All Interlocutory Application

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8636 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1229 OF 2022 Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. … Applicant In the matter between : Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. … Appellant Versus Vaishali Vijay Shinde and Ors. Respondents Mr. Nikhil Mehta i/b. KMC Legal Venture, Advocate for the Applicant. CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 6th MAY, 2024. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that appeal be restored as applicant do not want to withdraw the appeal. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and reasons mentioned in the application, application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) and disposed of. Applicant to take necessary steps within four weeks. The Appeal is restored to file. SONALI SATISH KILAJE Digitally signed by SONALI SATISH KILAJE Date: 2024.05.09 12:11:58 +0530 (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.) 1/1

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8634 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 13605 OF 2024 Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation … Applicant In the matter between :- Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation … Appellant vs. Janhavi Jeevankumar @ Jeevan Gurao and Ors. … Respondents ***** Mr. Rananaware Dananjayrao :- Advocate for Applicant. Adv. U. B. Nighot :- Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Adv. Amol Gatane i/b. Adv. Swati U. Mehta :- Advocate for Respondent No. 4. ***** CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER 2024 P. C. :- Heard learned Advocate for Appellant and learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and learned Advocate for Respondent No. 4. There is delay while preferring Appeal. Delay is opposed. 2. For the reasons stated in the Application, it is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and disposed of. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 207 OF 2021 IN CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.134 OF 2021 Victim (XYZ) … Intervenor In the matter of :- Zubair Iqbal Dhanani … Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent Mr. S. V. Marwadi i/b. Mr. N. M. Nadar Advocate for the Applicant in Interim Application. Mr. Ashok Mundargi Sr. Advocate i/b. Ms. Sharddha Sawant, Advocate for the Applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application. Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent – State. ..… ….. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 25th JANUARY, 2021. PER COURT : The main application for anticipatory bail be listed on board along with this application. Stand over to 28th January, 2021. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Order - Status 13: SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Digitally signed by SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Date: 2023.07.18 10:59:43 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 134 OF 2021 Zubair Iqbal Dhanani ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ALONG WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 207 OF 2021 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 134 OF 2021 Victim (XYZ) ...Intervenor vs. In the matter between Zubair Iqbal Dhanani ...Applicant The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ***** Mr.Hrishikesh Mundargi a/w Ms.Shradha Sawant–Advocate for Applicant. Mr.H.J.Dedhia–APP for Respondent–State. ***** CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATED : 13TH JULY 2023 P. C. : Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP. This Court as per the order dated 2nd February, 2021 has granted an interim protection from arrest. It was extended from time to time. In the meantime, the Police have filed a charge-sheet against the present Applicant and others. The relevant papers are filed on behalf of the Applicant. The Police have accepted bail as per the interim order. The submission about filing of charge-sheet was made before this Court on 1st July, 2023. However, necessary papers were not annexed. Today, they are annexed. In view of this, his custodial interrogation is not required. Hence, the order dated 2nd February, 2021 is confirmed. Accordingly, the Application is disposed of. Interim Application is also disposed of. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 3: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.981 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1678 OF 2022 Krishna Ramanathan and Another ...Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent PAREKAR Digitally signed by VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Date: 2022.07.02 14:36:03 +0530 VISHAL SUBHASH Mr. Satish Maneshinde a/w. Ms. Namita Maneshinde, for the Applicants. Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Ashwin Shete, Ms. Priyanka Dage i/b. Jayakar and Partner, for the Intervener. Mrs. J.S. Lohkare, APP, for the State. Mr. Harish Thakur, API, Bundgarden police station, Pune present. CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : JULY 01, 2022 P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, list on 13th July, 2022 for hearing. In the meanwhile, interim protection granted earlier, if any, shall continue to operate. (N. J. JAMADAR, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.981 OF 2022 Krishna Ramanathan and another … Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra … Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1678 OF 2022 Aman Nandlal Gupta … Applicant (Intervenor) In the matter between: Krishna Ramanathan and another … Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra … Respondent IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.981 OF 2022 ---- Mr. Satish Maneshinde a/w. Mr. Anandini Fernandes and Ms. Namita Maneshinde for Applicants. Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Ashwin Shete, Mr. Abhay Dhadiwal, Mr. Priyank Daga i/b. Jayakar and Partners for Intervenor. Ms. Geeta P. Mulekar, APP for Respondent-State. CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 P.C. : After having heard for some time, it is noticed that this Court has granted ad-interim protection to the applicants vide order dated 12.04.2022. At the relevant time, submissions were canvassed on behalf of the applicants that, without prejudice and without admitting the liability, way back in March 2019, the applicants had shown willingness to repay the amount invested by the complainant. In the aforesaid background, this Court in paragraph 10 of the said order directed counsel for the applicants to make a specific statement on instructions whether the applicants in order to show bonafides can make deposit of certain amount before this Court by the next date. Today, during the course of hearing, counsel for the applicants, on instructions, makes a categorical statement that amount of Rs.1 crore will be deposited in this Court within a period of two weeks from today. Statement accepted. As far as further deposits to be made by the applicants, an appropriate order shall be passed after hearing the rival claims. Learned APP has invited my attention to the notice dated 07.09.2022 issued under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to M/s. Curatio Health Care (I) Private Limited of which applicant No.1 is one of the Directors. It is claimed by APP that the said applicant has not co-operated in the investigation pursuant to the said notice. Mr. Maneshinde, counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicants had every intention to co-operate. However, it is claimed that the the applicants have always supplied and are willing to supply relevant information in relation to the offence in question. He states that applicants have reservation that such information supplied by them will be made available to the complainant by the investigating agency as according to him the aforesaid notice issued under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. was within the knowledge of the complainant. Be that as it may, in view of the assurance given by Mr.Maneshinde that the notices issued under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. will be honoured in its true letter and spirit, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to direct the applicants to appear before the investigating officer from 10th to 15th October, 2022 between 10:00 a.m. and 12 noon and thereafter as and when directed by the investigating officer. Matter to come up for further consideration on 19.10.2022. Ad-interim order to continue till then. (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 981 OF 2022 Krishna Ramanathan And Anr ....APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT WITH CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1678 OF 2022 In Cr. Anticipatory Bail Appln. 981 OF 2022 Aman Nandlal Gupta ....PETITIONER V/S State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. R. BORKAR J DATE : 6th January, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 07/01/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 3: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....APPELLANT V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT Mr Patil Pavan Suryaprakash Adv for Appellant Ms Sonali Jadhav, Adv for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI J DATE : 4th July, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 18/07/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....APPELLANT V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT Mr. PAVAN S. PATIL for Appellant. Ms. SONALI JADHAV for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 14th September, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 21/09/2022 ( for directions). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....APPELLANT V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT None for Appellant Mr. Kamlesh Ghumre a/w Sonali Jadhav for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 21st September, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 23/09/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....APPELLANT V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT Mr. Pavan Patil for Appellant Mr. Kamlesh Ghumre i/b Sonali Jadhav for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 23rd September, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 28/09/2022 ( for directions). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....APPELLANT V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT Mr. Pavan Patil for Appellant Mr. Kamlesh Ghumre i/b Sonali Jadhav for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 23rd September, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 28/09/2022 ( for directions). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: 5-AO-668-2022.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 668 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 Mr.Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe … Appellants/Applicants and Others Vs. Mr. Sachin Sayajirao Palance and … Respondents Another Mr. Shubham Saraf i/b. Mr. Pawan Patil for the Appellants/Applicants. Mr. Kamlesh Ghumre a/w. Ms. Sonali Jadhav and Mr. Sanket Patil for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 3 rd MARCH 2025 ORDER : This appeal is listed for extension of time. Time to dispose of the suit as per order dated 28th September 2022 is extended by eight months as prayed. [GAURI GODSE, J.]

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13191 OF 2023 In CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION STAMP NO. 13129 OF 2023 Mr. Yang Yau Shin ....PETITIONER V/S Sonal Anuj Mehra ....RESPONDENT Mr. Amar Gharte for Applicant. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 14th July, 2023 P.C. : At the request of the learned Counsel for the Appellant(s)/ Applicant(s) / Petitioner(s) / Respondent No. stand over to 21/07/2023. Ad-interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13191 OF 2023 In Civil Revision Application STAMP NO. 13129 OF 2023 Mr. Yang Yau Shin ....PETITIONER V/S Sonal Anuj Mehra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 21st July, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 15/09/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13191 OF 2023 In Civil Revision Application STAMP NO. 13129 OF 2023 Mr. Yang Yau Shin ....PETITIONER V/S Sonal Anuj Mehra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH J DATE : 23rd October, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 06/11/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13191 OF 2023 In CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION STAMP NO. 13129 OF 2023 Mr. Yang Yau Shin ....PETITIONER V/S Sonal Anuj Mehra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH J DATE : 6th November, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 11/12/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.13191 OF 2023 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.13129 OF 2023 Yang Yau Shin Applicant. V/s. Sonal Anuj Mehra Respondent. Mr. Amar Gharte a/w. Ms. Aishwarya D. for the Applicant. CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 11th DECEMBER, 2023. P.C.:- Issue notice to respondent returnable on 8/1/2024. In addition to Court notice, Applicant to serve the respondent by private notice and file affidavit of service before next date. Stand over to 8/1/2024. (SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.)

Order - Status 15: KANCHAN VINOD MAYEKAR Digitally signed by KANCHAN VINOD MAYEKAR Date: 2024.01.09 13:26:12 +0530 28 - CRAST 13129 OF 2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO. 13129 OF 2023 ALONGWITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13191 OF 2023 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO. 13129 OF 2023 Mr. Yang Yau Shin ….. Petitioner/ Applicant VERSUS Sonal Anuj Mehra ….. Respondent Mr.Amar Gharte a/w. Ms.Aishwarya Dangle for the Petitioner/Applicant. Ms.Sonal A.Mehra – Respondent present in person. CORAM: RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE : 8 JANUARY, 2024 P.C. :- After the matter was heard for some time, learned counsel appearing for the applicant on instruction from his client seeks leave to withdraw the interim application for condonation of delay along with Civil Revision Application. Interim application is disposed of as withdrawn. KVM So also, the Civil Revision Application is also disposed of. The parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. [RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13191 OF 2023 In CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION STAMP NO. 13129 OF 2023 Mr. Yang Yau Shin ....PETITIONER V/S Sonal Anuj Mehra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH S. PATIL J DATE : 11th January, 2024 P.C. : Wrongly on board. Remove from the Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17568 OF 2022 In Writ Petition 132 OF 2021 Tanzimul Muslimin Soc Sanpada Thr Abdul Samad Hasan Kazi ....PETITIONER V/S The Commissioner Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA, JJ DATE : 26th August, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 03/10/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17568 OF 2022 In Writ Petition 132 OF 2021 Tanzimul Muslimin Soc Sanpada Thr Abdul Samad Hasan Kazi ....PETITIONER V/S The Commissioner Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA, JJ DATE : 3rd October, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 17/11/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17568 OF 2022 In Writ Petition 132 OF 2021 Tanzimul Muslimin Soc Sanpada Thr Abdul Samad Hasan Kazi ....PETITIONER V/S The Commissioner Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA, JJ DATE : 17th November, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 24/11/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17568 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 132 OF 2021 Tanzimul Muslimin Society Sanpada …..Applicant Vs. MULEY SHUBHAM PRAVINRAO Digitally signed by MULEY SHUBHAM PRAVINRAO Date: 2022.11.28 10:32:04 +0530 The Commissioner Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. …..Respondents Mr. Sharique Nachan a/w Mr. Azeem Shaikh & Tanzila Kazi i/by Judicare Law Associates for Petitioner/Applicant. Mr. Tejas Dande for Respondent No.1. Ms. Sayli Patil i/by Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni for Respondnt No.2. Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP for State. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & ARIF S. DOCTOR, JJ. DATE : 24 th NOVEMBER, 2022. P.C.:- The learned AGP seeks time to take instructions from the Police authorities. Place the matter on 16th December, 2022. (ARIF. S. DOCTOR, J.) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17568 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 132 OF 2022 Tanzimul Muslimin Society Sanpada .Applicant IN THE MATTER OF Tanzimul Muslimin Society Sanpada .Petitioner Vs. The Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. .Respondents ----------- Mr.Sharique Nachan, Mr. Aman Khan, Mr. Wasim Karol i/b. Judicare Law Associates for the Applicant/Petitioner. Mr. Tejesh Dande for Respondent No.1-Corporation. Mr. Ashutosh M. Kulkarni for Respondent No.2-CIDCO. Ms. M. P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent Nos. 3 to 6. CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND M. W. CHANDWANI, JJ. DATE : 14 FEBRUARY 2023 P. C. . Time of one week is granted to the learned AGP to obtain instructions in terms of the order dated 24th November, 2022. The instructions shall be obtained prior to the next date of the proceedings. Stand over to 21st February, 2023. ( M. W. CHANDWANI, J. ) ( A. S. CHANDURKAR, J. )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.17568 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO.132 OF 2021 Tanzimul Muslimin Society Sanpada, Navi Mumbai .. Applicant-Petitioner Vs. The Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Sharique Nachan, with Ms. Tanzila Kazi and Mr. Amaan Khan, i/by Judicare Law Associate, for the Applicant-Petitioner. Mr. Tejas Dande for Respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation. Mr. R.D. Soni, with Mr. Sujay Gawade and Ms. Mudita Pawar, i/by Shree & Co., for the Intervenor. Dr. Birendra B. Saraf, Advocate General, with Mr. P.P. Kakade and Ms. M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 to 6-State. CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR & M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ DATE : 21ST FEBRUARY, 2023. ORAL ORDER : { Per A.S. Chandurkar, J. } In this Interim Application, preferred by the original petitioner in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021, the following prayers have been made :- (a). This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to appoint a suitable officer as Nodal Officer or this Hon'ble Court itself be pleased to appoint any suitable officer from the departments of the respondents as a Nodal Officer to facilitate the construction of the Masjid on the said Plot bearing No.17A, Sector 8, Navi Mumbai as per the approved plan in accordance with law. (b). This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.6 to provide police protection for the construction of the Masjid at the said Plot bearing No.17A, Sector 8, Navi Mumbai." Writ Petition No.132 of 2021 was filed by the applicant raising a challenge to the communication dated 27th December 2018 issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, by which the applicant was informed that though on 17th November 2018, building permission had been granted by the Municipal Corporation, a likelihood of a law and order situation could arise if the construction was undertaken by the applicant. Hence, the Municipal Corporation temporarily stayed the building permission granted by it on 17th November 2018. In addition, the applicant prayed that the State of Maharashtra be directed to appoint a suitable officer as a Nodal Officer to facilitate the construction of a Masjid as per the approved plan. The aforesaid writ petition was decided on 31st January 2022. The impugned communication dated 27th December 2018 came to be set aside by observing that if the Municipal Corporation apprehended any law and order situation, it could seek necessary assistance from the local police station in that regard. The writ petition was accordingly allowed. However, the intervention application filed by Akhil Sanpada Sanskrutik Pratisthan came to be dismissed. By urging that the applicant, which was the original petitioner, was seeking implementation of the order dated 31 st January 2022 passed in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021, this interim application has been filed. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that while allowing Writ Petition No.132 of 2021, this Court had set aside the communication dated 27 th December 2018 issued by the Municipal Corporation. As a result, the temporary stay that was imposed on the building permission on 17 th November 2018 stood vacated. It was thus incumbent upon the Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai to provide police protection for such construction. It was also the responsibility of the authorities and especially the State Government to appoint a Nodal Officer to facilitate construction of a Masjid on a Plot No.17A, Sector 8, Navi Mumbai as per the approved plan. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.A. Ansari and Anr. Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd. 1 and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Archana Nilesh Gore and Anr. (Applicant) in the matter between Archana Nilesh Gore and Anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. 2 , it was urged that notwithstanding the fact that the writ petition had been disposed of, this Court could consider entertaining the interim application in the disposed of writ petition as the applicant was seeking directions in the furtherance of the order passed in the writ petition. According to learned counsel, if the interim application was not 1 (2009) 2 SCC 164 2 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 12962 entertained, the applicant would be required to initiate fresh proceedings on account of inaction on the part of the authorities. The learned Advocate General for the non-applicant nos.3 to 6 as well as the learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant no.1 joined issue and opposed the interim application on the ground that the relief sought in the interim application was not in furtherance of any directions issued in the writ petition, nor could it be said that the applicant was seeking implementation of the order passed therein. The issuance of the communication dated 14th April 2022 by the Police Authorities was justified for the reason that until certain factual aspects were verified by the said authority, further instructions could not be issued by that authority. The applicant had been called upon to submit relevant documents, on the basis of which further steps would be taken in the matter. It was thus urged that the interim application need not deserve consideration and the applicant could initiate appropriate proceedings for seeking the prayers made in the interim application. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor-Akhil Sanpada Sanskrutik Pratisthan submitted that the intervenors had filed Interim Application No.371 of 2022 seeking intervention in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021, had been dismissed by the Court on 31st January 2022 while disposing of the writ petition. That order was challenged by the intervenor by filing proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by the order dated 9th May 2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that rejection of the intervention application was wrong. It was noted that the intervenor had challenged the building permission granted by the Competent Authority on 17th November 2018 by filing an appeal under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, (for short "Act of 1966"), which appeal was pending. A direction was issued that the proceedings pending before the State Government as well as before the Layout Committee would not be governed by the order passed in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021 on 31st January 2022. Despite that, the intervenor had not been impleaded in the present interim application and on that ground, the said application was liable to be rejected. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having duly considered the rival submissions, we are of the view that the interim application does not deserve consideration. At the outset, we may note that prayer clause (a) in the interim application is ad verbatim prayer clause (b) in the writ petition, which reads as under :- "(b). This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate and suitable writ, direction and pass an order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondent no.3 to appoint a suitable officer as Nodal Officer to facilitate the construction of Masjid on the said Plot as per the approved plan, in accordance with law." Prayer clause (b) having been sought for in the writ petition and the same not having been granted while deciding the writ petition implies that the said prayer stands refused by this Court. A prayer which was made in the writ petition but not granted while disposing of the writ petition cannot be the subject matter of an interim application in the disposed of writ petition that is filed on the premise that the original petitioner seeks implementation of the directions issued in the writ petition. The remedy for seeking a prayer not granted in the writ petition would not be by way of an interim application in the disposed of writ petition. For that reason, prayer clause (a) in the interim application cannot be considered. Coming to prayer clause (b) in the interim application, which pertains to a direction to be issued to the Commissioner of Police to provide police protection for construction of the Masjid, it is seen that while disposing of Writ Petition No.132 of 2021, this Court had observed that if the Municipal Corporation apprehends any law and order situation, it could write to the local police station, which could then provide necessary assistance so as to maintain the law and order. Accordingly, on 13th April 2022, the Assistant Director, Town Planning Department of the Municipal Corporation wrote to the Police Commissioner that the applicant had made an application to it in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021. Acting on that communication, the office of the Police Commissioner – the 6th respondent, on 14th April 2022, sought certain information from the Municipal Commissioner with a copy thereof to the applicant. This, according to the applicant, was not permissible and amounted to the Police Authorities sitting in appeal over the civil rights that had accrued in favour of the applicant pursuant to the order passed in the writ petition. In other words, the applicant is aggrieved by issuance of the communication dated 14th April 2022 and has indicated that the said authority ought not to have required furnishing of the details that are mentioned in the communication dated 14th April 2022. It is thus apparent that if the applicant is aggrieved by the communication dated 14th April 2022 on the premise that the said authority was not justified in seeking such information, it would be necessary for the applicant to challenge that communication. As long as that communication operates, prayer clause (b) seeking direction to be issued to the respondent no.6 to provide police protection cannot be considered in the interim application that has been filed in a disposed of writ petition. Perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.A. Ansari and Anr. (Supra) indicates that a direction was issued by the High Court holding the petitioners therein entitled to be posted on a post in equivalent scale that was held by them with a further direction to pay them arrears of pay and allowances, if they were posted on a post of higher grade. The learned Single Judge issued the directions, as sought for, in a miscellaneous application in the disposed of writ petition. In appeal, the Division Bench held that the miscellaneous application was not maintainable since the writ petition had been disposed of. The order passed on that application was set aside by the Division Bench. In challenge to the order of the Division Bench, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when the proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of the writ petition, it is not open to the Court to re-open the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application in respect of a matter which provides fresh cause of action. However, at the same time, there is no prohibition on a party applying for clarification, if the order is not clear and the party against whom it has been made is trying to take advantage as the order is couched in ambiguous or equivocal words. Since it was found that the miscellaneous application was filed for pursuing and getting implemented the relief granted in the writ petition, which was for placement in the appropriate grade, it was held that the miscellaneous application was maintainable. This decision has been followed in Archana Nilesh Gore and Anr. (Supra). As noted above, prayer clause (a) in the interim application cannot be granted since a similar prayer made in the writ petition was not granted when the writ petition was disposed of. As regards prayer clause (b), unless the communication dated 14th April 2022 issued by the 6th respondent is shown to have been erroneously issued, that relief cannot be granted. The prayers made in the interim application cannot be said to be the prayers made for clarification of the order or for implementing the relief granted in the writ petition. Such request for grant of police protection was under consideration of the 6th respondent and in that regard, factual information has been sought by it. If the petitioner is aggrieved by that communication, it would have to challenge the same, as entitlement to the same has not been decided in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021. Another pertinent aspect that requires mention is that the applicant was 21-IA-17568-2022.doc Dixit granted building permission on 17th November 2018 to undertake the construction of a Masjid. This building permission itself has been challenged by the intervenor by filing an appeal under Section 47 of the Act of 1966 before the State Government. It is stated that even today, the said proceedings are pending. Thus, unless the applicant is armed with building permission that has become final, the question of implementation of an order granting police protection with a view to implement the order granting building permission to construct Masjid cannot be considered in an interim application filed in a disposed of writ petition. Thus, for aforesaid reasons, the Interim Application stands rejected. The applicant is at liberty to take such steps as are permissible in law for seeking redressal of its grievance. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the prayers made in the interim application on merits and the observations herein are only with a view to decide maintainability of the interim application. [ M.W. CHANDWANI, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]

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

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 446 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3413 OF 2021 Siddharth Colony Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha and Ors. … Appellants V/s. The Municipal Corporation for Gr. Mumbai … Respondent Mr. Nilesh Pandey a/w Mr.Rahul Bhosale i/b. Equajuris for Appellants. Mr. Rajesh S. Patil a/w Smt. Madhuri More for Respondent-Corporation. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 8th DECEMBER, 2021. P.C. : By an Order dated 25th June 2021, on the basis of statement made by the learned counsel for the Appellants that, the Appellants shall maintain status-quo and shall not carry out any further construction, this Court directed the Respondent Corporation not to take coercive action till next date of hearing. The present Appeal was thereafter adjourned from time to time for various reasons as has been recorded in earlier Orders. On 22nd November 2021, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent – Corporation had made a grievance that, by taking undue advantage of ad-interim relief granted by this Court, the Appellants are carrying out construction on footpath abutting the suit property. In support of his contention, he relied on certain photographs annexed to the reply of Interim Application. The matter was thereafter adjourned on 30th November 2021, however, on that day, due to some reasons the present Appeal could not be listed on board. The Respondent-Corporation through their Advocate thereafter circulated the present praecipe dated 7th December 2021 seeking urgent hearing of the present Appeal. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Corporation again reiterated that, the Appellants by taking undue advantage of the Order dated 25th June 2021 are still carrying out construction on footpath attaching to the suit property. He drew my attention to the basic pleadings of the Appellants in the plaint of L.C. Suit (St.) No.4560 OF 2021 and in particular para No.10 thereof. It has been categoricaly pleaded by the Appellant that, the newly appointed developer started process of development activities at said plot of land and in order to redevelopment of the said plot of land the Plaintiffs/Appellants herein vacated the suit premises and handed it over to the Plaintiff No.1 for the purpose of site office as required to deal with occupants at large on site. It is further pleaded that, the Plaintiff No.1/Appellant No.1 herein has taken possession of the suit premises from its members being Plaintiff No.2 and 3 and Others. In this precise background, learned counsel for the Appellants had made a statement on 25th June 2021 and as noted earlier. Repeated grievances are made before this Court that by taking undue advantage of Order dated 25th June 2021, the Appellants are carrying out further construction on footpath. It is therefore necessary to direct the Assistant Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, M/W Ward, Mumbai to immediately visit the suit property today at 3.00 O'clock and inspect it. If it noticed that, the Appellants have carried out construction at the suit premises after 25th June 2021, to record a finding accordingly and submit a detailed report to this Court on next occasion i.e. on 17th December 2021. The present Order is passed in open Court in presence of learned counsel for the Appellants and learned counsel for the Respondent-Corporation. The Assistant Commissioner of Municipal Corporation therefore shall not wait for a copy of the present Order and shall inspect the suit premises today at 3.00 p.m. without giving any excuse. The Appellants are directed to maintain status-quo as of 12.00 noon of 8th December 2021. The Chairman of Appellant No.1 and Appellant Nos.2 and 3 along with their Advocate are permitted to remain present at the time of inspection by the Assistant Commissioner of Corporation, M/W Ward, Mumbai. The Senior Inspector of Police, Chembur Police Station is directed to provide necessary police protection to the Assistant Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, M/W Ward, Mumbai at the time of his inspection, to avoid any untoward incident or breach of law and order situation at the suit property. Stand over to 17th December 2021. [A.S. GADKARI, J.] MANOJ R TANDALE Digitally signed by MANOJ R TANDALE Date: 2021.12.08 14:19:06 +0530

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MOHAMMAD NAJEEB MOHAMMAD QAYYUM Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD NAJEEB MOHAMMAD Date: 2022.02.18 17:54:12 +0530 Appeal from Order No. 446 / 2021 Alongwith Interim Application No. 3413 / 2021 in Appeal from Order No. 446 / 2021 Siddharth Colony Vikas Seva Sang Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Through its Chief Promoter Mr. r. Waghmare and Ors. … Appellants Versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai … Respondent **** Mr. Nilesh R. Pandey i/by Equa Juris, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. Rajesh Patil, Counsel for MCGM. Mr. Ravindra Sirsikar, Advocate for MCGM. **** CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J. DATE : 18th FEBRUARY, 2022. P.C. Appellants shall implead the Slum Rehabilitation Authority as a party Respondent. Amendment shall be carried out forthwith. Learned Counsel shall serve amended copy of the appeal on Counsel for the Corporation and also to the newly added Respondent. Stand over to 11th March, 2022. Ad-interim relief to continue till the next date. (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 9: Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD NAJEEB MOHAMMAD OHAMMAD QAYYUM QAYYUM Date: 2022.03.11 18:38:02 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Appeal from Order No. 446 / 2021 Alongwith Interim Application No. 3413 / 2021 in Appeal from Order No. 446 / 2021 Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Chief Promoter. Mr. R. Waghmare ... Appellant Versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ... Respondent **** Mr. Nilesh R. Pandey i/by Equa Juris, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Rajesh Patil a/w Mr. Ravindra Sirsikar, Advocate for the MCGM/ Respondent No.1. Mr. Yogesh Patil i/by Mr. Vijay Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J. DATE : $11^{th}$ MARCH, 2022. P.C. Mr. Patil waives on behalf of the Respondent No.2 – Slum Rehabilitation Authority. He seeks time to file reply. Time granted. Appellant may file the rejoinder/ reply before the returnable date. Stand over to 26th April, 2022. Interim relief if any, shall continue to operate till the next date. (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 446 OF 2021 Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Cheif Promoter. Mr.r. Waghmare ....APPELLANT V/S The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 9907 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 446 OF 2021 Lahu Bapu Kamble ....PETITIONER V/S Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Cheif Promoter. Mr.r. Waghmare ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3413 OF 2021 In Appeal from Order 446 OF 2021 Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Cheif Promoter. ....PETITIONER Mr.r. Waghmare V/S The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN J DATE : 27th June, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 06/07/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 446 OF 2021 Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Cheif Promoter. Mr.r. Waghmare ....APPELLANT V/S The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 9907 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 446 OF 2021 Lahu Bapu Kamble ....PETITIONER V/S Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Cheif Promoter. Mr.r. Waghmare ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3413 OF 2021 In Appeal from Order 446 OF 2021 Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Cheif Promoter. ....PETITIONER Mr.r. Waghmare V/S The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 19th October, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 16/11/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 446 OF 2021 Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Cheif Promoter. Mr.r. Waghmare ....APPELLANT V/S The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 9907 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 446 OF 2021 Lahu Bapu Kamble ....PETITIONER V/S Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Cheif Promoter. Mr.r. Waghmare ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3413 OF 2021 In Appeal from Order 446 OF 2021 Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Cheif Promoter. ....PETITIONER Mr.r. Waghmare V/S The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 16th November, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 15/12/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3702 OF 2019 Maha. Police Co-op. Housing Federation Ltd. .. Petitioner Versus Saraf Choudhari Nagar Co-op. Hsg. Soc. (No.2) Ltd. and Ors. .. Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30032 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30028 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30031 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30036 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30030 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30029 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30034 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30033 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30035 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3702 OF 2019 Saraf Choudhari Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. .. Applicant In the matter between: Maharashtra Police Co-operative Housing Federation Limited .. Petitioner Versus Saraf Choudhari Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. .. Respondents .................... Mr. V.S.Kapse i/by Mr. N.S.Rajeshirke for Petitioner Mr. Mandar Limaye i/by Mr. S.S.Aradhye for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Mr. S. H. Kankal, AGP for State Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 Mr. Vivek Walavalkar i/by Mr. Abhijeet Gosavi for Intervenor ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : DECEMBER 12, 2022. P.C. : Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. As informed to the Court, 10 out of the 14 Societies are ready for redevelopment. There are certain issues which are required to be looked into. The 4 reluctant Societies are now represented by Mr. Limaye and Mr. Aradhye (learned Advocates for Respondent Nos.1 to 4) before the Court. This Court had directed both Advocates to use their good officers to see if the said Societies bury their differences and participate in the redevelopment. Admittedly, the redevelopment is at the behest of Federation. One of the grievance mentioned by Mr. Limaye is effective representation of the 4 reluctant Societies in the Federation. Mr. Walawalkar and Mr. Kapse both inform the Court that in so far as effective representation is concerned and disclosure of any other issues to the said Societies are concerned, they are open to the same. In view of the above, this Court makes it clear that unless and until the 4 reluctant Societies point out perversity in the actions of the Petitioner, this Court will be reluctant to cancel the registration. This observation is however prima facie, and subject to hearing the objectors. At the joint request of all learned Advocates for respective parties, stand over to 16th December, 2022. In the meanwhile, adinterim relief, if any, granted earlier to continue. For the above reasons the 9 Interim Applications of the Societies for impleadment are allowed. Interim Application Nos. I.A.No. 30032 of 2022, I.A.No. 30028 of 2022, I.A.No.30031 of 2022, I.A.No. 30036 of 2022, I.A.No. 30030 of 2022, I.A.No. 30029 of 2022, I.A.No. 30034 of 2022, I.A.No. 30033 of 2022 and I.A.No. 30035 of 2022 are disposed of in terms of prayer clause (a) which is identical in all Applications and reads thus: "(a) Allow the Applicant to intervene in the present matter and be further pleased to direct the Petitioner to join the Applicant as a party respondent to the present writ petition," Necessary amendment to be carried out by tomorrow. Re-verification is dispensed with. Copy of the amended cause title shall be provided to the Respondents before the next date. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] SONALI SATISH KILAJE Digitally signed by SONALI 14:37:27 +0530

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8486 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 241 OF 2007 Vyankatesh Barun Harijinas Reddy Since Deceased, through his legal representatives 1. Harijan Ananthamma w/o. Harijan Pedda Burranna and Ors. … Applicants IN THE MATTER OF : Union of India and Ors. … Appellants Versus Vyankatesh Barun Harijinas Reddy Since Deceased, through his legal representatives 1. Harijan Ananthamma w/o. Harijan Pedda ... Respondents Burranna and Ors. Mr. Sachin Punde, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. Y. S. Bhate, Advocate for Appellants. CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 6th MAY, 2024. P.C. : Learned counsel for the applicants on instructions, submits that he wants to withdraw this application. Considering his submission, application is allowed to be withdrawn. Dismissed and disposed of. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

Order - Status 4: Megha 7_ia_1763_2023.doc MEGHA S PARAB Digitally signed by MEGHA S PARAB Date: 2023.05.04 16:41:31 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1763 OF 2023 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1340 OF 2023 Ramesh Jamdade ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents ... Mr. Sadip Pareikh with Mr. Prabhakar Jadhav for the Applicant/Intervenor Mr. Ritesh Thobde with Mr. Sagar Tambe for the Applicant in ABA/1340/2023. Mr. S.V. Gavand, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM: SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. DATED : 4th MAY, 2023. P. C. :- Not on board. Upon being mentioned, taken on board. This is an application for intervention fled by the First Informant. Considering the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Learned counsel for the Applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application to implead the Intervenor as party Respondent and furnish copy of the anticipatory bail application to the learned counsel for the Intervenor on or before the next date of hearing. The application stands disposed of. (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)