All First Appeal

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1822 OF 2009 Gulabidevi Jayantiprasad Santoshi. Versus Appellant. Jayantiprasad Shadalram Santoshi & Ors. Respondents. Mr. A. M. Saraogi for the Appellants. None for the Respondents. I CORAM : A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 3RD DECEMBER,2009. P. C.: Issue notice to respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4, returnable on 11th January, 2010. Humdast permitted. Sd/ (A. A. SAYED, J.) 1

Order - Status 10: vss THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1822 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's order or Directions and Registrar's Orders Court's or Judge's Orders S.N. Fatima h/f A.M. Saraogi for Appellant Ι Mr.S.J. Ghogare for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE,J. DATED: MARCH 29, 2010 P.C.: The advocate for the appellant has not supplied the fresh address for serving respondent Nos.3 and 4. S.O. for two weeks. It is made clear that if respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not served within that period, the appeal to stand dismissed against respondent Nos.3 and 4. The advocate for the appellant may also serve them by private notice. Mr.Ghogare appears for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Order - Status 12: vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1822 OF 2009 Smt.Gulabidevi Jayantiprasad Santoshi ... Appellant V/s. Shri Jayantiprasad Shadalram Santoshi & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.A.M. Saraogi i/b Sayed Nisar Fatima for Appellant Mr.S.J. Ghogare for Respondents CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: APRIL 12, 2010 P.C.: Mr.Ghogare, appearing for the respondents, points out that the impugned judgment in the present first appeal is a common judgment passed in four suits. The appellant had filed First Appeal No.1837 of 2009 in respect of S.C. Suit No.5495 of 2003. That appeal was dismissed on February 26, 2010. The learned advocate therefore submits that the same order must follow in the present appeal. Mr.Saraogi, appearing for the appellant, states that the appellant is filing a review petition in that matter and therefore these appeals should be adjourned. S.O. for four weeks. It is made clear that if the review petition is dismissed, the same order as was passed on February 26, 2010 in First Appeal No.1837 of 2009 will follow in the present appeal.

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1822 OF 2009 IN SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO.5498 OF 2003 ......... Gulabdevi Jayantiprasad Santoshi Appellant Vs. Jayantiprasad Shadalram Santoshi and ors. Respondents Mr.A.M.Saraogi, for appellant. Mr.Sagar Ghogre, for respondents. ......... CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 7th JUNE, 2010. P.C. : Mr.Saraogi, learned counsel for appellants, states that against the order dated 26th February, 2010 passed in First Appeal No.1837 of 2009 a Review Petition is filed in this Court in the month of April, 2010. He states that he will serve copy of the said review petition on the learned counsel appearing for respondents. 2] The statements are accepted. List the First Appeal after four weeks. In the meantime, learned counsel for appellant will move the appropriate Court for deciding the review petition. S.O. for four weeks.

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1822 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICAITON NOS.2852 and 2853 OF 2009 IN F.A.NO.1822 of 2009 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. A. M. Saraogi, for the appellant. Ms.Anita Patil i/b S.J.Ghogre, for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 08/12/2010 PC: Heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr Saraogi, learned counsel for the appellant, prays for withdrawal of this appeal with liberty to the appellant to adopt appropriate remedy for redressal of her grievance. The First Appeal is disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed. While granting liberty, I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on rights of the parties or examined merits of the case. If any such proceedings is filed by the appellant, same may be considered in accordance with law. The civil applications are also disposed of. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2008 Smt.Sakhubai Dnyanu Pukale ...Appellant vs. Shri Dnyanu Dadu Pukale ...Respondent None for the Appellant. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. AUGUST 25, 2011 P.C :- None for the appellant. Issue notice to respondent, returnable in six weeks. In addition to court notice, the appellant is directed to give advocate's notice to the respondent either personally or through RPAD/Speed Post and file an affidavit of service before the returnable date. The appellant is also directed to file appeal memo in substance forms along with decree forms within a period of six weeks failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the court. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.) (D.B. BHOSALE, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.134 OF 2016 IN REVIEW PETITION ST NO.8312 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2425 OF 1984 Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer (deceased) & Ors ..Applicants Vs. Smt. Sitabai Vyanku Taur (deceased) ..Respondents Mr. V. V. Ugle for the Applicants CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 20th DECEMBER, 2016 P.C. 1 The hearing of the above Civil Application is deferred to 722017. The Petitioner to file additional affidavit giving the ages of the sons of the original Petitioner Bhagwan Bapu Veer and their avocation in life. [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CA IN OTH.(MCA/TXA/CA/FERA) NO. 134 OF 2016 In REVIEW PETN. IN WP STAMP NO. 8312 OF 2016 Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer (decd) And Ors. Applicant V/S Smt. Sitabai Vyanku Taur (decd) Respondent Shri Vaibhav V Ugle For Applicant CORAM : R.M. SAVANT., J DATE : 7th February, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 09/02/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: (904)-CAO-134-16.doc*.* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.134 OF 2016 IN REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO.8312 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2425 OF 1984 Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer (Deceased) Mr. Subarao Bhagwan Veer and others Applicants IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Smt. Sitabai Vyanku Taur (Deceased) Versus Petitioner Bhagwan Bapu Veer (Deceased) and others Respondents Mr. V. V. Ugale for the Applicants. CORAM : CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 9th FEBRUARY, 2017 P.C. 1 The affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicants by one Pradip Panditrao Veer is not in terms of the directions as contained in the order dated 20.12.2016. The Applicants therefore to file a proper affidavit giving details as mentioned in the said order dated 20.12.2016. To facilitate the same, adjourned to 09.03.2017. [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CA IN OTH.(MCA/TXA/CA/FERA) NO. 134 OF 2016 In REVIEW PETN. IN WP STAMP NO. 8312 OF 2016 Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer (decd) And Ors. Applicant V/S Smt. Sitabai Vyanku Taur (decd) Respondent Shri Vaibhav V Ugle For Applicant CORAM : R.M. SAVANT., J DATE : 9th March, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 16/03/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CA IN OTH.(MCA/TXA/CA/FERA) NO. 134 OF 2016 In REVIEW PETN. IN WP STAMP NO. 8312 OF 2016 Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer (decd) And Ors. Applicant V/S Smt. Sitabai Vyanku Taur (decd) Respondent Shri Vaibhav V Ugle For Applicant CORAM : R.M. SAVANT., J DATE : 16th March, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 23/03/2017. To be placed on "Supplementary Board." ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.134 OF 2016 IN REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO.8312 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2425 OF 1984 Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer (Deceased) Applicants/ Mr. Subrao Bhagwan Veer and others Review Petitioners IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Smt. Sitabai Vyanku Taur (Deceased) Petitioner Versus Bhagwan Bapur Veer (Deceased) others Respondents Mr. Vaibhav V. Ugle for the Applicants/Review Petitioners. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 23rd MARCH, 2017 P.C. 1 The above Civil Application has been filed in the above Review Petition seeking condonation of delay of 18 years and 122 days in filing the above Review Petition. The Review Petition is filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 15.10.1997 passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.2425 of 1984 by the said judgment the above Writ Petition was allowed. The judgment and order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal ("MRT" for short) in so far as it dismissed the Revision Application on the ground of delay was set aside however the part of the judgment of the MRT by which the orders passed by the Tahsildar and the Sub Divisional Officer were set aside was sustained by the Learned Single Judge of this Court by the said judgment. The record discloses that none had appeared for the Respondent in the said Writ Petition i.e. Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer whose heirs are the Review Petitioners and also the Applicants herein. 2 The condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition is sought principally on the round that the Applicants were not aware of the above Writ Petition filed in this Court wherein their father Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer was the Respondent, and which Writ Petition he was prosecuting. It is their case that only when they made inquiries with the Revenue Authorities in respect of the land in question in the second week of January 2016 that they became aware of the judgment and order dated 15.10.1997 passed in the said Writ Petition. Save and except the said reason, there is no other reason mentioned in the above Civil Application in justification of the said delay of 18 years and 122 days. This Court by order dated 20.12.2016 had directed the Applicants to give details as regards the ages of the sons of the original Respondent i.e. Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer and their avocations in life. Accordingly an affidavit affirmed on 02.03.2017 has been filed in support of the above Civil Application. In the said affidavit, it has been stated that Mr. Bhagwan Bapur Veer has expired on 10.12.1986 and that he had four sons, namely Mukund, Shivaji, Pandit and Subrao. It has further been stated that Mukund has expired on 22.10.2013, Shivaji has expired on 28.06.1990, Pandit has expired on 22.10.1985 i.e. he is predeceased his father and Subrao i.e. present Applicant No.1 is about 65 years of age and was about 45 years old when the judgment and order dated 15.10.1997 came to be passed. It therefore appears that Subrao i.e. the Applicant No.1 is the youngest son of the Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer and therefore all of them were major when the said judgment and order dated 15.10.1997 came to be passed. 3 It would be relevant to refer to the proceedings under the Tenancy Act which resulted in the filing of the said Writ Petition No.2425 of 1984. The Petitioner therein Smt. Sitabai Vyanku Taur was the wife of Vyanku Taur who had filed an application under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, for declaration that he is the tenant. The said application was allowed by the Tenancy Authorities and declaration came to be issued that the said Vyanku Taur was a tenant as on 01.04.1957 tillers day. The said declaration of tenancy became final and binding. It seems that the Tahsildar in the proceedings filed for fixation of the purchase price held that the said Vyanku Taur was not a tenant on 01.04.1957 and therefore Section 32O of the said Act would be applicable. The lands were therefore directed to be restored to the landlord resorting to the provisions of Section 32P of the said Act. Against the said order, the Petitioner filed an Appeal which came to be dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer by order dated 21.11.1981. The Petitioner carried the matter by way of a Revision before the MRT. The MRT having regard to the earlier adjudication whereby the application filed under Section 70(b) filed by Vanku Taur was allowed and he was declared as tenant as on 01.04.1957 held that the Tahsildar and the Sub Divisional Officer i.e. Lower Authorities had erred in recording a finding that Vyanku Taur was not a tenant, when the said issue was barred by resjudicata. However the MRT on the ground that the Revision was belated by 545 days, had therefore after recording findings in favour of the tenant i.e. Vyanku Taur had dismissed the Revision on the ground of delay. The said judgment and order dated 20.01.1984 of the MRT was the subject matter of the above Writ Petition. As indicated above, a Learned Single Judge having regard to the earlier adjudication found fault with the order of the MRT dismissing the Revision on the ground of delay when according to the Learned Single Judge there was merit in the Revision Application filed by the tenant. The Learned Single Judge accordingly set aside the dismissal of the Revision on the ground of delay however affirmed the order passed by the MRT in so far as the setting aside of the order passed by the Tahsildar and Sub Divisional Officer is concerned, hence the said issue of Vyanku Taur being a tenant was also concluded by the Learned Single Judge by the judgment and order of which review is sought. This fact implies that the heirs of the original tenant are in possession of the land in question as tenants. 4 Now, coming to the ground on which condonation is sought namely that the Petitioners were not aware of the proceedings as also the ground which is urged across the bar that the heirs of the said landlord Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer were not brought on record and therefore the judgment is against a dead person. In my view, it is not impossible to accept that the Applicants who were all major in the year 1997 being between the ages of 18 and 30 were not aware of the proceedings which were pending in respect of the tenancy claimed by the said Vyanku Taur. In so far as the second ground is concerned, it was for the Advocate for the Respondent i.e. Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer to inform the Advocate for the original Petitioner as regards his death as also inform the names of heirs of the said Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer. This admittedly has not been done and the same is sought to be justified on the ground that the Applicants were not aware of the pending Writ Petition. Hence, there is no merit in the second ground also. In my view, having regard to the aforesaid facts and considering that a period of about 20 years has elapsed since the passing of the judgment and order dated 15.10.1997 the delay cannot be condoned. Reliance placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Smt. Gangadevi Vs. Union of India and another delivered on 01.10.1996 , in my view, would not aid the case of the Applicants having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. No relief can therefore be granted to the Applicants in the above Civil Application. The same is accordingly rejected. 5 In view of the rejection of the Civil Application, the Review Petition which suffers from the delay of 18 years and 122 days would not survive and to accordingly stand disposed of as such. [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Order - Status 6: SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1625 OF 2012 ...... ...... Rajesh Panth Singh ...Appellant Versus Ajitbahadur B.Singh & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Shrishail Sakhare for Appellant None for Respondents CORAM :- A.H.JOSHI, J. DATED :- MAY 2, 2013 This is an appeal by claimant on the ground that his claim for compensation has been rejected. The rejection is on the ground that the workman has failed to prove that the accident arose in the course of employment. Heard. Admit on following substantial question of law: "In absence of rebuttal by legal evidence, could the evidence on oath given by the claimant on the point that he was engaged to work on the motor vehicle be discarded?" (A.H.JOSHI, J.)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1625 OF 2012 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 23rd December, 2013 S.O. to 4 weeks for payment of Bhatta charges, furnishing copies & printing charges. If it is complied, issue Notices to Respondents returnable after 10 weeks. sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 23.12.13

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J. DATED : 24th JANUARY, 2019. P.C.: In following matters, printing dispensed with. Appellant(s) to supply requisite copies of the paper-book in accordance with Rule 10(iii) of Chapter VII read with Rule I of Chapter IX of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. However, if any party insists and/or the Roznama and interrogatories and their replies, if any, are necessary and will be required at the time of hearing of the appeal, only then those documents be included in the paper-book. In all other cases inclusion of those documents are dispensed with. The paper-book as aforesaid be supplied within eight weeks, failing which appeal to stand dismissed for non prosecution without further reference to the Court. Appellant(s) to remove other office objection(s), if any, within eight weeks from today, filing which the appeal will stand dismissed for non prosecution without further reference to the court. Sr.No. FA No. Sr.No. FA No. Sr.No. FA.No. 923 336/198 924 387/1991 925 155/1992 926 470/92 927 881/1992 928 914/1992 929 1100/1992 930 370/1993 931 489/1993 932 81/1994 933 83/1994 934 88/1994 935 167/1994 936 240/1994 937 411/1994 938 652/1994 939 691/1994 940 751/1994 941 823/1994 942 999/1994 943 1007/1994 944 1010/1994 945 1104/1994 946 83/1995 947 92/1995 948 138/1995 949 140/1995 950 183/1995 951 246/1995 952 288/1995 953 310/1995 954 334/1995 955 459/1995 956 502/1995 957 534/1995 958 550/1995 959 580/1995 960 596/1995 961 648/1995 962 698/1995 963 702/1995 964 709/1995 965 846/1995 966 858/1995 967 860/1995 968 917/1995 969 942/1995 970 1058/1995 971 1073/1995 972 1079/1995 1080/1995 1081/1995 1082/1995 1983/1995 1084/1995 1085/1995 1085/1995 973 1138/1995 974 95/1996 975 172/1996 976 227/1996 977 599/1996 978 729/1996 979 772/1996 980 776/1996 981 862/1996 982 902/1996 983 971/1996 984 1107/1996 985 1164/1996 986 1181/1996 987 1220/1996 988 1273/1996 989 1308/1996 990 1515/1996 991 1589/1996 992 1630/1996 993 1661/1996 994 1694/1996 995 8/1997 996 88/1997 997 250/1997 998 311/1997 999 399/1997 1000 434/1997 1001 436/1997 1002 467/1997 1003 496/1997 1004 576/1997 1005 595/1997 1006 607/1997 1007 639/1997 1008 646/1997 1009 647/1997 1010 655/1997 1011 673/1997 1012 684/1997 1013 696/1997 1014 749/1997 1015 839/1997 1016 870/1997 1017 875/1997 1018 878/1997 1019 891/1997 1020 899/1997 1021 910/1997 1022 917/1997 1023 930/1997 1024 983/1997 1025 984/1997 1026 1006/1997 1027 1018/1997 1028 1086/1997 1029 1094/1997 1030 1095/1997 1031 1172/1997 1032 1178/1997 1033 1183/1997 1034 1198/1997 1035 1204/1997 1036 46/1998 1037 60/1998 1038 61/1998 1039 62/1998 1040 63/1998 1041 64/1998 1042 65/1998 1043 67/1998 1044 69/1998 1045 70/1998 1046 71/1997 1047 73/1998 1048 92/1998 1049 112/1998 1050 126/1998 1051 127/1998 1052 129/1998 1053 130/1998 1054 131/1998 1055 132/1998 1056 133/1998 1057 135/1998 1058 142/1998 1059 147/1998 1060 151/1998 1061 218/1998 1062 220/1998 1063 281/1998 1064 286/1998 1065 313/1998 1066 315/1998 1067 331/1998 1068 364/1998 1069 416/1998 1070 430/1998 1071 479/1998 1072 481/1998 1073 484/1998 1074 508/1998 1075 518/1998 1076 520/1998 1077 526/1998 1078 531/1998 1079 588/1998 1080 589/1998 1081 614/1998 1082 634/1998 1083 647/1998 1084 649/1998 1085 669/1998 1086 670/1998 1087 672/1998 1088 680/1998 1089 796/1998 1090 798/1998 1091 802/1998 1092 1086/1998 1093 1090/1998 1094 1134/1998 1095 1160/1998 1096 1170/1998 1097 1171/1998 1098 1172/1998 1099 1173/1998 1100 1175/1998 1101 1325/1998 1102 941/2000 1103 337/2001 1104 919/2001 1105 1157/2003 1106 91/2004 1107 104/2004 105/2004 1108 116/2004 1109 124/2004 1110 190/2004 1111 400/2004 1112 448/2004 1113 454/2004 1114 487/2004 1115 497/2004 1116 586/2004 1117 607/2004 1118 624/2004 1119 627/2004 1120 636/2004 1121 637/1004 1122 638/2004 1123 665/2004 1124 1/2005 1125 2/2005 3/2005 5/2005 7/2005 1126 13/2005 1127 16/2005 1128 19/2005 1129 41/2005 1130 50/2005 1131 51/2005 52/2005 1132 68/2005 1133 83/2005 1134 90/2005 91/2005 92/2005 93/2005 96/2005 97/2005 99/2005 100/2005 101/2005 102/2005 103/2005 1135 465/2005 1136 1572/2009 1137 221/2010 1138 222/2010 1139 223/2010 224/2010 225/2010 226/2010 227/2010 228/2010 229/2010 1140 352/2010 353/2010 354/2010 355/2010 356/2010 357/2010 358/2010 1141 397/2010 230/2010 231/2010 232/2010 233/2010 234/2010 235/2010 236/2010 237/2010 238/2010 239/2010 240/2010 359/2010 360/2010 361/2010 362/2010 363/2010 364/2010 365/2010 366/2010 367/2010 368/2010 369/2010 370/2010 371/2010 372.2010 373/2001 374/2010 375/2010 1142 404/2010 1143 405/2010 1144 406/2010 1145 407/2010 1146 408/2010 1147 409/2010 1148 410/2010 1149 415/2020 1150 622/2010 1151 624/2010 1152 625/2010 1153 665/2010 1154 667/2010 1155 670/2010 1156 692/2010 1157 694/2010 1158 819/2010 1159 820/2010 1160 821/2010 1161 822/2010 1162 855/2010 856/2010 857/2010 960/2010 1163 866/2010 1164 872/2010 1165 876/2010 965/2010 966/2010 1166 929/2010 1167 972/2010 1168 974/2010 1169 1044/2010 1170 1061/2010 1171 1065/2010 1172 1068/2010 1173 1070/2010 1174 1075/2010 1175 1080/2010 1176 1222/2010 1177 1226/2010 1227/2010 1228/2010 1229/2010 1230/2010 1231/2010 1232/2010 1233/2010 1234/2010 1235/2010 1236/2010 1237/2010 1238/2010 1239/2010 1240/2010 1241/2010 1242/2010 1243/2010 1244/2010 1245/2010 1178 1253/2010 1179 1262/2010 1180 1265/2010 1181 1267/2010 1182 1268/2010 1183 1903/2010 1185 19/2011 1186 33/2011 1187 35/2011 1188 52/2011 1189 53/2011 1190 54/2011 1191 112/2011 1192 114/2011 1193 121/2011 1194 129/2011 1195 138/2011 1196 144/2011 1197 165/2011 1198 198/2011 1199 202/2011 1200 204/2011 1201 283/2011 1203 290/2011 1204 318/2011 1205 322/2011 1206 333/2011 1207 336/2011 1208 344/2011 1209 372/2011 1210 413/2011 1211 435/2011 1212 452/2011 1213 459/2011 1214 460/2011 1215 514/2011 1216 520/2011 1217 521/2011 1218 526/2011 1219 542/2011 1220 545/2011 1221 548/2011 1222 555/2011 1223 556/2011 1224 1975/2011 1225 4/2012 1226 7/2012 1227 31/2012 1228 33/2012 1229 36/2012 1230 43/2012 1231 45/2012 1232 71/2012 1233 101/2012 1234 155/2012 1235 158/2012 1236 164/2012 1237 193/2012 1238 195/2012 1239 212/2012 1240 216/2012 1241 245/2012 1242 246/2012 1243 248/1012 1245 268/2012 1246 276/2012 1247 291/2012 1248 293/2012 1249 298/2012 1250 300/2012 1251 323/2012 1252 338/2012 1253 345/2012 1254 348/2012 1255 349/2012 1256 351/2012 1257 359/2012 1258 363/2012 1259 366/2012 1260 367/2012 1261 373/2012 1262 386/2012 1263 408/2012 1264 409/2012 1265 410/2012 1266 418/2012 1267 453/2012 1268 482/2012 391/2012 1269 489/2012 1270 544/2012 1271 549/2012 1272 553/2012 1273 570/2012 1274 571/2012 1275 572/2012 1276 587/2012 1277 618/2012 1278 633/2012 1279 638/2012 1280 639/2012 1281 644/2012 1282 646/2012 1283 652/2012 1284 654/2012 1285 703/2012 1286 753/2012 1287 755/2012 1288 786/2012 1289 797/2012 1290 799/2012 1291 805/2012 1292 822/2012 1293 835/2012 1294 839/2012 1295 876/2012 1296 878/2012 1297 882/2012 1298 935/2012 1299 937/2012 1300 953/2012 1301 970/2012 1302 984/2012 1303 991/2012 1304 998/2012 1305 1022/2012 1306 1038/2012 1307 1054/2012 1308 1058/2012 1309 1059/2012 1310 1090/2012 1311 1101/2012 1312 1102/2012 1313 1112/2012 1314 1131/2012 1315 1132/2012 1242/2012 1242/2012 1316 1145/2012 1317 1153/2012 1318 1162/2012 1319 1198/2012 1320 1226/2012 1321 1239/2012 1322 1260/2012 1323 1261/2012 1324 1267/2012 1325 1279/2012 1326 1282.2012 1327 1291/2012 1328 1309/2012 1329 1314/2012 1330 1331/2012 1331 1338/2012 1332 1419/2012 1333 1479/2012 1334 1523/2012 1336 1586/2012 1337 1591/2012 1338 1613/2012 1339 1622/2012 1340 1624/2012 1341 1625/2012 1342 1628/2012 1343 1652/2012 1344 1660/2012 1345 1662/2012 1347 17/2013 1348 18/2013 1349 25/2013 1350 26/2013 1351 37/2013 1352 38/2013 1353 43/2013 1354 45/2013 1355 57/2013 1356 59/2013 1357 68/2013 1358 69/2013 1359 73/2013 1360 76/2013 1361 79/2013 1362 82/2013 1363 83/2013 1364 85/2013 1365 86/2013 1366 122/2013 1367 128/2013 1368 155/2013 1369 167/2013 1370 244/2013 1371 284/2013 1372 285/2013 1373 286/2013 1374 287/2013 1375 288/2013 1376 289/2013 1377 290/2013 1378 315/2013 1379 316/2013 1381 322/2013 1382 332/2013 1383 333/2013 1384 334/2013 1385 335/2013 1386 336/2013 1387 337/2013 1388 338/2013 1389 339/2013 1390 340/2013 1391 341/2013 1392 343/2013 1393 378/2013 1394 384/2013 1395 391/2013 1396 408/3024 1397 416/2013 1398 442/2013 1399 445/2013 1400 447/2013 1401 451/2013 1402 456/2013 1403 460/2013 1404 485/2013 1405 490/2013 1406 492/2013 1407 494/2013 1408 512/2013 1409 515/2013 1410 542/2013 1411 546/2013 1412 547/2013 1413 553/2013 1414 555/2013 1415 562/2013 1416 565/2013 1417 577/2013 1418 585/2013 1419 598/2013 1420 601/2013 1421 603/2013 1422 605/2013 1423 609/2013 1424 611/2013 1425 645/2013 1426 650/2013 1427 672/2013 1428 685/2013 1429 704/2013 1430 708/2013 1431 713/2013 1432 725/2013 1433 743/2013 1435 785/2013 1436 790/2013 1437 791/2013 1438 803/2013 1439 851/2013 1440 872/2013 1441 874/2013 1442 895/2013 1443 918/2013 1444 937/2013 1445 938/2013 1446 939/2013 1447 940/2013 1448 941/2013 1449 942/2013 1450 943/2013 1451 944/2013 1452 945/2013 1453 946/2013 1454 947/2013 1455 948/2013 1456 949/2013 1457 950/2013 1458 951/2013 1459 952/2013 1460 953/2013 1461 954/2013 1462 955/2013 1463 956/2013 1464 957/2013 1465 958/2013 1466 997/2013 1467 1012/2013 1468 1035/2013 1469 1036/2013 1470 1053/2013 1471 1071/2013 1472 1090/2013 1473 1094/2013 1474 1121/2013 1475 1135/2013 1476 1144/2013 1477 1156/2013 1478 1157/2013 1479 1170/2013, 1171/2013, 1172/2013, 1480 1175/2013, 2273/3024 1481 1209/2013 1482 1215/2013 1483 1250/2013 1484 1286/2013 1485 1288/2013 1486 1290/2013 1487 1297/2013 1488 1298/2013 1489 1337/2013, 1490 1353/2013 1491 1375/2013 1492 1376/2013 1493 1385/2013 1494 1387/2013 1495 1396/2013 [ DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.]

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.215 OF 2011 IN REVIEW PETITION ST. NO. 16537 OF 2011 ARISIN FROM CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 383 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 216 OF 2011 IN REVIEW PETITION ST. NO. 16539 OF 2011 ARISING FROM CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 382 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or orders or directions & Judge's orders. Registrar's orders. Shri D. Khambata, Sr. Counsel along with Shri Minoo Siodia along with Shri Agrawal Nikhil and Shri Kaushik N. Singh i/by Rustomji and Ginwala for the Applicant. Shri Vijay Thorat, Sr. Counsel along with Shri Ranjit Shetty and Shri Luckyraj Indorkar i/by Hariani & Co. for the Respondents. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE :28TH JUNE, 2011 P.C.: . Not on board. Taken on board. Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the Applicant and the learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent. Sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. Delay is condoned. The Applications are accordingly allowed. ( A.S.OKA, J )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3494 OF 2005 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1215 OF 2005 Yuraj Deepak Thorat & Anr. .... Applicants $V/s$ Gulabrao Shankarrao Thorat & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. Ratnesh Dubey, i/by Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, for the Applicants. None for the Respondents. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.J. : $6^{TH}$ APRIL, 2015. DATE $P.C.$ : In view of the report of the Bailiff, which is dated 4 th December, 2007 1. stating that the 5 th Respondent is dead, this Civil Application as well as the First Appeal stand abated as against the 5 th Respondent. $mathbf{2}$ On 19 th September, 2005, ad-interim relief was granted by this Court in the present application. Though 1 st to 4 th Respondents are duly served, none appears for them. Hence, limited ad-interim relief granted on 19 th Dixit September, 2005 deserves to be continued. Accordingly, Civil Application is disposed of by directing that the ad-interim relief granted on 19th September, 2005 shall continue to operate as an interim relief. [DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 4331 OF 2018 In FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 15757 OF 2018 United India Insurance Company Ltd.through Its Nashik Divisional Office ....Applicant V/S Smt. Usha Vijay Ramteke And Ors. ....Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 4332 OF 2018 In FIRST APPEAL LODGING NO . 15757 OF 2018 United India Insurance Company Ltd.through Its Nashik Divisional Office ....Applicant V/S Smt. Usha Vijay Ramteke And Ors. ....Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 4450 OF 2018 In FIRST APPEAL LODGING NO . 15757 OF 2018 Smt. Usha Vijay Ramteke And Anr. ....Applicant V/S United India Insu. Co. Ltd. And Ors. ....Respondent Amol Gatne For Applicant Pritesh Kantikumar Bohade for Applicant in CAF 4450/2018. CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J DATE : 20th December, 2018 P.C. : Not on board. Taken on Board. At the request of learned advocate for the applicant, Stand over to as per CMIS. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4332 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 15757 OF 2018 United India Insurance Company Ltd. .....Applicant V/s. Smt. Usha Vijay Ramteke and others .....Respondents Mr. Shubham M. i/b Amol Gatne for the applicant. Mr. Pritesh Bohade for respondent nos. 1 & 2 CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : MARCH 15, 2019. P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2. 2 By this Civil Application, applicant is seeking stay of the operation of the Judgment and Award dated 07/12/2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nashik in MACP No. 990 of 2010 by which Tribunal held that respondents are entitled to the sum of Rs. 3,40,000/ with 8% interest by way of compensation. 3 The learned counsel for the applicant submits that he received instructions from the Insurance Company that they are ready and willing to deposit entire awarded amount alongwith interest in Tribunal within 4 weeks from today. Statement is accepted. 4 Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and as the applicant is ready and willing to deposit entire awarded amount within 4 weeks, I am satisfied that applicant has made out case for following order: (I) Operation and implementation of impugned Judgment and Award dated 07/12/2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nashik in MACP No. 990 of 2010 is stayed till hearing and final disposal of First Appeal. (II) Applicant to deposit entire awarded amount in Tribunal on or before 30/04/2019 failing which Civil Application stands dismissed without referring back to the Court. (III) If amount is deposited within stipulated period as stated herein above, Tribunal is directed to invest the said amount in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank, initially for a period of one year and thereafter, till further orders. (IV) Liberty granted to respondent nos. 1 & 2 to take out appropriate proceedings, if so advised, for withdrawal and that application be decided on its own merits. (V) Application stands disposed of accordingly. (VI) No order as to costs. [K. K. TATED, J.]

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 4331 OF 2018 In FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 15757 OF 2018 United India Insurance Company Ltd.through Its Nashik Divisional Office ....Applicant V/S Smt. Usha Vijay Ramteke And Ors. ....Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 4332 OF 2018 In FIRST APPEAL LODGING NO . 15757 OF 2018 United India Insurance Company Ltd.through Its Nashik Divisional Office ....Applicant V/S Smt. Usha Vijay Ramteke And Ors. ....Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 4450 OF 2018 In FIRST APPEAL LODGING NO . 15757 OF 2018 Smt. Usha Vijay Ramteke And Anr. ....Applicant V/S United India Insu. Co. Ltd. And Ors. ....Respondent Amol Gatne For Applicant CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J DATE : 4th October, 2019 P.C. : Mentioned out of turn. At the request of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Respondent, stand over to 11/11/2019 . Ad-interim relief, if any, to continue till the next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )