All Cases

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

Order - Status 5: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 6: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 6: Dusane 1/3 904 apeal 693, appa 738.2019.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.693 OF 2019 ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.738 OF 2019 Vipul Ravindra Yadav Vs. Appellant/Applicant (Ori. Accused no.1) The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. Shekhar Arvind Ingawale for the appellant/applicant. Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for State. Coram : Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, J. Date : 2 nd May 2019 P.C.: 1 Heard the respective counsel. 2 Appeal admit. 3 The above application is filed under Section 389 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking suspension of substantive sentence imposed upon the appellant/applicant. The applicant herein is convicted by the District Judge-4 and Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli vide judgment and order dated 22nd March 2019 in Sessions Case No. 142 of 2014, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of Dusane 2/3 904 apeal 693, appa 738.2019.doc Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year, three years, fine of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, three months respectively. 4 The appellant was married for hardly six months. He had sent his wife (deceased) to her maternal house for appearing in the examination. While returning, there was a trifling dispute. She simply entered into the house, poured kerosene on her person and got immolated. 5 The sentence imposed upon the applicant is a short term sentence. This Court is hearing the jail appeals of the year 2013 and that there is no possibility of the appeal being finally heard expeditiously. Hence, the applicant deserves extension of the same relief during pendency of the appeal. Hence, the following order. O R D E R i ) The application is allowed. ii ) The substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant vide judgment and order dated 22nd March 2019 is hereby suspended. iii ) The applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the like amount. iv ) The applicant shall mark his presence before the District Judge-4 and Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli once in six months on the date assigned by the Sessions Judge. v ) Upon failure to attend any two consecutive dates, the Sessions Court shall make a report to the High Court and the prosecution would be at liberty to file an application seeking cancellation of bail. Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order. ( Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, J)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 15188 OF 2023 In Civil Revision Application STAMP NO. 13049 OF 2023 Manohar Sonu Talekar ....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. 15188 OF 2023 In Civil Revision Application STAMP NO. 13049 OF 2023 Manohar Sonu Talekar ....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: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4652 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, am, Court's or Judgo's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.C.G.Gavnekar for the petitioner. Ms M.P.Thakur, A.G.P. for resp. nos.1 & 2. CORAM : D.D. SINHA & A.R.JOSHI,JJ. DATE : JUNE 27, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice, returnable on 11.7.2011. The learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader waives notice on behalf of the respondent nos.1 & 2. (D.D. SINHA, J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4652 OF 2011 Subhash Prabhakar Patil ..Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. C. G. Gavnekar for Petitioner. Mr. P. M. Palshikar - 'A' Panel Counsel and Mrs. M. P. Thakur - Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. R. JOSHI, JJ. 27 July 2011. P.C. : Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to amend the year of The Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Presiding Authorities) (Removal From Office Due to Misconduct) Rules. It is submitted that inadvertently it is mentioned in the petition that those Rules are of 1994 whereas they are of the year 1995. Leave granted. Appropriate amendment be carried out forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. Rule. Learned counsel for the respondents waives service on behalf of the Respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present petition the petitioner has raised challenge to the validity of sub rule 6 of rule 3 of The Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Presiding Authorities) (Removal from Office Due to Misconduct) Rules 1995. Sub rule 6 reads thus : "On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral and documentary evidence shall be produced by or on behalf of the complainant. The witnesses shall be examined by or on behalf of the complainant and may be crossexamined by the Presiding authority against whom there are charges of misconduct. However no legal practitioner shall be allowed to appear on behalf of the complainant or the Presiding authority." The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Section 50 of The Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 deals with removal of President or a Vice-President. The petitioner is a President of Raigad Zilla Parishad and the proceedings are initiated against him on the ground of misconduct in discharge of his duties and therefore the procedure which the respondents need to follow is stipulated in Section 50 of the Act. It is contended that proviso to Section 50 contemplates that no President or Vice-President shall be removed from office unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity to furnish an explanation. It is further contended that Section 274 of the Act gives powers to the State Government to make rules, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, for the purpose of carrying in to effect the provisions of the Act. It is contended that sub section (2) also empowers the State Government to make rules for all or any of the following matters which are mentioned in sub section (2). It is submitted that Section 274(2) does not clothe State Government to make rule regarding removal of President or Vice President as stipulated in section 50 of the Act nor the State Government is competent to make rule inconsistent with the provisions of section 50 as per sub rule 1 and section 274 of the Act. The counsel for the petitioner therefore contended that to comply with the doctrine of natural justice as contemplated by provisions of section 50 before a President or Vice-President is removed from the office, the request made by the petitioner to permit him to be represented by lawyer at the time of inquiry is just, proper and is consistent with the provisions of Section 50. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the State Government has a power to make rules in view of provisions of section 274 sub sections (1) and (2). It is contended that sub clause (li) gives power to make rules in respect of any other matter under the Act and therefore the State Government is clothe with power to make rules even in respect of contingencies mentioned in section 50 of the Act. Sub rule 6 of rule 3 only prohibits legal practitioner to appear on behalf of the complainant or the presiding authority in the inquiry proceedings undertaken for removal of President or a Vice President as per procedure stipulated under section 50 of the Act, however petitioner will be given full opportunity to participate in the inquiry. It is therefore contended that the challenge raised by the petitioner to sub rule 6 of rule 3 is misconceived and bad in law. We have considered the rival contentions and also considered the relevant rules relied on and cited by the learned respective counsel for the parties. The questions which fall for our consideration are as follows: i. Whether the State Government is clothed with the power to make rules under Section 274(2) pertaining to contingencies stipulated in section 50 of the Act which deals with removal of a President or a Vice President? ii. Proviso 1 to section 50 contemplates that no President or a Vice President shall be removed from the office unless he has been given reasonable opportunity to furnish an explanation and therefore whether the concept of reasonable opportunity to furnish explanation includes such person can be represented by lawyer at the time of such inquiry or proceedings. iii. Even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that the State Government may have a power in respect of the contingency as mentioned in section 50 of the Act, even then whether the State Government can make a rule inconsistent with the provisions of section 50 of the Act such as sub rule 6 of rule 3 of the Rules, which prohibits President or Vice President being represented by lawyer in such inquiry proceedings, whereas section 50 of the Act does not stipulate such prohibition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the circumstances the interim relief in terms of prayer clause (f) may kindly be granted during the pendency of the petition. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. Considered the rival contentions for grant of interim relief and perused the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. Taking the over all view of the matter, though it is not possible to give findings on the issues involved in the present case at this stage, however, we are prima facie of the view that the case is made out for grant of interim relief. If the interim relief is not granted and if the inquiry commenced against the petitioner is permitted to go on the petition will become infructuous. Therefore we grant interim relief in terms of prayer clause (f) of the petition during the pendency of the petition. Considering the issue involved, respective counsel prayed that the hearing of the petition may be expedited. In the circumstances, hearing of the petition is expedited. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (A. R. JOSHI, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.958 OF 2019 IN SECOND APPEAL (STAMP) NO.14442 OF 2019 …. Mrs. Seema S. Ingavle ...Applicant Versus Sanja V. Ingavle ...Respondent Ms Diya Jadhav I/b. Mr. Suryajeet P. Chavan for the Applicant. None for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. DATED : 30th JULY, 2019. P.C.: Issue notice to the Respondent, returnable on 13/8/2019. Private service is permitted. (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) Megha Parab Digitally signed by Megha Parab Date: 2019.07.31 12:03:39 +0530

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA NO. 958 OF 2019 In SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO. 14442 OF 2019 Mrs. Seema S Ingavle ....Applicant V/S Shri. Sanja V. Ingavle ....Respondent None For Applicant Mr. A. B. Tajane i.b. Mr. P D Pise Filed Vp For Sole Respondent In Sast CORAM : RAJESH G. KETKAR, J DATE : 13th August, 2019 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the respondent, Stand over to 27/08/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA NO. 958 OF 2019 In SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO. 14442 OF 2019 Mrs. Seema S Ingavle Applicant V/S Shri. Sanja V. Ingavle Respondent Mr Suryajeet Prithviraj Chavan For Applicant None for Respondent CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J DATE : 27th August, 2019 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the Applicant, Stand Over to 17/09/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA NO. 958 OF 2019 In SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO. 14442 OF 2019 Mrs. Seema S Ingavle ....Applicant V/S Shri. Sanja V. Ingavle ....Respondent CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J DATE : 17th September, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 04/10/2019 . In case any ad-interim/interim relief is operating till today, the said order will continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 958 OF 2019 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO. 14442 OF 2019 Mrs. Seema S. Ingavle ….Applicant V/s. Sanja V. Ingavle ….Respondent Mr. Satyajeet R. Chavan for the applicant. Mr. P.D. Pise for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. DATED : 04th OCTOBER, 2019 P.C.:- . Affidavit-in-reply, if any, to be filed in the registry within a period of four weeks with copy to the other side in advance. Stand over to 11/11/2019. Preeti H. Jayani Digitally signed by Preeti H. Jayani Date: 2019.10.10 11:34:46 +0530 (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA NO. 958 OF 2019 In SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO. 14442 OF 2019 Mrs. Seema S Ingavle ....APPLICANT V/S Shri. Sanja V. Ingavle ....RESPONDENT None for Applicant / Appellant Mr. P. D. Pise Adv. for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL S. KILOR J DATE : 20th January, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 17/02/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: 21 CAS-958-2019.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 958 OF 2019 IN / WITH SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 14442 OF 2019 Mrs. Seema S Ingavle …Applicant/ …Appellant Versus Shri. Sanja V. Ingavle …Respondent ***** Mr. Suryajeet P. Chavan, for Applicant. Mr. Padmanabh D. Pise, for sole Respondent. ***** CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 13th FEBRUARY 2024 P.C. : . Heard learned counsel for the parties. HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN NADAF Digitally signed by HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN NADAF Date: 2024.02.15 10:12:47 +0530 This is an application for condonation of delay of 123 days in filing above appeal. The matter is arising out of matrimonial dispute between the Applicant/wife and Respondent/husband. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that if the matter is referred to a Mediator, sincere efforts can be made to bring an end to the dispute. It is jointly submitted that there is good possibility of settlement. Considering the nature of the dispute, as suggested by the parties, they are referred to Advocate Shri. S.G. Deshmukh, Room No. 36, Appellate Side Bar room, High Court, Mumbai, for mediation in the matter. Parties agree to meet the said mediator on 20/02/2024 as a first meeting. The said Mediator is requested to mediate the matter and submit his report, preferably within 8 weeks. The Mediator is free to decide the time table and both the learned counsel for the parties assure that the parties would co-operate. The aspect of mediation charges is kept open to be decided by the learned Mediator. Stand over to 15/04/2024. (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA NO. 958 OF 2019 In SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO. 14442 OF 2019 Mrs. Seema S Ingavle ....APPLICANT V/S Shri. Sanja V. Ingavle ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GAURI GODSE J DATE : 25th July, 2024 P.C. : Listed for assigning date.Stand Over to 01/10/2024 under the caption for Urgent Orders. If any ad-interim / interim relief is operating till today, the same shall continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/ interim relief is granted not for a limited period, the same shall remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA NO. 958 OF 2019 In SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO. 14442 OF 2019 Mrs. Seema S Ingavle ....APPLICANT V/S Shri. Sanja V. Ingavle ....RESPONDENT Ms. Vishakha Shelar h/f Mr. Suryajeet P. Chavan for Applicant. Mr. Padmanabh D. Pise for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GAURI GODSE J DATE : 1st October, 2024 P.C. : At the request of learned counsel for the Applicant , stand over to 03/01/2025 as a Last Chance. If any ad-interim / interim relief is operating till today, the same shall continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/ interim relief is granted not for a limited period, the same shall remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA NO. 958 OF 2019 In Second Appeal STAMP NO. 14442 OF 2019 Mrs. Seema S Ingavle ....APPLICANT V/S Shri. Sanja V. Ingavle ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GAURI GODSE J DATE : 3rd January, 2025 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time.Stand Over to 24/03/2025 If any ad-interim / interim relief is operating till today, the same shall continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/ interim relief is granted not for a limited period, the same shall remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 24: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA NO. 958 OF 2019 In SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO. 14442 OF 2019 Mrs. Seema S Ingavle ....APPLICANT V/S Shri. Sanja V. Ingavle ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GAURI GODSE J DATE : 24th March, 2025 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand Over to 09/09/2025. If any ad-interim / interim relief is operating till today, the same shall continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/ interim relief is granted not for a limited period, the same shall remain unaffected. ( 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 3: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 4: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.