All Civil Miscellaneous Application

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

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2360 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.208 OF 2011 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...PETITIONER V/s. RAMCHANDRA V. CHINGALE & ANOTHER )...RESPONDENTS Mrs.S.D.Shinde APP for the Petitioner. CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE, J. DATE : : 14th FEBRUARY, 2012. P.C. : In view of the dismissal of Writ Petition No.2360 of 2010, nothing survives in the pending Criminal Application no.208 of 2011. It therefore stands disposed off. (A.V.NIRGUDE, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4184 OF 2005 Nivruti Applicant. Pundalik Waghmare. Versus. The Respondent. State of Maharashtra. Shri G.M.Savagave for the Applicant. Ms.M.M.Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the Respondent. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATED : 11th July, 2005. P.C.: Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The prayer in this Application is for modification of Condition (d) incorporated in the order dated 25th February 2005. Grievance of the Applicant is that from February 2005 till today the charge sheet is not filed and as a result thereof the Applicant is required to go to the Police Station every Monday. There is substance in the grievance made by the Applicant and said condition needs to be suitably modified. Hence the Application is disposed of by passing following order: (i)Condition (d) in order dated 25th February 2005 is modified and will now read as under: "The Applicant shall report to Sadar Bazar Police Station on every first Monday of every calender month between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. till filing of the charge sheet." (ii)Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. Judge.

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2559 OF 2007 Mr.Ravindra M.Vaity and Anr. ..Applicants Vs. Deepak R.Shinde and Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.K.S.Patil advocate for Applicants Ms.A.T.Jhaveri A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2008 P.C. Heard both sides. The applicants-original accused have preferred this application for setting aside the order dated 2.4.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai in C.C.No. 19/M/2006. By the said order, the learned Magistrate referred the said case under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the Senior Police Inspector, Andheri Police Station for investigation and report. The learned APP on instructions states that the police have investigated the said case and thereafter they have submitted report to the Magistrate for grant of "B" Summary. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to entertain the present application. However, liberty is given to the applicants to challenge the order of the Magistrate on the application for "B" Summary, if adverse to them. It is made clear that this application is being disposed of without entering into the merits of the matter. Application is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.325 OF 2009 Hemant Digamber Pawar 2. Sandeep @ Balya Rajbali Manohar ...Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent --- Shri Teja Katdhare for Applicants Shri S.S. Pednekar APP for State ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 3RD FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants and the learned APP for the State. The Applicants are arrested in connection with an offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 324,504 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Kolshewadi Police Station, Kalyan (East),Dist. Thane on 20.3.2008. The chargesheet has been filed. It is alleged that the Applicants along with others had assaulted the Complainant and others with sticks and, as a result, one Gopal Dhumal had received injuries and he thereafter, succumbed to the injuries on 22.3.2008. In the first information, it has been stated that some unknown persons have assaulted the deceased and others. Perusal of the material, which is on record shows that there are contradictions in respect of the statements of eye witnesses. Exact number of persons, who had assaulted the complainant and others differs from witness to witness. No specific role, otherwise, has been attributed to the present Applicants. Applicants have not been identified by the Complainant since no identification parade has been held by the Investigating Officer. Under these circumstances, in my view, prima facie case is made out for grant of bail. The Applicants be released on bail in a sum of Rs.5,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount. The Applicants shall report to the Koleshwadi Police Station, Kalyan (East), Dist. Thane once in a month. Application is disposed of. V.M. KANADE J.