All Cases

Order - Status 5: 23WP.5800-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5800 OF 2010 Mr.Jagdish Sakharam Umtol. ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another. ..Respondents. .... .... Mr.S.M. Oak, i/b. Sagar A. Joshi, for the Petitioner. Mrs.M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 12th JULY, 2011 P.C. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State. Issue notice to the Respondents returnable on 19th July, 2011. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (A. R. JOSHI, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5800 OF 2010 Mr Jagdish Sakharam Umtol ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and another ..Respondents. Mr S.M. Oak i/by Sagar A Joshi, Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs M.P. Thakur, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. R. JOSHI, JJ. 21st July, 2011. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State. In the present petition, the petitioner is seeking direction simplicitor to respondent No.2 to decide the application filed by the petitioner on 7th February, 2001, which is pending for decision, within a stipulated period. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a Tribal and made an application for restoration of the land under the provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions from the Competent Authority, has made a statement that said application is pending for decision. On the backdrop of the above referred facts, we direct respondent No.2 to decide the application of the petitioner, in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard, on its own merit, as early as possible, in any case not beyond the period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. With these directions writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (A. R. JOSHI, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3720 OF 2003 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. OF 2003 Balbirsingh Hansa Singh ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr.S.D.Nangre for applicant Mr.T.R.Yadav i/b Mr.S.V.Marwadi for Respondent nos.2 to 6. .... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : OCTOBER 3, 2005 P.C. Heard both sides. Sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay. Hence, delay is condoned. Application is disposed of. [V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5258 OF 2007 Colin Douglas Hoogewere ...... ....Petitioner. V/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr........ ....Respondents. Mr.P.S.Dani, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Warerkar i/by M/s.Warerkar & Warerkar for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 27/7/07 PC: The present petitioner is already defending proceedings under the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act, 1971 (the "Act") as an occupant of the premises. One Smt.Iris Honey was the tenant and the case of the respondentInsurance company is that the present petitioner was illegally inducted in the premises by the tenant. The proceedings are initiated under the said act against the tenant so also the present petitioneroccupant. Iris Honey expired during the pendency of proceedings on 21.5.06 and thus the present petitioner moved an application to bring his name on record as legal representative of the deceased. The rejection of the said application has given rise to the present writ petition. The relationship of the petitioner with the deceased has not been clearly spelt out even in this petition, when the application itself was rejected on the grant that the petitioner had not placed on record any material in support of relationship. As the petitioner is already defending the proceedings as occupant no prejudice will be caused if the petitioner is not brought on record as legal representative of the deceased. Perused the order. Same does not call for interference. Thus writ petition stands summarily dismissed. If and in case some other legal representative of Iris Honey is brought on record it shall be open for the petitioner to take up appropriate proceedings before appropriate Forum to litigate the rights. 27.7.07

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT Petition No. 1360 OF 2008 KailasPetitioner Balkrishna Patil (Through Jail) Vs. TheRespondent State of Magistrate & Ors. Mrs. S. D. Shinde, for the Respondent. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI, & A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J. DATE : AUGUST 4, 2008. PC :- 1.The petitioner has filed the petition, seeking his release after serving sentence of 14 years, as life convict. Earlier he had moved an application which was rejected by the respondents on 12th April, 2006. On the last occasion, we had asked the learned Public Prosecutor to file a reply, stating as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be released in terms of the policy framed in April 2008. The reply has not been filed. Further time was sought to file the reply. 2.In the circumstances, we direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his release in terms of the policy framed in April 2008 and pass the speaking order within two weeks from today. 3.After passing of any such order, pursuant to above direction, such order be placed before us. S.O. to 20th August, 2008. Sd/- [ BILAL NAZKI, J.] Sd/- [ A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.]

Order - Status 11: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 1360 OF 2008 l -1- - Office Notes, Office Memoranda l of Coram, appearances, Court's l Orders or directions and l Registrar's orders. l Court's or Judges' Order i -i- - Mrs. P.H.Kantharia A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: S. B. MHASE & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATE: October 8, 2008. P.C. Mr. Ashutosh Gole is hereby appointed as an advocate to conduct the petition on behalf of the accused who is in jail. Office is directed to furnish copy of the petition to the appointed advocate. S.O. to 14th October 2008. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1360 OF 2008 Kailas..Petitioner Balkrishna Patil V/s The..Respondents State of Maharashtra & Ors. Mr.Ashutosh Gole for the Petitioner Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP for the State CORAM : S.B.MHASE & A.A. SAYED JJ. DATE : 17TH NOVEMBER, 2008 P.C. 1.Heard. 2.Rule. Rule returnable immediately with the consent of the parties. 3.The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for release from the jail in view of the provisions of Section 432, 433 of Criminal Procedure Code, remitting the entire portion of the sentence for his premature release under 14 years rule. The petitioner is in jail for a period as follows:- (a)Under trial period two years, 6 months, 20 days. (b)Actual sentence under gone 13 years, 7 months, 15 months. (c)Ordinary remissions and other remissions including State remissions 6 years, 1 month, 29 days. Total period with remissions is 22 years, 4 months, 4 days. 4.This was the position on the date when the return was filed by the State on 21st October, 2008. At that time the petitioner was classified under category 3(b) of the guide-lines dated 11/5/1992. But with new guide-lines introduced on 11th April 2008, this Court directed the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner under new guide-lines. The respondents accordingly considered the case of the petitioner under new guide-lines and passed an order dated 26th August, 2008 classifying him under category 4(c) of Annexure-1 and directed that he should be released after completion of the 24 years with remission subject to 14 years of actual imprisonment. 5.It is admitted position that the petitioner has undergone actual imprisonment for more than 14 years. The only question which requires to be considered is as to how the petitioner is to be categorised and after completion of how many years with remission the petitioner is to be released. 6.Under new guide-lines of 2008 the petitioner has been categorised in category 4 viz. "for other reasons" and in sub-category, he has been categorised in 4(c) viz. "crime committed (a) above but with the premeditation or by gang or by a person having criminal history" and the punishment is shown to be 24 years in the said Annexure-1. What is important to be taken into consideration is that the classification of the accused under category 4 is basically incorrect, because from the final noting which have been prepared by the State, it appears that the deceased Ramesh was involved in criminal cases and as against him there were several offences registered and chapter cases were also filed. 7.From the facts of the case it transpires that some persons from the Mumbai desired to purchase agricultural property at Madhi and it is alleged that in order to see that those transaction are cleared, the deceased Ramesh was indulging in gundagiri and therefore the accused persons have come together and have committed the murder of the deceased. Thus, the act of murder has taken place as a result of land dispute. When the murder is committed in relation to land dispute, the same has been categorised in category 3 viz " murder arising out of land dispute, family feuds, family prestige and superstition". Thus the categorisation by the respondents into category 4 is not just and proper. 8.The offence committed by the accused thus falls in category 3 as stated above. Since many persons have come together and have indulged in the said murder we further find the offence falls in sub-category (b) viz. "the crime committed as above with premeditation either individual or by gang". Therefore, assuming that the crime has been committed with premeditation still offence will fall under category 3(b) and not category 4(c) and thus we find that the order which has been passed by the respondents categorising the petitioner into category 4(c) by order dated 26th August, 2008 is not just and proper and we set aside the said order. 9It is also equally admitted position that with the remission the petitioner has completed more than 22 years imprisonment. Both the conditions are therefore satisfied i.e the petitioner has undergone actual punishment for 14 years and he has undergone 22 years with all remissions at his credit. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released from the jail. 10.We therefore direct the respondents that giving benefit of sections 432 and 433 of Cr.P.C. and petitioner being classified into category 3(b),of the guide-lines dated 11-04-2008, he should be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 11.Rule is made absolute in terms above and the petition is disposed of. ( A.A. SAYED, J.) (S.B. MHASE, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.198 OF 2003 Dr.Rajkumar V.Tripathi ..Petitioner Vs. Ramdhari Deonarayan Mishra ..Respondent .... None for the petitioner .... CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 24,2005 P.C.: This petition came up for admission on 10-.2.2005 and none was present for the petitioner and hence, it was adjourned for two weeks. When it is taken up for hearing on admission again none is present for the petitioner today. Hence, the contempt petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. [ B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. ]

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1636 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1637 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1638 OF 2011 Mrs.Anita Arora w/o Ashokkumar Arora. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and another. ... Respondents. Kishor Bhatia for the petitioner. Ms.A.T.Jhaveri, APP for the State. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED : 28th July 2011. P.C. : By these petitions, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the learned revisional Court thereby condoning the delay in filing the complaint. The discretion has been exercised by the learned revision Court in the interest of justice. As such, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order. All the petitions are, therefore, rejected. (B.R.GAVAI, J.)