All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1834 OF 2009 Shri Aiyaz Mamoodmiya Rais : Petitioner (Orig.Accused) V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. : Respondents ... Mr.S.D. Patil with Mr.Shivraj R. Patil for the petitioner. Mr.D.P.Adsule, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : JULY 20, 2009. P.C.: Mentioned. Not on board. Issue notice before admission, returnable in two weeks. By way of ad-interim relief, the interim bail granted by the trial Court on 15.6.2009 shall be extended till then. S.A. BOBDE, J.

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6590 OF 2017 M/s. Ashirwad Nice Developers ....Petitioner V/S Mr. Chotelal Chunilal Yadav ....Respondent CORAM : B.P. COLABAWALLA, J DATE : 28th June, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is stand over to 07/07/2017. Ad-interim relief 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 WRIT PETITION NO. 6590 OF 2017 M/s. Ashirwad Nice Developers ....Petitioner V/S Mr. Chotelal Chunilal Yadav ....Respondent CORAM : B.P. COLABAWALLA, J DATE : 7th July, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of tim, stand over to 22/08/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: 904.wp.6590.17 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6590 OF 2017 M/s ASHIRWAD NICE Developers ..Petitioner Vs. Mr Chotelal Chunilal Yadav ..Respondent Mr. Ranjit Bhonsale i/b Rakesh Agrawal, for the Petitioner. CORAM :- B. P. COLABAWALLA, J. DATE :- JULY 19, 2017. P. C.: The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this Writ Petition with liberty to canvas all contentions before the Trial Court. Leave is granted. 2 The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed. ( B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO.17244 OF 2014 Chintaman R Abhyankar and anr. : Petitioners. Versus Veda Co­op. Housing Society Ltd. : Respondent. Mr. Y K Tiwari i/by Mr. Rajesh M Yadav for the Petitioners. Mr. N G Gupta i/by Mr. C M Lokesh for the Respondent. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 21st July 2014. P.C. 1 There is a concurrent finding recorded against the Petitioners and in favour of the RespondentSociety as regards the Petitioners entitlement to the stilt parking place purportedly sold to them by the builder by virtue of the agreement that was entered into between the Petitioners and the builder. The Cooperative Court rejected the application for interim reliefs filed by the Petitioners. The Cooperative Appellate Court has confirmed the order passed by the Cooperative Court. 2 The Apex court in the judgment reported in 2010 CTJ 98 (SC) in the matter of Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Panchali Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. has held that under the provisions of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act a builder is not entitled to sell the parking place in the stilt portion. It appears that in the instant case, the Society has already regulated the parking and has allotted the Petitioners a parking place in the property of the Society. The learned counsel for the Petitioners sought to contend that the judgment of the Apex court cannot have retrospective effect so as to affect the rights of the parties which have been created anterior in point of time. The judgment of the Apex Court lays down a proposition of law in the context of the obligations of a developer/promoter under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, and therefore there is no question of any retrospective or prospective application. Both the Courts below have therefore rightly relied upon the said judgment. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1083 OF 2002 Gulab Shivsharanappa Nippani ...Petitioner vs. Smt.Tangemma ...Respondents Gulab Nippani Ms A.S.Malvankar for the Petitioner Ms M.M.Deshmukh,A.P.P. for State CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 15,2005 P.C.: Heard Advocate for the Petitioner. The Petitioner is the husband of the Respondent No.1. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the children of the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1. On the application made by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3, the learned Magistrate granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.300/ p.m. in favour of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. The Revision Applications preferred by the Petitioner and the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were heard together. The Revision Application preferred by the Petitioner was dismissed and the one preferred by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 was partly allowed by enhancing the maintenance amount to Rs.500/- p.m. each payable to the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. After having heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner I find no merit in the Petition. The Courts below have accepted the evidence of the Respondent No.1 and her witnesses and have come to the conclusion that the marriage of the Respondent No.1 with the Petitioner has been established. In so far as quantum of maintenance is concerned, on the basis of salary certificate it was found that gross salary of the Petitioner is Rs.11,767/- p.m. and even after deductions, he is getting Rs.5937/- p.m.. The total maintenance payable by the Petitioner is only Rs.1500/- p.m. Hence, no case is made out for interference. Petition is rejected. JUDGE

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2057 OF 2014 Shrikant Hanmant Bijargi … Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra … Respondent Through post. None for petitioner. Ms. M. H. Mhatre, APP for Respondent-State. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : JUNE 09, 2022 P.C. : . We appoint Advocate Mr. Pranot P. Pawar to represent the petitioner in the petition. Issue notice to the respondent. Ms. Mhatre, learned APP waives service of notice for the respondent and prays for three weeks' time to procure the instructions. At her request, stand over to 06.07.2022. Registry shall handover the complete set of papers to the appointed Advocate Mr. Pranot P. Pawar on or before 27.06.2022. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.) Minal Parab

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2057 OF 2014 Shrikant Hanmant Bijargi … Petitioner V/s. The State Of Maharashtra. … Respondent None for Petitioner. Mr. H. J. Dedhia APP, for Respondent-State. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI AND MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 28 th SEPTEMBER, 2022. P.C. : At the request of learned APP, stand over to 30th September, 2022. [MILIND N. JADHAV, J.] [A.S. GADKARI, J.]

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2057 OF 2014 Shrikant Hanmant Bijargi ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT None for the Petitioner. Mr. H.J.Dedhia, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.S. GADKARI & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ DATE : 30th September, 2022 P.C. : At the request of the learned APP for the Respondent - State, S.O. to 07/10/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2057 OF 2014 Shrikant Hanmant Bijargi … Petitioner V/s. The State Of Maharashtra … Respondent Mr. Shashikant P. Chaudhari a/w Mr. Pranot P. Pawar Appointed Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Ajay Patil APP, for Respondent-State. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI AND MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 7 th OCTOBER, 2022. P.C. : Learned APP on instructions from Jailor (Grade-I), Yerwada Central Prison, Pune submitted that, Petitioner expired on 6th May, 2017 while undergoing treatment at J. J. Hospital, Mumbai. In view thereof, present Petition is abated and accordingly disposed off. [MILIND N. JADHAV, J.] [A.S. GADKARI, J.]

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2135 OF 2015 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders None present for petitioner. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for State. CORAM :SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J DATE :OCTOBER 8, 2015 P.C.: 1 None present. Learned APP submits that copy of this petition alongwith annexures has not been served upon the office of the prosecution. In the eventuality that it is served within one week from today, the learned APP shall waive service and seek instructions. Stand over to 19/11/2015. ( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J) CERTIFICATE Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed Judgment/order.

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2135 OF 2015 Mr. Vikash Singh s/o. Prakash Singh…. Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra …. Respondents Mr. P.V.Dhopatkar i/b. Mr. Santosh S. Vhatkar,Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.A.A.Mane, APP, for the State. CORAM: SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV, J. DATE : 9 th August, 2016. P.C . Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. The petitioner happens to be the original complainant in Crime No.285 of 2012 dated 20.7.2012, wherein he had initiated criminal proceedings against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused therein had filed an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 3.8.2012. At the time of granting pre-arrest bail, this Court had directed the accused to be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the same amount. The accused was further directed to deposit a sum of Rs.52,00,000/- in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 26th court, Borivli within a period of four weeks. The learned Magistrate was directed to invest the said amount in the interest earning deposit schemes in the State Bank of India and was further directed to deal with the same at the end of the trial as per the result of the trial. Pursuant to the said order, the accused had deposited an amount of Rs.52,00,000/- in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate. The complainant herein had filed an application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., being C.C. No.1631/PW/2013, contending that the petitioner was cheated for an amount of Rs.22,49,500/-. He had sought return of the said property i.e. the cash amount of Rs.22,49,500/-. The said application was rejected by the Metropolitan magistrate by an order dated 25.9.2014. The learned Magistrate had rightly observed that there are specific directions from the Hon'ble High Court that the said issue shall be dealt with in accordance with law at the end of the trial. The learned Magistrate has rightly considered that the said amount, which is being solicited to be returned, is neither an incriminating article which was seized in the course of investigation nor it is recovered at the instance of the accused. Upon a query made by this Court as to how the application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. would be maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes a statement that since the property is in the custody of the Magistrate, the application would be maintainable under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. Section 451 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows :- "451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases. When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of." The opening line of Section 451 is "when any property is produced before any Criminal Court". In the present case, the property was not recovered nor discovered nor seized at the best of the accused and not produced before the trial Court by the Investigating agency. The property was deposited in the custody of the Magistrate pursuant to an order passed by this Court while granting an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and there was a specific order that the said amount be dealt with in accordance with law at the conclusion of the trial. In view of the above observations, the petition being sans merits, deserves to be dismissed. Petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. (SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5235 OF 2012 Navjivan Co-op Housing Society Ltd ..Petitioners Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors .. Respondents Mr N.M.Sakhardande, i/b P.C.Kansara, Advocate, for the Petitioners. Ms M.S.Bane, AGP for respondent no.1. Mr Amar Matta-respondent no.2 in-person. CORAM : R.G.KETKAR,J. DATE : 22/06/2012 PC: Heard Mr N.M.Sakhardande, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms M.S.Bane, learned AGP for respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 in-person, at length. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly states that the issues raised in this petition were also raised in Writ Petition No.5232 of 2012. For the reasons recorded in the order disposing of Writ Petition No.5232 of 2012, this writ petition also fails and the same is dismissed. Respondent no.3 is directed to publish the final list of candidates including the name of the second respondent on or before 25.6.2012 and shall complete the election on or before 8.7.2012. All parties including respondent no.3 shall act on the authenticated copy of this order. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)