All Civil Miscellaneous Application

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3060 OF 2010 Mr.Vishwanath Vitthal Shetty ...Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Niranjan Mundargi i/b. Mr.Shonak Mehta for the Applicant. Mr.S.A. Shaikh, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JULY 8, 2010 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel for the applicant and APP for the State. 2 The applicant has filed this application for reduction of the amount of surety which is to be furnished by him. The Sessions Judge has directed that the applicant should furnish surety in the sum of Rs.30,000/-. Initially, the applicant was permitted to furnish cash surety of Rs.30,000/-. 3 It is submitted that it is not possible for the applicant to furnish surety for the said sum and therefore, the amount may be reduced. It is submitted that applicant is residing permanently in Kurla along with his mother. It is further submitted that after the death of his father, the flat now is transferred in the name of his mother. 4 Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the order passed by the Sessions Court is modified and the applicant is directed to execute P.R. Bond of Rs.10,000/- and furnish one or two sureties in the like amount. The remaining conditions imposed by the trial court are not altered or modified. After the surety is furnished, the amount of Rs.30,000/- deposited by the applicant may be returned to him. 5 Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 2

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELALTE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 358 OF 2009 Sou. Ushadevi Sambhaji Patil ...... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra ....... Respondent. Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel with Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for the applicant. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.359 OF 2009 Shri Sambhaji Anandrao Patil ....... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent. Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel with Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for the applicant. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 17 th February, 2009 P.C.: Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with the offence punishable under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the present applicants have defrauded depositors to the tune of Rs 8,27,27,308/. In the affidavit in reply filed by the State it is stated that loans have been given to fictitious and bogus persons who are not in existence. Taking into consideration the allegations which are levelled in the complaint and the affidavit in reply filed by the State, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. Both these applications for anticipatory bail are accordingly rejected. Both these applications are disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.414/2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.359/2009 Office notes,Office Memoranda of Coram Appearances,Court's orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Court's or Judge's order Mr.Pradeep Gole for the Applicant Mr.Kharge,APP for State CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J. DATE : 7th October,2009 P.C. . The learned counsel for the applicant/ original accused submits that he has served the respondents thrice. However, despite of the service they are not appearing. This Revision Application is filed against the concurrent findings of the conviction of the Sessions Court ,Satara and the J.M.F.C. Satara. Thereby convicting the applicant for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ordering the applicant/accused to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- .The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has already deposited . Rs.30,000/- . The Revision Application is admitted. Issue notice to the respondents. R/o 30/11/2009. The bail application is pressed. The applicant accused is released on bail of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in like amount. The bail application is disposed of. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2321 OF 2007 Sunil Sukhdev Chandanshive Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.S.B.Pawar with Ms.Hema Sharma for applicant. Ms.M.H.Mhatre, APP for State. CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J. DATE : 18th July 2007 PC : Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. This is an application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail. I was taken through the statements made by one Mahendra Somnath Yadav and Smt.Radha Shrikrishna Wankhede who have graphically described the role of the applicant in the commission of the offence. At this stage, prima facie, it is not in dispute that the prima facie material showing positive role of the applicant in commission of the offence charged is available. The possibility of tampering with evidence and pressuring prosecution witnesses expressed by the learned Sessions Judge in order dated 2nd July 2007 while rejecting the bail application, that the applicant Sunil Chandanshive, if released on bail, cannot be ruled out. It gets strength from the character of the applicant which can be seen from the record. In the above view of the matter I am not inclined to grant bail. However, hearing of the trial is expedited. Criminal Application is accordingly rejected. (V.C.DAGA, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.147 OF 2004 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL (STAMP) NO.21878 OF 2004 Shrinivas Gautamrao Jamdade Petitioner versus Sau.Vidyabai Shrinivas Jamdade Respondent Mr.A.G.Jamdade, adv. for petitioner. CORAM : S.B.MHASE AND R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATE : 6th September 2004 PC : Heard Mr.Jamdade for applicant. Notice before admission returnable on 22nd September 2004. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.147 OF 2004 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL ST. NO.21878 OF 2004 Shrinivas Gautamrao Jamdade .. Applicant. Versus Vidyabai Shrinivas Jamdade .. Respondent. Mr.A.G.Jamdade for the applicant. CORAM : S.B.MHASE & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. DATE : MARCH 7, 2005. P.C. Heard. Issue fresh notice, returnable three weeks. Hamdast allowed. (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) :hcs/sbm/

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION M NO.147 OF 2004 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL ST NO.21878 OF 2004 Shri Shrinivas Gautamrao Jamdade, Applicant Vs Sou. Vidyabai Shrinivas Jamdade, Respondent. Mr A.G.Jamdade, for the applicant. CORAM : S.B.MHASE & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. DATE : APRIL 12, 2005. P.C. Heard. This is a civil application for condonation of delay for 122 days. The respondent, though served, is absent. We have perused the application. The delay has been properly explained. The delay is condoned. The civil application is disposed of. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) /rrt/db-05/db-12405/cam147-04

Order - Status 10: FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3167 of 2009 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders 3 or directions and Registrar's Orders None present for the applicant. respondent no.2. Ms.S.N.Dabhodkar i/b Mr.Samir Vaidya for Mr.S.A. Shaikh A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 11th March 2010. P.C. : Applicant and his counsel are absent when called. Application is dismissed for non prosecution/ default. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4542 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant V/s. Avit A. Bole .. Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3167 OF 2009 Ravindra M. Jadhav .. Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Another .. Respondents. Mrs. A.S.Pai, A.P.P. for State-Applicant in Cr. Appln. No.4542 of 2009. Shri C.K.Pendse, for Applicant in Cr. Appln. No.3167 of 2009. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J DATED : JUNE 30th, 2010. P.C. Criminal Application No.3167 of 2009 is already dismissed for default vide order dated 11th March, 2010 by another bench. Presently, there is no restoration application before this Court. However, the learned Advocate Shri Pendse submitted that Criminal Application No.392 of 2010 is already preferred for restoration. So far as Criminal Application No.4542 of 2009 is concerned, which is filed by the State, it is submitted by the learned A.P.P. for State, that applicants/original accused has violated certain conditions imposed while granting him bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay. She further states that she will take instructions from concerned Investigating Officer regarding stage of the matter and whether charge is framed and in that event, the present application can be conveniently disposed off, if not pressed by the State. S.O. to 14th July, 2010. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)

Order - Status 15: apln3167&4542-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION [1] CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3167 OF 2009 Ravindra Madhukar Jadhav. Applicant. Vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra, & 2. Avit Anant Bhole. Respondents. ALONG WITH [2] CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4542 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Vs. Avit Anant Bole. ..Respondent. .......... Mr.C.K. Pendse, Advocate for the Applicant in Cri.Application No.3167/2009. Mr.S.A. Vaidya, Advocate a/w. Mr.R.B. Mokashi, Advocate for respondent No.2 in Cri.Application No.3167/2009 and respondent in Cri.Application No.4542/2009. Mrs.A.S. Pai, A.P.P. for the State in both applications. .......... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 06TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. By the present order both these applications for cancellation of regular bail are being disposed of, as what is challenged in both the applications, respectively by the orig.complainant and by the State, is the order dated 1st July, 2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay granting regular bail to the present respondent/orig.accused. Prior to appreciating the rival submissions so far as cancellation or otherwise of the regular bail, certain factual position as per the narrations in the FIR is required to be mentioned. The incident happened on the night of 31st May, 2009. The first informant was proceeding towards his home after consuming some liquor along with his three friends. At about 11:40 p.m. the complainant and his friends left the liquor bar and started for their respective homes. When his 2 friends left him, the complainant was alone proceeding on the road. That time, he was hit on his head by stump like wooden bamboo. The impact was grave and due to which the complainant shouted for help. By that time, his two friends who had just left him, rushed to the spot and found that the respondent/accused had given blow on the head of the complainant just above the eyebrow. The assault was also on the right hand and right leg. After the assault, present respondent/accused ran away from the spot. The complainant was removed to the hospital by his two friends and through them the identity of the present respondent/accused was revealed and the complainant knew that the present respondent/accused assaulted him by means of a cricket stump and that leaving the said stump on the spot the respondent had ran away. Accordingly on 1.6.2009, first information report was lodged with Chembur police station. During the investigation, initially the offence was registered for Section 326 of Indian Penal Code vide C.R. No. 202 of 2009. Present respondent was arrested. He preferred first application for bail bearing Bail Application No.1223 of 2009. Said bail application was rejected on the ground that the investigation was in progress. The victim/complainant was still in hospital and reportedly he had lost the vision of one eye due to the assault and also suffered the fracture. By making these observations, the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay rejected the bail at that juncture vide order dated 17.6.2009. Thereafter still during pendency of the investigation, another Bail Application No.1309 of 2009 was filed before the same Additional Sessions Judge and it was disposed of vide order dated 1st July, 2009 granting bail to the present respondent in the sum of Rs.15,000/ with directions to attend the concerned police station once a week during 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. till filing of the chargesheet. This is the order which is impugned in both the present applications for cancellation of bail. During the arguments, learned Advocate for the orig.complainant brought to the notice of the Court that during the investigation steps were taken by the investigating agency to apply the provisions of the penal Section 307 instead of Section 326 of IPC considering the gravity of the injury and the part of the head on which the assault was inflicted by means of a cricket stump. It is also argued and brought to the notice of the Court that a detailed report was filed by the concerned police station dated 10.6.2009 objecting the first bail application. Virtually similar such report was filed by the police prior to the order on the second bail application. However, with specific mention that the injured is discharged from the hospital. Vide said reply, objection was raised for the grant of bail. However, inspite of such written submission, further argued, the investigating officer gave no objection for grant of bail which was second time filed by the respondent/accused. This conduct on the part of the investigating officer has been deprecated by the complainant. Moreover the State has also filed the application for cancellation of bail on the ground that just within a span of about 13 days, there was no much changed circumstances, however, the same Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay allowed the bail application when the investigation was still continuing. Counter to the above arguments, it is vehemently submitted by the learned Advocate Shri Vaidya for the respondent that the investigation was virtually over and infact the victim was already discharged from the hospital and there was nothing brought before the Court as to any steps being taken by the investigating agency for application of Section 307 of IPC under the circumstances of the case. It is also vehemently submitted on behalf of the respondent that there is nothing perverse in the said order passed, in as much as, legal requirement to quash the same and take the respondent in the custody during pendency of the trial. Reliance was placed on behalf of the respondent to 6 the ratios propounded by the following authorities : [i] (1984) 1 Supreme Court Cases 284 Bhagirathsinh s/o Mahipat Singh Vs. State of Gujarat [ii] AIR 1993 SUPREME COURT 1 Aslam Babalal Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra. [iii] (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 368 Rizwan Akbar Hussain Syyed Vs. Mehmood Hussain and Another. [iv] 2009 Cri.L.J. 4290 Savitri Agarwal & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Considering the ratios and the parameters required to be considered in order to undone the order of grant of bail, it is to be seen under the specific circumstances of the present matter whether the order of grant of bail is of such a perverse nature so that it is required to be undone and whether there is a legal necessity to put the respondent in custody during the trial, still if it is considered that the matter is punishable under Section 307 of IPC and when the chargesheet is already filed and that after framing of the charge the matter can be expeditiously taken for recording of the evidence. In order to answer the above point, the wordings of the impugned order, appearing in paragraph Nos.3 & 4 are reproduced for ready reference, as under : "3. The I.O. is present. He has no objection to grant bail to the applicant accused. The investigation is almost over. The victim has been discharged from the hospital. There is a history of dispute between the family of the complainant and the applicant/accused. The applicant has been behind the bars for about a month. It would take time for trial of the case. Pretrial detention is, in the circumstances, unwarranted. The application is, therefore, allowed." After ascertaining the above factual position and reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and considering the release of the respondent since July, 2009, it cannot be said that the circumstances do warrant arrest of the accused and send him in custody till conclusion of the trial still considering that he is to face the charge punishable under Section 307 of IPC. This is more so when according to the learned APP for the State, the process of applying Section 307 instead of Section 326 of IPC started sometime by end of September, 2009 i.e. much after passing of the impugned order. In view of the above, there is nothing to reverse the impugned order of grant of bail. However, certain directions can be given to the concerned learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, the order: :: O R D E R :: [i] Both Criminal Application Nos.3167/2009 & 4542/2009 stand rejected. [ii] Direction are given to the learned Additional Sessions Judge who is seized of the matter to dispose of the matter as early as possible. [iii] The learned Additional Sessions Judge shall not be influenced by any observations made in the present order so far as merits of the case are concerned and shall deal with the matter according to law. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) PPD

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 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2013 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 288 OF 2008 :­ APPLICANTS :­ RESPONDENTS :- Mr. Agnel Carneivo, i/b. M/s. Mulla and Mulla and CBC for the Applicants. Mr. Pravin Kamble, for Respondent Nos. 2A, 2C to 2E. Mr. Mohan B. Jadhav, for Respondent Nos. 3 to 6B. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JUNE 28, 2013 P.C. : Heard Mr. Agnel Carneivo, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants. Issue notice to the heirs of Respondent No. 2B, returnable on 12th July, 2013. In addition to service of notice through Court, the advocate for the Applicants may serve a private notice by Registered Post A.D. and/or by Courier service and/or by hand delivery to the heirs of Respondent No. 2B and shall file affidavit of service before the returnable date. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2013 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 288 OF 2008 Nozer Sheriyar Mazda and Ors. : Applicants versus Gulab Shankar Dangat and Ors. : Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 830 OF 2013 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 803 OF 2001 Mr. Agnel Carneivo, i/b. M/s. Mulla and Mulla and CBC, for the Applicants. Mr. Anup Lahoti, for Respondent Nos. 2(B1) to 2(B3). Mr. Pravin V. Kamble, with Mr. Sharan Patole, for Respondent Nos. 2A to 2E in Second Appeal. Mr. Samrat K. Shinde, i/b. Mr. Tejas Deshpande, for Respondent Nos. 7 and 8. Mr. S. P. Joshi, for Respondent No. 1 in Second Appeal. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JULY 19, 2013 P.C. : At the request of Shri. Lahoti appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2(B1) to 2(B3), adjourned to 23rd July, 2013. The parties to note that no further adjournment would be granted. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)

Order - Status 12: can-20-13.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.20 OF 2013 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO.288 of 2008 Nozer Shriyar Mazda & Ors. : Applicants versus Gulab Shankar Dangat & Ors. : Respondents Mr. Agnel Carneivo i/b Mulla & Mulla CBC for the Applicants Mr. Mohan Jadhav for the Respondent Nos.3 to 6(B) Mr. Pravin Kamble for the Respondent Nos.2A, 2C to 2E Mr. T. D. Deshmukh for the Respondent Nos.7 and 8 CORAM: R M SAVANT, J DATED : 23rd JULY, 2013. P.C. 1 The above Civil Application has been filed for bringing the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) on record who are the Respondent Nos.2B1 to 2B3. In so far as the said heirs are concerned, they are represented by Mr. Lahoti whose appearance is shown on the cause list. The above Civil Application had appeared on 1972013 when at the request of Mr. Lahoti it was specifically adjourned for today, however today Mr. Lahoti has not appeared though the matter has been called out twice. This Court had made it clear on the last occasion that no further adjournment would be granted. The cause for filing the above Civil Application so as to join the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) as party Respondent is to facilitate the execution of the cancellation deed for cancelling the sale deed dated 217 2006. The Respondent No.2(A) to 2(E) have executed the sale deed dated 2162006 in favour of the Respondent Nos.7 and 8 which according to the Petitioners in the above Contempt Petition is in breach and violation of the order dated 2812002 passed in the above Second Appeal, by which order the parties were directed not to create third party rights in respect of the suit property. When the above Contempt Petition had come up before a Learned Single Judge of this Court on 2642013, the Learned Judge was informed by the parties that the Respondent Nos.2(A) to 2(E) would execute a cancellation deed cancelling the said sale deed dated 2172006, the order passed on the said day discloses that a draft of the cancellation deed was also produced before the Court. Since the Respondent No.2(B) has expired after the said sale deed was executed, the cancellation deed cannot be effectively executed without bringing the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) on record. As indicated above inspite of the matter being adjourned at the request of Mr. Lahoti, no appearance is put up for the heirs today. The Civil Application is accordingly allowed, resultantly the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) i.e. Respondent No.2B1, 2B2 and 2B3 are allowed to be brought on record of the Contempt Petition. Amendment can-20-13.sxw to be carried out within one week. Amended copy to be served on the concerned Advocates. The Civil Application is accordingly disposed of. 2 The parties have also agreed to cancel the partition deed between the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2(A) to 2(E), it seems that an undertaking to that effect was given before this Court which has been recorded in the order dated 2232013. 3 Since the impediment of the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) being not on record has now been removed. It is expected of the parties that they would execute the deed of cancellation of the sale deed as well as the deed of cancellation of the unregistered partition deed within one week of the time elapsing for carrying out the amendment, and report to this Court on the next date. The Contempt Petition is adjourned to 13th August, 2013. (R M SAVANT, J)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION No. 289 OF 2016 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL (St.) No. 14685 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. Segandh B. Deshmukh, for the Applicant / Appellant. CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & Mrs. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 26, 2016 PC. Issue notice before admission R/o. 5th December, 2016. Hamdast permitted. Sd/- [V. M. KANADE, J.] Sd/- [Mrs. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J.] ________________________________________________________________ VPH Vinayak Halemath

Order - Status 6: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C.A.M. NO.289 OF 2016 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL ST. NO.14685 OF 2016 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 : R.M. JOSHI I/c.REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 25th November, 2016 1 week granted for furnishing copy. sd/­ I/c.Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 25.11.16

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C.A.M. NO.289 OF 2016 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL ST. NO.14685 OF 2016 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 : 09th December, 2016 S.O. to 1 week. sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 09.12.16

Order - Status 11: (CAM 289 of 2016) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION No. 289 OF 2016 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL (ST) No.14685 OF 2016 Smt. Sarika Badal Shinde ...Applicant Vs. Shri Badal Vijay Shinde ...Respondent *********** Mr. Sugandh B. Deshmukh for Applicant Mr. Abhijit Patil i/b. Mr. Sushant S. Prabhune for Respondent *********** CORAM : R.M. BORDE & A.S. GADKARI, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 04, 2017 P.C. : This is an application, seeking condonation of delay of 60 days in filing the present Family Court Appeal. The decree passed by the Family Court appears to have been (CAM 289 of 2016) issued in the absence of the Appellant. In this view of the matter, the delay of 60 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Civil application for condonation of delay is allowed and disposed of. Place the Family Court Appeal for consideration on the Board on 11.1.2017 [ A.S. GADKARI, J.] [ R.M. BORDE, J.] Vaishali Tikam