All Writ Appeal
Respondent-1: Dharmasukh Hiralal Nanavati& Ors.
Petitioner-1: Savitri Radhakrishnan
1) Document Filed: Report
Filed By : Bhausaheb Joti Patil
Filed Document - Date of Receiving - 1: 20/10/2008
Respondent-1: The Additional Collector
Respondent-2: Competent Authority (ulc)
Respondent-3: Thane
Respondent-4: Anr.
Petitioner-1: Dosu Ardeshir Bhiwandiwala
Order - Status 7: Kambli IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.207 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 9196 OF 2009 ... ... ... Dr.Mrs.P.S.Purva Shashikant ...Applicant v/s. The Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Uday Warunjikar for the Applicant. Mr.S.M.Railkar for Respondents Nos. 2 & 3. Mr.P.P.George i/b R.R.Shetty for Respondent No.1. CORAM: D.K.Deshmukh & S.P.Deshmukh, JJ DATED: 24th January, 2012 P.C.: Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant. Petition is already expedited. No fix date can be given. Civil Application disposed of. (S.P.Deshmukh, J.) (D.K.Deshmukh, J.)
Respondent-1: Union Of India
Respondent-2: Through Dept Of Science
Respondent-3: Technology
Respondent-4: Ministry Of Science
Respondent-5: Technology
Respondent-6: Ors
Petitioner-1: Dr. Mrs. P. S. Purva Shashikant Salvekar.
Respondent-1: Parivar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd
Respondent-2: Ors
Petitioner-1: Assistant Registrar
Petitioner-2: Co-operative Societies
Petitioner-3: S Ward
Petitioner-4: Kokan Bhavan
Petitioner-5: Navi Mumbai
Petitioner-6: Ors
Respondent-1: The Principal
Respondent-2: Bpcs College Of Physical Education
Respondent-3: Ors.
Petitioner-1: Shashikant B.kulkarni
Order - Status 6: KVM Digitally signed by KANCHAN VINOD MAYEKAR Date: 2022.06.10 10:39:16 +0530 1/1 55 - WP 1645 OF 2013.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION 1645 OF 2013 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION 1804 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION 1645 OF 2013 Pandurang Laxman Karambalkar ….. Petitioner VERSUS Vasant Janaba Narvekar ….. Respondent Mr.Sushant A.Khatake, i/b. Mr.Prashant S.Bhavake for the Petitioner. Ms.Pramila S.Bhaingade, i/b. M.Janardhanan for the Respondent. CORAM : ROHIT B.DEO, J. DATE : 8TH JUNE, 2022 P.C:- It is common ground that the civil suit from which the petition emanates is disposed of and the petition is rendered infructuous. Writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. In view of disposal of the writ petition, civil application is also disposed of. [ROHIT B.DEO, J.] KANCHAN VINOD MAYEKAR
Respondent-1: Shri. Vasant Janaba Narvekar
Petitioner-1: Shri. Pandurang Laxman Karambalkar
Order - Status 8: 39-CAW-2247-2014-WP-4110-2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2247 OF 2014 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4110 OF 2003 DADASAHEB GANGADHAR SHETE )...PETITIONER V/s. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & ANR. )...RESPONDENTS Mr.Sagar Mane h/f. Mr.Narendra Bandiwadekar, Advocate for the Applicant. Coram: Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : : 28th October, 2014. P.C. : 1 No directions need be given for expeditious hearing of the petition since the petitions of the year 2003 have already come on board for final hearing. The civil application is, therefore, disposed off. Office to place the petition on board for final hearing as per the chronology. (Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J.)
Respondent-1: The Chief Executive Officer
Respondent-2: Zilla Parishad
Respondent-3: Nashik
Respondent-4: Ors.
Petitioner-1: Shri. Dadasaheb Gangadhar Shte
Respondent-1: Parivar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd
Respondent-2: Ors
Petitioner-1: Assistant Registrar
Petitioner-2: Co-operative Societies
Petitioner-3: S Ward
Petitioner-4: Kokan Bhavan
Petitioner-5: Navi Mumbai
Petitioner-6: Ors
Respondent-1: State Of Maharashtra
Respondent-2: Ors.
Petitioner-1: Shri Dyanadeo Siddhabet Tapovan Dnyana-yoga Adhyatma
Petitioner-2: Pune
Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MATTERS NOTIFIED AT SERIAL NOS.1 & 2 ON THE BOARD DATED 8TH AUGUST, 2008 CAUSE TITLES AND APPERANCES AS NOTIFIED .... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : AUGUST 8, 2008. P.C. : Both these matters are listed with office objection(s). I propose to pass common order in the following terms: (A) In cases where any of the Respondent(s) has/have not been served so far, for whatever reasons, the Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s) to take steps to serve the unserved Respondent(s) within EIGHT WEEKS from today by Advocate's notice, either personally or through speed post/courier/e-mail/fax and to file affidavit of service before that date, failing which, concerned Petition/Application to stand dismissed for non-prosecution, without further reference to the Court. (B) In case of any other office objection(s), the Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s) to take steps to remove the same within EIGHT WEEKS from today, failing which, the Petition/Application to stand dismissed for non-prosecution, without further reference to the Court. (C) If conditional order is complied in time in the above matters, the respective matter will be listed under appropriate caption on the following assigned dates. Sr.No. Assigned Date 1 & 2 18/11/2008 (D) Ad-interim order granted in any of the above said matters, if any, to continue till the next date of hearing. . Ordered accordingly. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)
Order - Status 9: dgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION MATTERS NOTIFIED AT SERIAL NOS. 52 TO 65 ON THE BOARD DATED 18.11.2008 CAUSE TITLES & APPEARANCES AS NOTIFIED OfficeCourt's Notes, Office Memoranda or Judge's ofOrders Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED : 18.11.2008 P.C. S. O. to 28.11.2008 Interim order, if any, to continue till then. [ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.]
Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2137 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3355 OF 1998 Baban Laxman Motkari & Anr. ..Applicants. V/s. Eknath N. Motkari & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Anand Kulkarni i/b.Ms.Seema Sarnaik for applicants. Mr.M.M.Sathaye for Respondent Nos. 10A to 10K. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : JANUARY 23, 2009. P.C. : Although this application is opposed on the argument that delay is not properly explained, however, since no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent, in the interest of justice, Application deserves to be allowed. For, the main Writ Petition will nevertheless be proceeded by Petitioner No.1. Therefore, this application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (e) on condition that the Applicants shall pay cost to the Respondent Nos.10A to 10K quantified at Rs.1,000/- within one week, failing which Petition to stand dismissed for non-prosecution. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)
1) Document Filed: Vakalatnama
Advocate: Ms. Seema Sarnaik
Filed Document - Date of Receiving - 1: 19/09/2008
Respondent-1: Eknath Narayan Motkari
Respondent-2: Ors.
Petitioner-1: Baban Laxman Motkari
Petitioner-2: Anr.