @ Kumbhar and others … Appellants Versus Vitthal Krishna Gudekar @ Kumbhar since deceased through LHs, Rukmini Vitthal Gudekar and others … Respondents Mr. Rajdeep Gude i/b. Khandeparkar for the Appellants/Applicants. None for the Respondents. CORAM : S. J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATED : 7TH JULY, 2017 P.C.: Amendments to the Second Appeal have been carried out by the Advocate for the Appellants. Place the above Second Appeal for Admission on 27.07.2017. ( S. J.KATHAWALLA, J. )

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2016 Shri. Daji Ratnu Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. ....Appellant V/S Vithal Krishna Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J DATE : 27th July, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for two weeks i.e. 10/08/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2016 Shri. Daji Ratnu Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. ....Appellant V/S Vithal Krishna Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J DATE : 10th August, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for 07/09/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 24: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2016 Shri. Daji Ratnu Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. ....Appellant V/S Vithal Krishna Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J DATE : 7th September, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for three weeks i.e. 28/09/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 26: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2016 Shri. Daji Ratnu Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. ....Appellant V/S Vithal Krishna Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J DATE : 28th September, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for three weeks i.e. 02/11/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 28: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2016 Shri. Daji Ratnu Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. ....Appellant V/S Vithal Krishna Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : N.M. JAMDAR, J DATE : 17th January, 2018 P.C. : On account of paucity of time the matter stand adjourned to 16/02/2018.If ad-interim relief is granted and is operative till today, the same will operate till the next date. If ad-interim relief not granted for limited period the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 30: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2016 Shri. Daji Ratnu Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. ....Appellant V/S Vithal Krishna Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. ....Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA NO. 609 OF 2017 In SECOND APPEAL 7 OF 2016 Sushma Shashikant Malevadkar ....Applicant V/S Vithal Krishna Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. ....Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA NO. 610 OF 2017 In SECOND APPEAL 7 OF 2016 Shri. Daji Ratnu Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. ....Applicant V/S Vithal Krishna Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. ....Respondent Mr S Rajpurkar i/by Khandeparkar And Associates For Appellant Mr G H Keluskar i/by Mr Sudhir Prabhu, Advocate For R.nos.1a To 1d,2a To 2f,3,4a To 4e,5, 6, 7, 9 & 10. CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J DATE : 16th August, 2019 P.C. : By consent, Stand Over to 19/08/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 32: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2016 Shri. Daji Ratnu Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. ....Appellant V/S Vithal Krishna Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. ....Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA NO. 609 OF 2017 In SECOND APPEAL 7 OF 2016 Sushma Shashikant Malevadkar ....Applicant V/S Vithal Krishna Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. ....Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA NO. 610 OF 2017 In SECOND APPEAL 7 OF 2016 Shri. Daji Ratnu Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. ....Applicant V/S Vithal Krishna Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. ....Respondent Mr R P Mahadik i/by Khandeparkar And Associates For Appellant CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J DATE : 19th August, 2019 r P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the Appellant, Stand over to 26/08/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 34: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2016 Shri. Daji Ratnu Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. ....Appellant V/S Vithal Krishna Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J DATE : 26th August, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, the matter is adjourned to 16/09/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 36: sa_mandawgad 4sa7-16+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9 OF 2016 Shri. Daji Ratnu Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since deceased)through LRs. and Ors. … Appellants. Versus Vithal Krishna Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since deceased) through LRs and Ors. … Respondents. Mr. Rhoit P. Mahadik i/by Khandeparkar & Associates for the Appellants. ——— ——— CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : JANUARY 18, 2024 P. C.: Stand over to 31st January, 2024. Interim relief granted earlier, if any, to continue till the next date. ( Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.)

Order - Status 38: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.7 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9 OF 2016 Daji Ratnu Gudekar @ Kumbhar (Since Decd. Thr. Lrs.) and Ors. ...Appellants V/s. Vithal Krishna Gudekar & Kumbhar (Since decd. Thr. Lrs.) and Ors. ...Respondent Mr. Farhan Shaikh i/b Khandeparkar & Associates for the Appellants. Mr. Sudhir Prabhu for Respondent Nos.1A to 1D, 2A to 2F, 3, 4A to 4E, 5 and 10. CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 31st JANUARY, 2024. P. C.:- Mr. Shaikh, learned counsel for the appellants submits that respondent Nos. 1A, 3 and 4B have expired and Interim Application will be filed for bringing on record legal heirs of the deceased. The Interim Application to be filed within one week from today. 3. Stand over to 7 th February 2024. Ad-interim relief, if any, granted earlier to continue till next date. (SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.)

Order - Status 40: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.7 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.610 OF 2017 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.610 OF 2017 (Since Deceased) through LRs and Ors. ••• Appellants. Shri. Daji Ratnu Gudekar @ Kumbhar (Since Deceased) through LRs and Ors. … Appellants. Versus ••• Respondents. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.609 OF 2017 Vithal Krishna Gudekar @ Kumbhar (Since Deceased) through LRs and Ors. ••• Applicants. Vithal Krishna Gudekar @ Kumbhar (Since Deceased) through LRs and Ors. … Applicants. Versus ••• Respondent. Mr. Rushikesh Bhagat i/by Mr.Khandeparkar & Associates for the Appellants/Applicants. ——— ——— CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 07, 2024 P. C.: Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants seeks two weeks time to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased parties. At his request, stand over to 21st February, 2024. ( Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.)

Order - Status 42: Harish IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.7 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9 OF 2016 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.7 OF 2016 Daji Ratnu Gudekar @ Kumbhar (Since Deceased Thr. Lrs) Govind Daji Gudekar @ Kumbhar & Ors. ...Appellants/ Applicants Versus Vithal Krishna Gudekar @ Kumbhar (Since Deceased Thr. Lrs) Rukmini vitthal Gudekar & Ors. ...Respondents -------------------- Adv. Rohit P. Mahadik a/w Rushikesh G. Bhagat i/b Khandeparkar & Associates for the Appellants/Applicants. Adv. G. H. Keluskar, S. P. Prabhu for Respondent Nos. 1A to 1D, 2A to 2F, 3, 4A to 4E, 5 to 11. CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 21, 2024 P. C. : Learned counsel for the Appellants submit that the Interim Application for bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased Respondent Nos. 1A, 3 and 4B is ready and will be filed within a period of one weed from today. If the Interim Application is not filed within a prescribed period, the Appeal to stand abated qua Respondent Nos. 1A , 3 and 4B. List the Appeal on 28th February, 2024. (SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. )

Order - Status 44: sa_mandawgad 21sa7-16 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.7 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9 OF 2016 Daji Ratnu Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since deceased) through his LRs. and Ors. … Appellants. Versus Vitthal Krishna Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since deceased) through his LRs. and Ors. … Respondents. Mr. Farhan Shaikh i/by Khandeparkar and Associates, for Appellants. Mr. Sudhir Prabhu, for the Respondent Nos.1A to 1D, 2A to 2F, 3, 4A to 4E, 5 and 6, 7, 9 and 10. ——— ——— CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 28, 2024 P. C.: This Court is informed that the Interim Application qua the deceased-Respondents have already been filed. Stand over to 13th March, 2024. ( Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.)

Order - Status 46: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2016 Shri. Daji Ratnu Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. ....APPELLANT V/S Vithal Krishna Gudekar @ Kumbhar (since ....RESPONDENT Deceased Thr. Lrs) And Ors. CORAM : HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH J DATE : 13th March, 2024 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 18/04/2024. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 2: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2516 OF 2021 Shri. Popat Baban Ghavte …. Petitioner Versus Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corpn. & Anr. … Respondents …...... Mr. R.M. Pethe for the Petitioner. Mr. Rohit Sakhdeo for Respondent No.1. Mr. V.M. Kulkarni a/w. Smt. A.A. Purav, AGP for for State. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV AND SURENDRA P. TAVADE, JJ. DATE : 7th JULY, 2021. …...... P.C. : Learned Counsel on behalf of Respondent No.1, on instructions, submits that by an Order dated 20.04.2021 the Urban Development Department of Respondent No.1 started provisional pension to the Petitioner. Hence, the Petition is adjourned to 11.08.2021. ( SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J. ) ( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2516 OF 2021 Shri Popat Baban Ghavte … Petitioner V/s. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation … Respondent ------------------- Mr. R.M. Pethe for the Petitioner. Mr. Rohit Sakhdeo for the respondent no. 1. Ms. A.A. Purav-AGP. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 11, 2021. P.C. : . By consent, stand over to 6th September 2021. Learned AGP waives service for respondent no. 2 and seeks time to file Affidavit-in-reply. Affidavit-in-reply to be filed on or before 2 nd September 2021 and same shall be furnished to the petitioner as well as respondent-corporation. An oral prayer is made for 'speaking to the minutes' in respect of the order dated 7th July 2021. It is requested that 'Urban Development Department' be read as 'Corporation' and in the same order in 2nd line, the word 'Order' be read as 'Order/Communication'. A speaking to the minutes is allowed and order dated 7th July 2021 be corrected accordingly. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J) (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2516 OF 2021 Shri Popat Baban Ghavte ....PETITIONER V/S Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation ....RESPONDENT Mr. R M Pethe for Petitioner Mr. Rohit Sakhdeo for Respondent No. 1 Ms. A. A. Purav AGP for R. No. 2 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. R. BORKAR, JJ DATE : 6th September, 2021 P.C. : Arguments are concluded. Judgment/ order is reserved. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: rkmore IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2516 OF 2021 Shri P Age – R/at F Adjace Dr.D.Y Ravet Shri Popat Baban Ghavte Age – 59 Years, Occupation-Retired, R/at Flat No.D-204, Runal's Royal Casa, Adjacent to Bhondwa Corner, Dr.D.Y. Patil College Road, S. No.206/4, Ravet, Pune – 411 044. ] ] ] ] ] ] Petitioner vs 1] Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corp. A Body Corporate established under The Maharashtra Municipal Corporation] ] ] Act, 1949, Through its Municipal Commissioner, Having his Office at Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corp. Mumbai-Pune Road, Pimpri, Pune – 411 018. ] ] ] ] ] 2] The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Urban Development Department. ] ] ] Respondents Mr.R.I Mr.R.M. Pethe, for Petitioner. Mr.Rohit Sakhadeo for Respondent No.1. Mrs.A.A. Purav, AGP for Respondent/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & N.R.BORKAR, JJ. RESERVED ON : 06.09.2021 PRONOUNCED ON : : 22.11.2021 JUDGMENT : (PER : N.R.BORKAR, J) 1] This petition takes an exception to the order dated 16.03.2020 passed by respondent No.1-Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. 2] The petitioner was initially appointed as surveyor in respondent No.1-Corporation on 20.04.1987. Time Bound Promotion Scheme was introduced by Government Resolution dated 08.06.1995 to address the issue of stagnation. Under the said Scheme benefit of pay of promotional post was to be given to the employees who have completed 12 years of service in the same cadre. In terms of the said Scheme the petitioner was granted benefit of promotional pay by Office Order dated 07.12.2001 with effect from 20.04.1999. 3] The petitioner, thereafter, by order dated 09.04.2002 was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer. In view of the Government Resolution dated 16.04.1984 on completion of 5 years of service as Junior Engineer the petitioner, by order dated 10.06.2009 was designated as Sectional Engineer and his pay was revised. 4] By Government Resolution dated 20.07.2001 Assured Career Progression Scheme was introduced and Time Bound Promotion Scheme was repealed. The said scheme was thereafter modified by Government Resolution dated 01.04.2010. Under the said Scheme first benefit of pay of promotional post was to be given on completion of 12 years of service and second benefit was made admissible on completion of 12 years of service after grant of first benefit. Accordingly, the petitioner was granted second benefit i.e. pay of promotional post under the modified Assured Career Progression Scheme with effect from 20.04.2011 by order dated 21.04.2015. 5] By the order impugned the second benefit which was granted to the petitioner by order dated 21.04.2015 came to be withdrawn, and recovery of excess amount paid to the petitioner pursuant to the said order dated 21.04.2015 is ordered. 6] We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.1. 7] We have perused the order impugned. Respondent No.1 has relied upon Clause 2(b)(3) of the Government Resolution dated 01.04.2010 to withdraw the second benefit. According to the respondent No.1 the petitioner was granted first benefit by office order dated 7.12.2001 and second benefit by order dated 10.06.2009 by which pay of the petitioner was revised on being designated as Sectional Engineer. According to the respondent No.1, the petitioner was thus not entitled to any further benefit of pay of promotional post and it was wrongly granted to him by order dated 21.04.2015. 8] We have perused the Clause 2(b)(3) of the Government Resolution dated 01.04.2010. It speaks of in certain situation what would constitute first benefit. It is, thus, clearly inapplicable to the case of the petitioner. Apart from it, this Court has dealt with similar controversy in the case of Association of the Sub-Ordinate Service of Engineers Maharashtra State and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2019(4) Mh.L.J. 629 . This Court has held : "30. Nonetheless, we would deal with the question on merits of the matter, independently. In the light of the facts, extracted above, in our view, the fate of the claim of the applicants hinges more on the construction of the GR dated 16 th April, 1984 than Clause 2(b)(3) of MACP Scheme. What was the nature of the dispensation given under the GR dated 16th April, 1984 ? From the text of the said resolution, the following salient features emerge: (i) The preamble indicates its object. It was decided to confer the gazetted status initially upon degree-holder junior engineers. Subsequently, it was decided to confer the gazetted status upon the under-qualifed and unqualifed junior engineers, also. (ii) While giving the gazetted status, the Government considered the aspects of the pay-scale to be given, the nomenclature of the post and the eligibility for conferring the gazetted status. (iii) The conferment of the gazetted status upon the degree-holder engineers was with efect from 1st April, 1981. Whereas the said status was deferred in the case of the underqualifed and unqualifed junior engineers, till they put in a specifed years of service, that is, fve years for three year diploma-holders, seven years for two year diploma-holders and ten years for unqualifed junior engineers. (iv) Two distinct cadres were created in the Maharashtra Engineering (Civil) Services Class-II, namely Assistant Engineer Grade-II, to be manned by degree-holder junior engineers, and sectional Engineer, to be manned by underqualifed/unqualifed junior engineers after putting in specifed years of service. (v) Both the cadres were to be placed in the pay-scale Rs.600-30-700-40-950. (vi) The posts of Assistant Engineer Class-II and Assistant Engineer Class-I, which were superior to that of the junior engineers, were to be re-designated as Assistant Engineer Grade-I and Assistant Executive Engineer, respectively. (vii) The duties and functions which the erstwhile junior engineers were discharging and performing would thenceforth be discharged and performed by the Assistant Engineer Grade-II and Sectional Engineers. It is evident that the aforesaid GR was an exercise in cadre review. The principal object of the aforesaid GR was to give gazetted status (Class-II) to junior engineers working at the lowest level. Not only the restructuring was done in the lowest cadre of junior engineers but also the immediately superior cadre of Assistant Engineer Class-II and Class-I were restructured. Yet, most importantly, the duties and functions which the erstwhile junior engineers discharged, were mandated to be discharged by the Assistant Engineers Grade-II and sectional Engineers. The primary purpose of the aforesaid GR was, thus, restructuring of the cadre and rechristening of the designation of the post. The placement of the under-qualifed and unqualifed junior engineers in the newly designated post of sectional engineers was deferred, till they put in the specifed years of service. It is pertinent to note that no new posts were sought to be created under the said GR. The fact that a new pay-scale was prescribed for both Assistant Engineers Grade-II and sectional Engineers, was incidental." .. This court has further held : "35. We are unable to agree with the aforesaid reasoning of the learned Vice-Chairman. Having held that the beneft of the pay revision under GR dated 16th April, 1984 was neither a promotion nor a functional upgradation, the Tribunal could not have held that the said upgradation was schematic. As indicated above, the entire exercise was driven by the objective of conferring the gazetted status and restructuring engineering service at the lowest level. The provision that the diploma- holder and unqualifed junior engineers were to be placed in the cadre of sectional engineers, after putting in a specifed years of service, was a measure to bring them at par with the degree-holder junior engineers. It was uniformly applicable to all. There was admittedly no element of selection. It is now well neigh recognised that the terms "promotion" and "upgradation" far from being identical and interchangeable are distinct and have specifc meaning and connotation in service jurisprudence. Promotion, in common parlance, connotes advancement to a higher position. Ordinarily promotion entails both enhanced position and pay. In legal parlance, promotion can be to a higher position as well as to a higher pay -scale. There can be promotion to a higher pay scale without there being an advancement to a higher position. Upgradation, on the other hand, is mere increase in the scale of pay, without any corresponding increase in position. There are shades to upgradation also. It may be upgradation simplicitor, available to all who satisfy the eligibility criteria. It may be preceded by selection. If upgradation involves a process of selection, as distinct from mere elimination, it may have the trappings of promotion, and in that event may be subject to quota rule or principle of reservation, wherever applicable. In the light of the above, we are of the considered view that the learned Tribunal had committed an error in construing that the exercise of restructuring of the cadres, without there being any consequent creation of new posts and any change in the duties and responsibilities, constituted the grant of nonfunctional pay-scale for the mere reason that the pay-scale of all the junior engineers was revised, as a class." .. It is further held : Another factor, which has a material bearing on the claim of the applicants is that under ACP and MACP Scheme, the basic postulate is the beneft of pay-scale of the promotional post. It is nobody's case that under the GR dated 16 th April, 1984 the applicants were given the beneft of the pay-scale of the promotional post. Mere revision of the pay-scale can not be equated with the grant of pay-scale of the promotional post. On the contrary, it is pertinent to note that under the same GR, the Government had re-designated the next higher post as Assistant Engineers Grade-I and Assistant Executive Engineers. In this view of the matter, the denial of the 'second beneft' under the MACP Scheme, with reference to an exercise of cadre restructuring and the revision in pay scale, in the year 1984, appears to be legally unsustainable. We are, thus, inclined to answer the aforesaid question in the 'negative'. We hold and declare that the upgradation under GR dated 16th April, 1984 does not constitute grant of non-functional pay- scale and cannot be treated as the 'frst beneft' within the meaning of Clause 2(b)(3) of the GR dated 1st April, 2010. We are, thus, inclined to allow the petition." 9] This Court in the above Judgment in no uncertain terms has held that upgradation under Government Resolution dated 16.04.1984 does not constitute grant of non-functional pay scale and cannot be treated as the 'benefit' within the meaning of Clause 2(b)(3) of the Government Resolution dated 01.04.2010. The respondent No.1 was, thus, not justified in withdrawing the second benefit granted to the petitioner by order dated 21.04.2015. The order impugned thus cannot be sustained. Hence, following order is passed : 1] Writ Petition is allowed. 2] The order impugned dated 16.03.2020 is quashed and set aside. [N.R.BORKAR, J] [PRASANNA B. VARALE, J]

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 15190 OF 2023 In Civil Revision Application STAMP NO. 13052 OF 2023 Ashok Shankar Nagap ....PETITIONER V/S The Sub Divisional Officer, Kankavali Division....RESPONDENT Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar Senior Advocate i/by Ashwini Bandiwadekar for Applicant Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, AGP for State-Respondent No. 1 and 3 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE J DATE : 5th May, 2025 P.C. : At the request of learned counsel for the AGP. Stand over to 18/06/2025.,Interim relief, if any, to continue till the next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 15190 OF 2023 In Civil Revision Application STAMP NO. 13052 OF 2023 Ashok Shankar Nagap ....PETITIONER V/S The Sub Divisional Officer, Kankavali Division....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 18th June, 2025 P.C. : S. O. to 25/06/2025 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.G. / CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : JUNE 25, 2025 P.C . : 1. Due to paucity of time, the following matters are adjourned to future dates follows:- Serial Nos. Adjourned date 35 to 70 20th August, 2025 71 to 106 21st August, 2025 107 to 124 and 126 to 142 25th August, 2025 143 to 152 26th August, 2025 2. In the meanwhile, ad-interim relief, if any, granted earlier to continue. H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Digitally signed by HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Date: 2025.06.25 18:24:29 +0530

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7148 OF 2019 Bhagirathi Trans Corp. Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra Thru The Secretary, Industries, Energy And Labour Dept. And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : RANJIT MORE. & SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, JJ DATE : 5th July, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to as per CMIS date. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7148 OF 2019 Bhagirathi Trans Corp. Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra Thru The Secretary, Industries, Energy And Labour Dept. And Ors ....Respondent Akshay J. Kandarkar For Petitioner Ms.M.S.Shrivastav - AGP for the State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE. & SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, JJ DATE : 1st August, 2019 P.C. : Mentioned out of turn. At the request of learned advocate for the petitioners, Stand over to 08/08/2019 on Supplementary Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7148 OF 2019 Bhagirathi Trans Corp. Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra Thru The Secretary, Industries, Energy And Labour Dept. And Ors ....Respondent Mr.Akshay J. Kandarkar for Petitioner Mrs.M.P.Thakur - AGP for the State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE. & SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, JJ DATE : 8th August, 2019 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the petitioner, Stand over to 14/08/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7148 OF 2019 Bhagirathi Trans Corp. Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra Thru The Secretary, Industries, Energy And Labour Dept. And Ors ....Respondent Mr.K.S.Bapat i/by.Akshay J. Kandarkar For Petitioner Mrs.R.M.Shinde=-AGP for the State. Ms.Swati Sagvekar for R.No.4. Ms.Neha Pawar i/by.Patil Kishor Shrirang for Resp No. 5 CORAM : RANJIT MORE. & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATE : 29th August, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 06/09/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: 1-WP7148-19.DOC Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7148 OF 2019 Bhagirath Trans Corpo Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. …Respondents Mr. Kiran Bapat, I/b Mr. Akshay Kandarkar, for the petitioner. Mrs. R. M. Shinde, AGP for the State/Respondent. Ms. Swati H. Sagvekar, for Respondent no.4. CORAM: RANJIT MORE & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATED: 6 th SEPTEMBER, 2019 PC: 1. Not before the Bench, of which Shri. N. J. Jamadar, J, is a member. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7148 OF 2019 Bhagirathi Trans Corp. Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra Thru The Secretary, Industries, Energy And Labour Dept. And Ors ....Respondent Kiran Bapat i/by Akshay J. Kandarkar For Petitioner V. S. Gokhale, B Panel Counsel for State/Resp No 1 To 3. Swati H. Sagvekar for Resp No. 4. Kishor Shrirang Patil for Resp No. 5. CORAM : A.A. SAYED & PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ DATE : 18th September, 2019 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the petitioners / respondent / applicant , Stand over to 04/10/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7148 OF 2019 Bhagirathi Trans Corp. Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra Thru The Secretary, Industries, Energy And Labour Dept. And Ors ....Respondent Mr. Kiran Bapat i/by Mr.Akshay J. Kandarkar For Petitioner. Mr.V. S. Gokhale B Panel counsel for State/Respondent No 1 To 3 . Ms. Swati H. Sagvekar for Respondent No. 4. Ms. Neha Pawar i/by Kishor Patil for Respondent No. 5. CORAM : A.A. SAYED & PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ DATE : 14th October, 2019 C . P.C. : Stand over to 16/10/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 19: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7148 OF 2019 ... Bhagirathi Trans Corp. Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner V/S State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents Mr. Kiran Bapat i/b Mr. Akshay Kadarkar for the Petitioner. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, 'B' Panel Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State. Ms. Swati Sagvekar for Respondent No.4. Mr. Kishor Patil for Respondent No.5. ... … CORAM : A.A. SAYED & PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. DATE : 16 OCTOBER 2019. ORDER: 1 Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties we deem it appropriate to direct the parties to appear before the Respondent No.1 Secretary or any Officer not below the rank of the Deputy Secretary, Industries, Energy and Labour Department, Mumbai, nominated by the Respondent No.1 Secretary, to hear the parties and take appropriate decision in respect of the issue raised in the Petition and in particular whether entry 6 or entry 11 of the Schedule of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 would be applicable in the present case. The said decision shall be taken independently without being influenced by the earlier opinions, after hearing the Petitioner as also the Respondent No.4 Corporation and Respondent No.5 Union. The parties to appear before the Respondent No.1 1/2 the Secretary or the nominated Officer on 11 November 2019 at 11 a.m. Let the decision be taken on or before 31 January 2020. 2 List the Petition under the caption 'for directions' on 5 February 2020. Until the decision is taken by the Respondent No.1 Secretary or the nominated Officer, no coercive steps shall be taken against the Petitioner. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (A.A. SAYED, J.) katkam