All Civil Revision

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 370 OF 2007 Jayesh Bhagwandas Thakkar. ... Applicant. V/s. Mr.Rajkumar Arjundas Garwada and another. ... Respondents. S.R.Chitnis, senior counsel with H.S.Venegavkar for the applicant. S.D.Mogre for respondent No.1. Ms.M.H.Mhatre, APP for the State. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 29th September 2007. P.C.: ---- . Heard. Both parties submit that the possibility of settlement can be explored. However, since the present applicant is in custody, talks for settlement cannot take place. In this view of the matter, in order to offer an opportunity to the parties to settle their dispute out of Court, the present applicant, viz., Jayesh Bhagwandas Thakkar is released on temporary bail for a period of 15 days from his actual release on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of his real brother, viz., Jitendrakumar Bhagwandas Thakkar. . Stand over to 8th October, 2007. JUDGE

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.370 OF 2007 Jayeshkumar Bhagwandas Thakkar ..Applicant V/s. Rajkumar Arjundas Garwada & Anr. ..Respondents ---- Mr.H.S.Venegavkar for the applicant. Mr.S.D.Mogre for respondent no.1. Ms.S.D.Shinde APP for the State. CORAM : V.C.DAGA,J Date : 22.10.2007. PC Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Counsel for respondent no.1 as well as learned APP for the State. The parties have tendered the consent terms duly signed by the applicant and the respondent no.2. The applicant and respondent no.2 both are present in persons. The consent terms are also counter-signed by the respective Advocates appearing for the respective parties. The consent terms are taken on record and marked "X" for identification. The undertaking given in respect of consent terms and statements made therein are accepted. On the joint motion made by the learned Advocates for the parties, Criminal Revision Application stands disposed off in terms of consent terms subject to compliance thereof. In the result, offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is compounded subject to compliance of terms and conditions in the undertaking. Bail bond of the applicant is cancelled. Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Private Secretary of this Court as a true copy. (V.C.DAGA,J)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16 OF 2014 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2013 Mr.Kobad Dorabji Davierwalla ...Applicant / Orig.Respondent No.1 In the matter between Mrs.Perin Hoshang Davierwalla & Anr. ...Appellants vs. Mr.Kobad Dorabji Davierwalla & Ors. ...Respondents AND REVIEW PETITION (STAMP) NO. 19448 OF 2014 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2013 WITH CIVIL APPLIATION NO. 171 OF 2014 Mrs.Perin Hoshang Davierwalla & Anr. vs. Petitioners / Orig.Appellants Mr.A.V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Prathamesh Bhargav i/b. Mr.S.B. Deshmukh for Applicant (Original Respondent No.1). Mr.Darius Khambata, Senior Advocate with Mr.J.B. Sen, Senior Advocate, Mr.Akshay Patil i/b. M/s.Federal & Rashmikant for Respondent No.1 and 2 (Original Appellants). Mr.Priyanka Vegad for Respondent No.2 in Review Petition No**.**19448/2014, Arb.Appeal No.42/2013, Respondent No.3 in CA 16/2014. Mr.B.K. Bali i/b. M/s.Bali Associates for Respondent No.3. CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J. 01 SEPTEMBER 2014 P.C. : The delay of fourty-five days in taking out the review petition is condoned, and the review petition is taken up for hearing. 2 The review petition is filed by the original Appellants seeking a review of paragraphs 16 and 17(ii) of the order passed by this Court on 7 May 2014 and modification of the same by directing Respondent No.1 to vacate the two rooms in the hotel premises, currently in occupation of Respondent No.1 as agent of the Court Receiver without payment of royalty and security. The application is made in the following facts. 3 The Appellants and Respondents are partners in a partnership firm called IL Palazzo Hotel running a business of lodging and boarding house at Panchgani in Maharashtra. During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings between the parties for adjudication of disputes arising out of dissolution of this partnership firm by the Appellants, by an order passed by this Court on 7 May 2014, Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay has been appointed as a receiver of the assets and business of the partnership firm. The Appellants have been appointed as agents of the Court Receiver for conducting the business of IL Palazzo Hotel on payment of royalty. Paragraph 15 of this order inter alia records that Respondent No.1, who was carrying on business on the date of this order, not only had the suit business as the only source of livelihood, but even lived in two rooms within the building where the partnership business of lodging and boarding house was carried on. The order records the plea of Respondent No.1 that the residence of Respondent No.1 inter alia needs to be protected since he was actually using the two rooms. Accordingly, paragraph 17(ii) of the order provides that Respondent No.1 would be entitled to retain these two rooms presently in his personal use for the residence of himself and his family as agent of the Court Receiver without payment of any royalty or security. 4 It is a case of the Appellants in the present review petition that on or about 20 April 2014, after the conclusion of the hearings in the appeal, the Appellants came to know that Respondent No.1 has been in possession of a two storied apartment bungalow with a workable basement in Khinger village (about 3 to 4 km from IL Palazzo Hotel) admeasuring an area of more than 2000 sq.ft.; that this bungalow was in the name of Respondent No.1 and his wife; that the bungalow has a telephone installed therein; that the Respondent has been paying telephone and electricity charges; that this bungalow has been used by Respondent No.1 for the residence of himself and his family since much before the passing of the order dated 7 May 2014 and till today; that in the premises, Respondent No.1 has never actually resided in the hotel premises even once after the charge of the hotel was handed over to the Appellants, as agents of the Court Receiver and that, on the other hand, Respondent No.1 and his wife have only visited the two rooms occasionally during all this period; that the wife of Respondent No.1 had been interfering with the administration and functioning of the hotel and ordering around the staff and interacting with the hotel guests; and that in the premises, it is necessary and in the interests of justice that the directions in the order dated 7 May 2014 be modified and Respondent No.1 and his family be directed to vacate the rooms occupied by them in the hotel premises. 4 Along with the review petition, there is an application filed by Respondent No.1 himself inter alia for certain modifications to the order of 7 May 2014. It is prayed by Respondent No.1 that he should be allowed to use all common facilities, services, amenities, etc. provided in the hotel such as common hot and cold water, appliances, common generators and other infrastructure and utility services without any charge. Respondent No.1 has also applied for use of boarding facilities and services provided by the hotel at a charge of Rs.10,000/ per month. By an amendment proposed in the affidavit dated 22 June 2014, Respondent No.1 sought to amend the prayer inter alia providing for payment of charges in the sum of Rs.3500/- per month for use of the common and shared amenities and services provided in the hotel. Respondent No.1 does not press his prayer for provision of boarding facilities against payment of Rs.10,000/- per month, as originally proposed in his civil application. Thus, the application is now for permission to use all common amenities and facilities provided by the hotel on payment of a charge of Rs.3500/- per month. 5 It is obvious that the original application for permission to retain the two rooms claimed to be in occupation of Respondent No.1, as agent of the Court Receiver and without payment of royalty or security, was on the express footing that Respondent No.1 had all along been using, and even now requires, the two rooms for residence of himself and his family. At no stage in the pending appeal, before the order was passed on 7 May 2014, had the Respondent indicated that he was in possession of, and using, a bungalow of more than 2000 sq.ft. at Khinger village near IL Palazzo Hotel. In fact, in his reply filed in the review petition, Respondent No.1 has not disputed his residence in the bungalow at Khinger. All that the Respondent mentions in his reply to the review petition is that the two rooms in the hotel are his permanent residence; that all official documents, fax documents and administrative documents have the address of the hotel as his permanent residence; and that it would cause great difficulty to Respondent No.1 if this permanent address has to be changed temporarily. It is also submitted by Respondent No.1 that the bungalow at Khinger is not habitable round the year; that residence at this bungalow is not practicable due to its distant location, extreme weather conditions, etc. However, Respondent No.1 has not said that he does not actually use the bungalow as his residence. 6 Secondly, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 that photographs of this bungalow were shown to the Court by the Appellants, before this Court passed its order on 7 May 2014. Since these photographs were before the Court, it is submitted that the attention of the Court was invited to the existence of this bungalow and that therefore, the facts narrated before the Court in the review petition are neither new nor brought for the first time before the Court to enable the Appellants to apply for review of the order. It may be that the photographs were shown to the Court when this Court passed its order on 7 May 2013. The photographs were, however, not shown by Respondent No.1. The contest as to whether this bungalow was actually used as residence by Respondent No.1 throughout the relevant period was not before the Court when the order of 7 May 2014 was passed. The Appellants have claimed in the review petition that this fact came to light after the hearing of the matter concluded on 23 April 2014 and the order was reserved. On the basis of their knowledge acquired subsequently, the Appellants have averred in the review petition that Respondent No.1 and his family have been residing in the bungalow at Khinger and have not used the two rooms for residence at any time during the period of pendency of the arbitration appeal. There is no effective denial of this fact in the reply of Respondent No.1. Secondly, it is submitted that right from inception, four rooms have been kept for three groups of partners of the firm for their residence and that these rooms have been kept for residence of the parties in spite of the fact that even the Appellants have their bungalow at Panchgani, not very far from IL Palazzo hotel. It is submitted that even today, two rooms are in occupation of the Appellants. Whether or not the two rooms are in occupation of the Appellants, it is a fact that these two rooms have been treated to be a part of the hotel premises under the order of 7 May 2014 and the compensation payable by the Appellants as agents of the Court Receiver has been worked out on that basis. Whether the rooms are, in fact, used as guest rooms to be rented out for the hotel business or whether they are actually used for occupation of the Appellants, is immaterial as long as these two rooms are in occupation of the Appellants as agents of the Court Receiver for conducting the hotel business and the Appellants are paying compensation for the same as agents of the Court Receiver. In fact, the fact that two rooms in occupation of the Appellants for their residence have been made part of the hotel premises, in occupation of the agents of the Court Receiver and for which compensation is payable by the agents, supports the Appellants' case that the two rooms which are in occupation of Respondent No.1 and which are not actually used for his residence ought to be made over to the Court Receiver for conducting the hotel business. The Appellants have offered to pay an additional royalty of Rs.6 lakhs per annum for the two rooms to be vacated by Respondent No.1 and allowed to be used for the hotel. This additional royalty is offered with a view to account for the additional revenue that may accrue to the agents, if these two rooms are allowed to be used for the hotel. 7 Lastly, it is submitted that the Court Receiver has not been appointed of the four rooms which were in occupation of the partners for their respective residence. This submission is made on the basis of the licence issued by the authorities, which is in respect of 17 rooms only. It may be that the licence for renting out room to the guests exists in respect of 17 rooms for the lodging business of the hotel, but there is nothing to indicate that these two rooms are not part of the assets of the partnership firm of which Court Receiver is appointed. In fact, it is on the basis that the Court Receiver is appointed also of these four rooms that the two rooms in occupation of the Appellants have been made part of the agency business and for which the Appellants have been asked to pay compensation. So also, it is on the same basis that Respondent No.1 is directed to be appointed as agent of the Court Receiver without any royalty for the two rooms purportedly in his occupation. There is no substance in the plea that the Court Receiver is not appointed of these four rooms. 8 In the premises, the review petition filed by the Appellants deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the order of 7 May 2014 is modified by directing Respondent No.1 to vacate the two rooms in his occupation and make over the same to the Court Receiver for being used as part of the hotel premises. With effect from the expiry of a period of 45 days after the rooms are vacated and possession thereof is handed over to the Court Receiver by Respondent No.1, the Appellants shall pay an additional royalty of Rs.6 lakhs per annum for use of these two rooms as part of the agency agreement. This amount shall be paid on a quarterly basis as in the case of royalty of Rs.70 lakhs payable per annum for the agency of the hotel. 9 At the time of handing over of the two rooms by Respondent No.1 to the Court Receiver, the Court Receiver shall prepare an inventory of the furnitures and fixtures lying within the premises. Respondent No.1 shall be at liberty to make a claim in respect of these furnitures and fixtures at the hearing before the District Court or before the Arbitrator, as the case may be. The Court Receiver will, of course, permit Respondent No.1 to take away his movables lying within the two rooms. 10 Having regard to the order passed on the review petition, the civil application of Respondent No.1 for use of additional amenities and facilities provided by the hotel in connection with the two rooms in his occupation as agent of the Receiver, does not survive and is disposed of. 11 There shall be no order as to costs. 12 On the application of the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, this order is stayed for a period of five weeks from today. (S.C. Gupte, J.)

Order - Status 8: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.210 OF 2005 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, office : Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram, : appearances, Court's : orders or directions : and Registrar's orders : ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Rajesh More, APP, for the State. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 5th June, 2007. P.C. :- . Await service. S.O. for six weeks. In the meantime, the learned Advocate for the petitioner to serve respondent Nos.7 & 8 by Advocate's notice either personally or through Courier/Speed Post/E-mail/Fax and file an affidavit of service before the returnable date, failing which the Revision shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)

Order - Status 12: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 210 OF 2005 ------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes,Office : Memoranda of Coram, : Court's or Judge's orders appearances,Court 's : orders or directions : and Registrar's orders. : ------------------------------------------------------------ A.G.Toraskar for the applicant. Ms.M.M.Deshmukh, APP for the State. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 17th July 2007. P.C.: ---- . By way of last chance, one week time is granted to comply with the order dated 5th June, 2007, failing which, revision shall stand automatically dismissed without further reference to the Court. JUDGE

Order - Status 3: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.203 OF 2020 Suresh Chunilal Pariyar Applicant V/s. Ashok Kumar Chatarsen & Anr. Respondents Mr. P. K. Bohade, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Amit Palkar, APP for Respondent No.2 (State). CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 31st MARCH, 2021. P.C. : Heard. Admit. (A. S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 6: 1 902-REVN 203-20@IA 1330-21 in 203-20.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BEFORE THE NATIONAL LOK ADALAT CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.203 OF 2020 Suresh Chunilal Pariyar … Applicant Vs. Ashok Kumar Chatarsen & Anr. … Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1330 OF 2021 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.203 OF 2020 Mr. Y. G. Thorat i/by A. B. Tajane for Respondent No.1. CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. (HEAD OF THE PANEL) V.V. PATIL, REGISTRAR (INSPECTION-I), MEMBER R.V. WANWADI, DEPUTY REGISTRAR (INSPECTION-I), MEMBER DATE : 12TH MARCH 2022 P.C. : This matter does not pertain to Railway Claims. Registry to verify as to how this matter is placed for Lokadalat. (R.V. WANWADI) (V.V. PATIL) (ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

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

#VALUE!

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.539 OF 2012 @ CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.540 OF 2012 @ CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.541 OF 2012 @ CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.542 OF 2012 @ CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.543 OF 2012 @ CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.544 OF 2012 @ CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.545 OF 2012 @ CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.546 OF 2012 @ CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.547 OF 2012 @ CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.548 OF 2012 @ CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.549 OF 2012 @ CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.550 OF 2012 @ CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.551 OF 2012 @ CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.552 OF 2012 Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd. …Applicant versus 1.Tulsidas Goyal & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Rajendra Shahasane i/b. Mr.S.B.Thorat, for Applicant. Mr.A.R.Patil, APP for Respondent no.1. Ms.Shweta Sangtani i/b. Niranjan Mundargi, for Respondent no.2. Mr.Sachin Deokar i/b. Mr.V.V.Purwant, for Respondent nos.6, 11 to 13. --- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 29th July, 2013 P.C. : The submission of learned Counsel for original complainant (revision applicant) completed. Counsel for respondent no.1 (original accused) could not commence as Smt.Kanani, Advocate is not available. Counsel holding for her seeks accommodation. By way of last chance stand over to 5th August,2013. (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.539 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.540 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.541 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.542 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.543 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.544 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.545 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.546 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.547 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.548 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.549 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.550 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.551 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.552 OF 2012 Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd. …Applicant versus 1.Tulsidas Goyal & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Jitendra P.Patil, for Applicant. Ms.P.J.Kanani, for Respondent no.1. Mr.D.R.More, APP for State-Respondent no.3 --- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 7th AUGUST, 2013 --- P.C. : Learned Counsel for revision applicants seeks four weeks time to search address of respondent no.2, as the report is, the Company is closed and sealed. Stand over, at his instance, to 13th September,2013. (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.539 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.540 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.541 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.542 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.543 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.544 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.545 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.546 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.547 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.548 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.549 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.550 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.551 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.552 OF 2012 Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd. …. Applicant ….. ….. Versus Tulsidas Goyal and Ors. …. Respondents Mr.J.P. Patil, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.Nitin B. Patil, APP for Respondent – State. Rajeshri Aher RAJESHRI PRAKASH AHER Digitally signed by RAJESHRI PRAKASH AHER Date: 2025.07.08 10:56:22 +0530 CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 01.07.2025. P.C. : The Registry to verify and place these matters before the appropriate Court. [MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.]

Order - Status 3: sbw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.344 OF 2017 Nathu Bhila Devre & Anr. … Applicants vs.State of Maharashtra … Respondent Mr. A. R. Shaikh i/b. H.E. Palwe for the Applicants. Mr. V. B. Khamkhedkar, APP, for the Respondent-State. CORAM : A.K. MENON, J. DATE : 20th JUNE, 2017 P.C. On the application of the learned counsel for the applicant who states that Mr. Palwe is unable to attend and seeks sometime. Hence, to come up as per scheduled date. Remove from the board. (A. K. MENON, J.)

Order - Status 6: sbw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.344 OF 2017 Nathu Bhila Devre & Anr. … Applicants vs.The State of Maharashtra … Respondent Mr. H. E. Palwe for the Applicants. Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP, for the Respondent-State. CORAM : A.K. MENON, J. DATE : 2nd AUGUST, 2017 P.C. Liberty to apply after the applicant surrenders. (A. K. MENON, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. REVISION APPLN. NO. 344 OF 2017 Nathu Bhila Devre And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J DATE : 20th December, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 03/02/2020 . 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 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 344 OF 2017 Nathu Bhila Devre and Anr. ...Applicants vs. State of Maharashtra …Respondent ***** Mr.Sudip Mallick i/b. Mr.Harshad E. Palwe – Advocate for Applicants. Mr.A.D.Kamkhedkar, APP for the Respondent – State. ***** CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 11th JANUARY 2024 P. C. :- This is a Revision against the concurrent finding of conviction. On 2nd August, 2017, liberty was granted to apply after surrender. Learned Advocate is short of instructions. Let him to take instructions. Stand over to 9 th February, 2024 . [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVISION APPLICATION NO. 344 OF 2017 Nathu Bhila Devre and Anr. ...Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ***** Mr. Sudip Mallick i/by Harsahd E. Palwe - Advocate for the Applicants Mr. A. D. Kamkhedkar - APP for the Respondent-State ***** CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 09th FEBRUARY, 2024 P. C. :- The Court of the JMFC has convicted the accused personsaccused Nos. 1 and 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 324 and 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code as per judgment dated 07/10/2014, at page no. 53. Their appeal was partly allowed by learned Sessions Judge, Nashik on 03/05/2017. The conviction of the accused nos. 1 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with 34 was set aside. Whereas it is maintained for the offence Section 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused No. 3 was not directed to undergo sentence immediately but he was asked to execute the bond of good behaviour for the period of two years. That period has already expired. The following issue arisen in the revision:- (i) The legality of the sentence under Section 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against accused no. 1. (ii) The legality of the sentence against accused no. 3 for the same offence. Yet revision is not admitted. Matter be kept on 08th March, 2024, after admission. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 3: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.134 OF 2023 Rajendra Vittal Gunduwar ....Applicant V/S State of Maharashtra & Anr. ....Respondents … WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.133 OF 2023 Rajendra Vittal Gunduwar ....Applicant V/S State of Maharashtra & Anr. ....Respondents Mr. Manish Bohra a/w Mr. Lalit Pal, Mr. Aditya Dwevedi i/b M/s. A.S. Khan & Associates for the Applicant. Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for Respondent No.1-State. … … CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 24TH MAY 2023. (VACATION COURT) P.C.: 1 Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 21 June 2023. 2 The learned APP waives notice on behalf of Respondents/State. SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Date: 2023.05.24 16:37:11 +0530 (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. REVISION APPLN. NO. 134 OF 2023 Rajendra Vittal Gunduwar ....APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ....RESPONDENT WITH CR. REVISION APPLN. NO. 133 OF 2023 Rajendra Vittal Gunduwar ....APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ....RESPONDENT WITH CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1908 OF 2023 In Cr. Revision Appln. 134 OF 2023 Rajendra Vittal Gunduwar ....PETITIONER V/S State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ....RESPONDENT WITH CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1907 OF 2023 In Cr. Revision Appln. 134 OF 2023 Rajendra Vittal Gunduwar ....PETITIONER V/S State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ....RESPONDENT Mr.Manish M. Bohra i/b. M/s. A.S.Khan and Associates for Applicant Ms.M.R.Tidke APP for Respondent/State CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL J DATE : 23rd August, 2023 P.C. : At the request of the learned Counsel for the Appellant(s)/ Applicant(s) / Petitioner(s) / Respondent No. stand over to 13/09/2023. Ad-interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVISION APPLICATION NO. 134 OF 2023 ALONGWITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1908 OF 2023 ALONGWITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1907 OF 2023 IN REVISION APPLICATION NO. 134 OF 2023 ALONGWITH REVISION APPLICATION NO. 133 OF 2023 ALONGWITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1910 OF 2023 ALONGWITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1909 OF 2023 IN REVISION APPLICATION NO. 133 OF 2023 Rajendra Vittal Gunduwar ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents ***** Mr. Manish M. Bohra - Advocate for the Applicant Mr. Santosh S. Avhad i/by Jayakar Partners - Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 Mr. A. D. Kamkhedkar – APP for the Respondent - State ***** CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 12th JANUARY 2024 P. C. :- 1. It is true that on 13/12/2023, submission by learned Advocate for the Applicant was recorded that Rs. 1 Lakh is to be paid till 12/01/2024. Only Rs. 50,000/- is paid. Whereas SEEMA KSHITIJ YELKAR Digitally signed by SEEMA KSHITIJ YELKAR Date: 2024.01.17 11:38:32 +0530 balance amount of Rs. 1,00,000 was agreed to be paid on or before 12/02/2024. The Applicant is bedridden due to fall. He has got difficulty to pay remaining amount. 2. There is a prayer to keep this matter in second week of February so that the Applicant will clear entire arrears. 3. It is opposed on behalf of the Respondent No. 2- Complainant. 4. Now there is choice to the parties at what amount they should settle and what should be the installments. 5. Better to keep these applications for hearing on admission on 06th February, 2024 . 6. Interim relief granted earlier to continue till next date. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. REVISION APPLN. NO. 134 OF 2023 Rajendra Vittal Gunduwar ....APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ....RESPONDENT WITH CR. REVISION APPLN. NO. 133 OF 2023 Rajendra Vittal Gunduwar ....APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ....RESPONDENT WITH CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1908 OF 2023 In Cr. Revision Appln. 134 OF 2023 Rajendra Vittal Gunduwar ....PETITIONER V/S State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ....RESPONDENT WITH CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1907 OF 2023 In Cr. Revision Appln. 134 OF 2023 Rajendra Vittal Gunduwar ....PETITIONER V/S State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. M. MODAK J DATE : 5th March, 2024 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 08/04/2024 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: HARSHADA H. SAWANT (P.A.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.133 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1910 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1909 OF 2023 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.133 OF 2023 Rajendra Vittal Gunduwar .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.134 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1908 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1907 OF 2023 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.134 OF 2023 Rajendra Vittal Gunduwar .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents .................... Mr. Manish Bohra, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Santosh Avhad, Advocate i/by Jayakar & Partners for Respondent No.2. ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : DECEMBER 11, 2024 P.C . : 1. Mentioned. Not on Board. Taken on Board. 2. Heard Mr. Bohra, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr. Avhad, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. 3. Perused the praecipe dated 11.12.2024. 4. Praecipe dated 11.12.2024 is filed by private Respondent who is original Complainant. This is a group of two Criminal Revision Applications namely Criminal Revision Application No.133 of 2023 and Criminal Revision Application No.134 of 2023. 5. Mr. Avhad, learned Advocate appearing for private Respondent No.2 draws my attention to order dated 13.12.2023 followed by order dated 06.02.2024. I have perused both the orders. In compliance of aforesaid twin orders, private Respondent has received a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- uptil now. He would submit that an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- has been deposited by Applicant in Trial Court pursuant to the order dated 06.02.2024. That apart, he would submit that Applicant has also deposited an amount of Rs.30,000/- i.e. Rs.15,000/- each in both the cases towards cash bail in the Trial Court. He would submit that if private Respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.1,10,000/- and Rs.30,000/- which stands deposited by Revision Applicant in the Trial Court it would meet the ends of justice. 6. Mr. Bohra, learned Advocate appears for Revision Applicant. He would submit that he has instructions to submit to the orders of the Court and would not object any Application seeking withdrawal. 7. Mr. Avhad, learned Advocate appearing for private Respondent persuaded the Court to pass an order allowing private Respondent to withdraw the aforestated amount from the Trial Court. 8. In view of the above and more specifically no objection given by Mr. Bohra on behalf of Revision Applicant, the learned Trial Court is directed to permit the withdrawal of amount of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.50,000/- deposited in the twin cases before Trial Court and amount of Rs.15,000/- each deposited towards cash bail by Applicant on the presentation of server copy of this order. 9. Trial Court shall act and ensure that private Respondent is returned the deposited money as directed above alongwith all accrued interest thereon within a period of one week from the date of server copy of this order being presented before Trial Court. Trial Court shall not insist on certified copy of this order. Once amounts are received by private Respondent, liberty to Revision Applicant to move Revision Application for further appropriate orders. 10. Stand over to 13 th January, 2025. H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Digitally signed by HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Date: 2024.12.11 14:43:23 +0530