All Civil Appeal

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

Order - Status 5: BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Digitally signed by PRITHIANI Date: 2023.03.02 16:56:20 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1263 OF 2022 Bapu Dharma Javale … Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents 42-apeal-1263.22.doc ****** Mr. Mohansinh U. Rajput, appointed advocate a/w Amey S. Ajgaonkar for the Appellant. Mrs. G. P. Mulekar, APP for the Respondent-State. ****** CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE AND R. N. LADDHA, JJ. DATE : 1st MARCH, 2023 P.C. :- . Issue fresh notice to respondent no.2 to be served through respondent no.1, returnable on 24th April, 2023. Call Records and Proceedings. [R. N. LADDHA, J.] [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 465 OF 2017 Somnath Haridas Kamble .. Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Appearances Mr. Sagar Tambe i/by Mr. Jaydeep D. Mane Advocate for the Appellant Mr. H.J. Dedhia APP for the State ................... ................... CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 13, 2017. P.C.: Admit. The appellant to prefer separate application for bail. [ SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]

Order - Status 7: Osk 222-Apeal-465-2017.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 465 OF 2017 Somnath Haridas Kamble … Appellant V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent Ms.Vilasini B. i/b. Mr.Jaydeep Mane for Appellant. Mr.S.S. Hulke, A.P.P. for Respondent-State. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI AND MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 17th August 2022. P.C. : . At the request of learned Advocate for Appellant, list the Appeal on Final Hearing Board from the week commencing from 12th September 2022. [MILIND N. JADHAV, J.] [A.S. GADKARI, J.]

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.39 OF 2018 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 81 OF 2018 Sandeep Nagin Patel. ... Appellant V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent ..... Mr. Rakesh Bhatkar, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. A. R. Kapadnis, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : A.M.BADAR J. DATED : 7th FEBRUARY 2018. P.C. : 1 Heard the learned Advocate for the appellant/accused. Perused the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction and resultant sentence. .... 2 Admit. 3 Issue notice to the respondent. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice for the respondent/State. 4 Call for Record and Proceedings. (A.M.BADAR J.)

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 5: vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.649 OF 2012 Shiban Iqbal Momin and ors .. Appellants V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr. O. A. Siddique, for the Applicants. Mr. V. S. Mhaispurkar, APP for the Respondent - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 27th June, 2012 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. Admit. Call for record and proceeding. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)

Order - Status 3: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 155 OF 2011 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1291 OF 2010 Shri Sandeep Chandel s/o. H.D. Singh ..Applicant vs. M/s.Sudarshan Chemical Industries Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.Rajeev R. for the Applicant. Mr.Ankit Lohia i/b. M/s.Chitnis & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 4, 2011 P.C :- 1 This is an application for restoration of the appeal which came to be dismissed for default vide order dated 13th January, 2011. The matter was called out since on two occasions, the Counsel was not present. 2 However, for the reasons stated in the application, application is allowed. Appeal as well as Civil Application No.1589/2010 is restored to file subject to payment of costs which are quantified at Rs.1000/- to be payable to the Kirtikar Law Library, High Court, Bombay, within a period of two weeks from today. (B.R. GAVAI, J.)