All Civil Miscellaneous Application

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4622 OF 2005 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ........ OF 2005 State of Maharashtra .... Applicant Vs. Bharat Narayan Patil & Ors. .... Respondents Ms A.S. Pai, APP, for the Applicant. Shri Sudatta Patil for the Respondents. CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & Smt. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED: JULY 04, 2007 P.C: Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Taking into consideration the medical evidence as well as the testimony of the eye-witnesses to the incident, prima facie it appears that the accused exceeded in the exercise of their private defence and, therefore, the matter requires consideration. Hence, leave is granted in terms of Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. in filing the appeal against the impugned judgment dated 24-2-2005 passed in Sessions Case No.151 of 2001 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli. Accordingly, the appeal stands admitted. Action under Section 390 of the Cr.P.C. to follow. (Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.) (R.M.S.Khandeparkar, J.) sjs/J7cag4622.5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.222 OF 2005 Babasaheb Ramrao Patil .... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents Shri Jay Shekhar for the Petitioner. Ms A.S. Pai, APP, for the State. Shri Sudatta Patil for the Respondents Nos.2 to 5. CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & Smt. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED: JULY 04, 2007 P.C: In view of the Appeal filed by the prosecution against the impugned judgment having been admitted, question of entertaining the present revision application does not arise. The revision application, therefore, is dismissed. (Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.) (R.M.S.Khandeparkar, J.) sjs/J7cag4622.5

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.208 OF 2007 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.69 OF 2001 Warsha...Applicant @ Elee Naren B. Goregaonkar V/s. Naren...Respondent Bhagwant Rao Goregaonkar Mr.Anshuman Jagtap, Advocate, h/f. Jyoti N. Shah, for the applicant. Ms.Shilpa Joshi, Advocate, for the respondent. CORAM : J.N. PATEL & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 13TH AUGUST, 2007. P.C.: 1.The applicant is permitted to withdraw the balance amount of Rs.1,47,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon. 2.The Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly. [A.A. SAYED, J.] [J.N. PATEL, J.]

Order - Status 5: CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 99 OF 2012 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant vs. Avit @ Pintu Anant Bhole ...Respondent Mrs.U.V. Kejriwal, APP for the Applicant-State. CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. FEBRUARY 1, 2012 P.C. :- Heard the learned APP for the applicant. Rule, returnable on 21st March, 2012. In addition to court service, private service is also permitted. (A.V. POTDAR, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)

Order - Status 9: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.99 OF 2012 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or orders or directions & Judge's orders. Registrar's orders. Ms Sangeeta D. Shinde, APP for the Applicant. Shri Pankaj D. Kavale for the Respondent. CORAM : A.S. OKA & SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ DATE : 21ST MARCH, 2012 P.C.: . Heard the learned APP for the Applicant and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent who has opposed this application. The delay of 28 days in preferring the application for leave to appeal has been adequately explained. Sufficient cause is made out. Delay is condoned. The Rule is accordingly made absolute. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J) (A.S.OKA, J)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2444 OF 2007 Maya Niranjandas alias Waghmare .. Applicant v/s. State of Maharashtra (Through the Vithalwadi P.Stn., Ulhasnagar) .. Respondent Mr.Rupesh K. Bobade for the applicant. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. DATED : 14TH AUGUST, 2007 P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No. I98/2006 registered at Vithalwadi Police Station, Ulhasnagar. The said case is registered under section 171, 364A, 384, 385, 504, 506 IPC It is the prosecution case that one Niranjan Das and the complainant were proceeding to Antop Hill on motorcycle. The complainant was driving the motorcycle. At that time the motorcycle skidded, due to this Niranjan sustained injuries. The wife of Niranjan and the friends of Niranjan including the applicant said that the complainant is responsible for the injuries and made him to pay Rs.21,000/ for medical expenses. It is further the case of the complainant that on 1.9.2006 the applicant alongwith others came to the house at the complainant stating that Niranjan and his wife had called him and they took him to the house of Niranjan. At that time, Niranjan and his wife Maya were present. It is further case of the complainant that in the house of Niranjan, he was assaulted by fist blows and Rs.2 lacs was demanded from him. The complainant told them that he was unable to pay the said amount whereupon they took document from him stating that the complainant would give an amount of Rs.50,000/ towards expenses to Niranjan Das. The said document has already been seized by the police. So far as the present applicant is concerned, her presence is shown together with certain circumstances given by her. Considering the role of the present applicant and the fact that the investigation is complete and chargesheet has been filed, all necessary documents have already been seized and that she is a woman who is also required to look after her children, I am inclined to grant her bail subject to the following conditions: (a) The applicant arrested in connection with C.R.No.I-98/2006, registered with Vithalwadi Police Station, Ulhasnagar, shall be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/ with one or two sureties to make up the said amount. (b) The applicant shall report to Vithalwadi Police Station, Ulhasnagar once in a week i.e. on every Saturday between 03.00 p.m. to 05.00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial. (c) The order of bail will be given effect only after the applicant furnishes to the investigating officer the details about his place of residence and address where he proposes to stay after he is enlarged on bail. The applicant will not change his residential address thereafter till the conclusion of trial without prior intimation to the investigating officer. (d) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement or threat or pressurise any prosecution witnesses and shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution evidence. (e) The applicant shall cooperate with the inves agency for disposal of the case. It is needless to mention that breach of any of the conditions by the applicant shall result in cancellation of bail. (f) Any observation made in this order shall not be construed as finding or expression on merits of the case at the time of trial. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (V.C. DAGA, J.)

Order - Status 10: Ashokkumar Rogiprasad Sahani .. Applicant -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr. A. B. Tajane, for the Applicant. Mrs P. P. Shinde, APP for the respondent State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 7th October, 2010 P.C. This is an application for bail by accused in Crime No.7 of 2010, registered at Saswad Police Station, Pune, for the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant was arrested in connection with murder of one Keshav Bhagat. The allegations are that Keshav used to press the applicant to perform unnatural intercourse with the applicant and the applicant ultimately killed the victim. Investigation in the matter initially proceeded in different direction on account of recitals in F.I.R. But ultimately since the applicant used victim's mobile phone, applicant was traced out. In any case, recovery of mobile phone from the applicant on the day of his arrest which is linked to the offence would have to be considered by the Trial Judge at the trial. The application is, therefore, rejected. Considering the age of the applicant and the fact that he is in jail for 4 to 5months, learned Judge shall expedite the hearing of the case and shall of the same as early as possible and preferably within one year. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3158 OF 2010 Ashokkumar Rogiprasad Sahani ..Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Ms Yogita Mayekar i/b.Mr.A.B.Tajane, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 22ND OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. . A precipe has been filed by the applicant for Speaking to the Minutes of the Order dated 7th October, 2010. On page No.2 in the second line from the bottom after the word shall the word dispose of should be typed. Office to issue a certified copy accordingly. The precipe for Speaking to the Minutes of the Order is accordingly disposed of. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.254 OF 2015 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL (ST) NO.14544 OF 2015 Sou. Neha Abhijit Mangudkar Applicant. V/s. Abhijit Bharat Mangudkar Respondent. Mr.S.S. Deshmukh for the applicant. None for the respondent. CORAM : CORAM : V.M.KANADE AND MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ. JJ. DATED : 24TH AUGUST, 2016 P.C. :- Issue notice to the respondent, returnable on 21st September, 2016. (MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, J.) (V.M.KANADE, J.)

Order - Status 6: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C.A.M. NO.254 OF 2015 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL ST. NO.14544 OF 2015 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 : AJIT N. MARE, REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 8th September, 2016 S.O. 1 week for supplying copy. ­ sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 08.09.16

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C.A.M. NO.254 OF 2015 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL ST. NO.14544 OF 2015 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 : AJIT N. MARE, REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 29th September, 2016 Stand over 1 week for furnishing copies. ­ sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 29.09.16

Order - Status 9: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C.A.M. NO.254 OF 2015 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL ST. NO.14544 OF 2015 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 : AJIT N. MARE, REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 26th October, 2016 Returnable date is extended by 8 weeks. ­ sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 26.10.16

Order - Status 10: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C.A.M. NO.254 OF 2015 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.14544 OF 2015 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 : AJIT N. MARE, REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 21st December, 2016 Await Service for 5 weeks. sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 21.12.16

Order - Status 14: (CAM 254 OF 2015) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION No. 254 OF 2015 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL (ST.) No. 14544 OF 2015 Sou. Neha Abhijit Mangudkar Applicant/Appellant Vs. Mr. Abhijit Bharat Mangudkar Respondent *********** Mr. Shrishailay S. Deshmukh for the Applicant/Appellant Mr. Dhananjay Patil for Respondent. *********** CORAM : V.M. KANADE & P.R. BORA, JJ DATE : FEBRUARY 06, 2017 P.C. : Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned counsel for the Respondent. The application is filed for condonation of delay. There is a delay of 20 days in filing the Family Court Appeal, which is filed against the order passed by the Family Court. The Applicant has vat stated in her civil application that it took time for her to send the papers to her advocate and, therefore, the delay was caused in filing the FCA. On the other hand, a detailed affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of the Respondent. Firstly, it is submitted that the valuable right has accrued in favour of the Respondent after the period of limitation is over. Secondly, it is submitted that there is an unexplained delay of 22 days and not 20 days. Thirdly, it is submitted that so far as the averment regarding the relatives of the Applicant were trying for amicable settlement of the present matrimonial matter is concerned, the said averment is false and no settlement talks have been taken place. Several other grounds have been taken in the reply. It is also pointed out that the Petitioner had remained absent on number of days before the Family Court and lastly, it is submitted that the Applicant is harassing the Respondent by filing civil applications and the petition for divorce filed by the Respondent before the Family Court is now at the last stage. It is submitted that on all these grounds, the civil application filed for condonation of delay may not be allowed. It is a settled position in law that if a plausible explanation is given by the Applicant, who is exercising his/her statutory right of appeal, then this Court shall exercise its discretionary power and condone the delay caused in filing the appeal. In the present case, there is a only delay of 20 days and the Applicant has a right to be heard on merits. Ultimately, while hearing the Applicant and the Respondent, this Court may consider the various submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent. So far (CAM 254 OF 2015) as the delay is concerned, we are inclined to condone the delay of 20 days. Hence, civil application filed for condonation of delay is allowed and disposed of in terms of prayer clause (a). Place the Family Court Appeal on the admission board on 20.2.2017 [ P.R. BORA, J.] [ V.M. KANADE, J.] Vaishali Tikam

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.190 OF 2018 ..... .... The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant V/s. Shri.Mithun Balaso Sawant & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.S.V.Gavand, APP for the Applicant/State. CORAM : A.M.BADAR J. DATED : 20th JULY 2018. P.C. : 1 Issue notice to respondents returnable on 14th September 2018. (A.M.BADAR J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.190 OF 2018 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...APPLICANT V/s. MITHUN BALASO SAWANT AND ANR. )...RESPONDENTS Mrs.M.R.Tidke, APP for the Applicant – State. Mr.Sharad Mulik, Advocate for the Respondent State. CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J. DATE : 15th OCTOBER 2018 P.C. : 1 This is an application for condonation of delay in preferring an application for leave to appeal. What is sought to be challenged is acquittal of the respondents in Special Case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2 Heard the learned APP appearing for the State as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. He argued that carelessness of the State is reflected from the fact that neither the name of the court nor the other particulars are properly mentioned in the instant application. The same is therefore liable to be rejected. 3 I have considered the submissions so advanced. The delay occurred is that of 21 days. Leaving apart the misdescription of the court and other particulars in the application, sufficient cause is shown for the short delay of 21 days in filing the application for leave to appeal. Hence, the order : ORDER i) The application is allowed. ii) The delay in filing the application for leave to appeal is condoned. iii) The application is accordingly disposed off. (A. M. BADAR, J.)

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPW) NO. 274 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3464 OF 2013 Office Notes, Office Memorandam of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders None for Applicant Ms. Saloni M. Ghule, I/by Sanjiv Sawant for R. No. 1 Mr. Deepak Thakare, APP for State CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 22nd APRIL, 2016 P.C. None for the applicant. 2] This is an application for early hearing of Writ Petition No. 3464/2013 preferred by the original petitioner. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitionerhusband on instructions submitted that in pursuance of the order dated 26.3.2013 her client is regularly paying the maintenance of Rs. 10,000/ to the applicantwife. 3] In view of the same, I find that there is no urgency in hearing the petition expeditiously. The application is disposed off with liberty to the applicantwife to file fresh application for appropriate reliefs, if the petitionerhusband commits any breach of orders dated 13.9.2013 and 17.6.2014. 4] The application is disposed off in the aforesaid terms. (A. S. GADKARI, J.)