All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1015 OF 2011 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Sachin Patil i/b Mr. Manoj A. Patil for the petitioner. Mr. Lalit Jain for respondent no.1B. Mr. Bipin Joshi for respondent no.2. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 P.C. : Colleague of Mr. Manoj Patil, advocate for the petitioner, prays for an adjournment on the ground that Mr. Patil is ill. S.O. for a week. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 31: Ingale FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1014 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1015 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1016 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1017 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr.Sandeep K.Shinde a/w Mr.A.B.Vagyani i/b Mr.Manoj A.Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.R.D.Mishra, Advocate for the Respondents No. 1A to 1B. Mr.Bipin Joshi, Advocate for Respondents No. 3 & 4. CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 12th February, 2014 P.C. . Heard Mr.Sandeep K.Shinde, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.D.Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1A to 1B and Mr.Bipin Joshi, learned Counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4. Since the matters are to be disposed of finally at the state of admission as per order dated 27/04/2011, call for record and proceedings of the case telephonically. The petitioner will file copies of i) plaint ii) report of the court Commissioner and iii) evidence led by the plaintiffs in all the suits and serve the copies in advance on the other side. List the petitions for admission on 26/02/2014 at 3.00 p.m. The parties are put to notice that subject to the time constraint and convenience of the Court, the petitions may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)

Order - Status 34: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1014 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1015 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1016 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1017 OF 2011 GULAMBHAI VALIBHAI RAJE )...PETITIONER V/s. SURESH KALYAJI BHAGAT (since deceased) ) JAYA SURESH BHAGAT AND ORS. )...RESPONDENTS Mr.Ashish P. Pawar i/b. Mr.Manoj A. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Vijay R. Dubey, Advocate for Respondents Nos.1A & 1B. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATE : 2 nd APRIL, 2014. P.C. : 1 Stand over by Two Weeks, to enable the petitioner to file compilation, pursuant to the order dated 27th April 2011. The counsel for Respondents nos.1A & 1B states that Respondent no.1B died on 23rd March 2014. Petitioner to take the suitable steps. (SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J.)

Order - Status 38: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1014 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1015 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1016 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1017 OF 2011 .... .... Gulambhai Valibhai Raje ..Petitioner Vs. Suresh Kalyani Bhagat (Since Deceased) Through L.Rs. And Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Ashish Pawar, Advocate i/b Manoj Patil for Petitioner. Mr. R.D. Mishra, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1A to 1B. Mr. Sachin Pawar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. CORAM : N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 24 MARCH 2015 P.C.: The learned Counsel for petitioner states that Respondent No.1.B. has expired and seeks time to take necessary steps in that regard. At his request, S.O. to 7 April 2015. [N.M. JAMDAR, J.] S.S.DESHPANDE 1 / 1

Order - Status 41: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1014 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1015 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1016 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1017 OF 2011 Gulambhai, Son of Valibhai Raje. ] … Petitioner Versus Suresh Kalyanji Bhagat (Since Deceased) ] through legal heirs ] 1A Smt. Jaya Suresh Bhagat and Ors. ] … Respondent Mr. Gulambhai Valibhai Raje, Petitioner present in person. Mr. Manoj A. Patil for Petitioner. Mr. V. R. Dubey for Respondent Nos.1A and Ab. CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : JULY 07, 2015 P. C. : Mr. Gulambhai Valibhai Raje, Petitioner, appears in person and states that his Advocate is unwell and therefore unable to attend the Court. The record reveals that this matter has been taken up for consideration no less than 54 times. There is an interim order, which affects the Respondents. Nevertheless, at the request of Mr. Gulambhai Valibhai Raje, stand over to 15/07/2015. It is made clear that in case, the Counsel for the Petitioner is not present and does not proceed with the matter on the next occasion, the appropriate orders shall be made, including orders for dismissal of this petition for nonprosecution. (M. S. SONAK, J.)

Order - Status 55: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1014 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1015 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1016 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1017 OF 2011 Gulambhai Valibhai Raje … Petitioner Vs. Suresh Kalyanji Bhagat (decd) though LRs Jaya Suresh Bhagat and others … Respondents Mr. Manoj A. Patil for Petitioner in all the Petitions. Mr. Sachin Pawar for Respondents No.3 and 4 in all the Petitions. CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 P.C. : Heard Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for petitioner and Mr. Pawar, learned Counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 in all the Petitions at length. By these Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner, hereinafter referred to as 'defendant', has challenged - (i) the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2003 passed by the learned Judge, presiding over Court Room No.8 of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai in R.A.E. Suit No.480/857 of 2002 as also (ii) the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2010 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court in Appeal No.712 of 2007. By these orders, the Courts below decreed the Suit instituted by original plaintiff and directed the defendants to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of Shop No.1 known as "Hotel Cafe Aaram" situate at plot No.212, Vinod Mahal, Worli Market, Worli, Mumbai 400 018 (for short 'suit premises') to the plaintiff. Defendants have also challenged the judgment and order dated 29.01.2011 passed by the learned trial Judge in Miscellaneous Application No.959 of 2010. By that order, the learned trial Judge allowed the application filed by Vinod Kalyanji Bhagat and Tanuja Bhagat filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'C.P.C.') and deleted the direction given by the Courts below to the defendants to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. By order dated 27.02.2003, the learned trial Judge decreed the Suit ex-parte after observing that all the defendants were served with the writ of summons. Defendant No.3 remained absent. Defendants No.1 and 2 engaged Counsel to file written statement on record, but failed to file written statement. In short, defendants did not participate in the trial, despite service of writ of summons. Plaintiff filed affidavit of evidence as also produced documents. While decreeing the Suit, the learned trial Judge observed that plaintiff's evidence remained unchallenged as the defendants chose not to contest the Suit. After considering the documents on record including the Court Commissioner's report, the learned trial Judge decreed the Suit ex-parte. Defendants took out Miscellaneous Notice No.247 of 2004 under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The notice was dismissed on 06.07.2004 by the trial Court. Aggrieved by that order, defendants preferred appeal, which was dismissed on 16.03.2006. Aggrieved by these decisions, defendants instituted four Petitions in this Court. All the Petitions were disposed of as not pressed on 25.01.2007. The order passed by this Court reads thus, " Mr.M.P.Vashi for the petitioners. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED: 25TH JANUARY, 2007 P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr.Vashi, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the four petitions submits that he has instructions not to press the writ petitions and seeks liberty to challenge the judgment and decree dated 27th February, 2003 in the appeals before the appropriate court. The writ petitions are disposed of as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. The petitioners to file appeals within four weeks from today. If the appeals are filed, same may be considered on merits in accordance with law. All contentions are kept open. The writ petitions are disposed of." In pursuance of the liberty granted by this Court, defendants preferred substantive appeals under Section 96 of C.P.C. The appeals preferred by the defendants were dismissed on 30.10.2010. After the appeals were disposed of, application under Section 152, as noted earlier, was made out for deleting the direction to handover possession. That application was allowed. It is against the trial Court's and appellate Court's judgment and decree as also order passed in an application under Section 152 of C.P.C., defendant has instituted these Petitions. In support of these Petitions, Mr. Patil strenuously contended that the defendants were not given opportunity to participate and contest the Suit. The learned trial Judge relied upon the Commissioner's report. The learned trial Judge was not justified in relying only upon the Commissioner's report and decreeing the Suit. As the defendants were not given opportunity to contest the Suit, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside thereby permitting defendants to file written statement and also cross-examine plaintiff's witness and lead their evidence. On merits, Mr. Patil submitted that the Courts below were not justified in passing the decree on the ground that defendants No.1 and 2 have carried out additions and alterations of permanent nature and that, defendants No.1 and 2 have unlawfully sublet the suit premises in favour of defendant No.3. As far as the order passed in an application under Section 152 of C.P.C. is concerned, he submitted that none of the parties to the proceedings filed application under Section 152. Application was filed by Vinod Kalyanji Bhagat and Tanuja Bhagat, who were not party to the proceedings. The learned trial Judge was, therefore, not justified in entertaining their application. On the other hand, Mr. Pawar supported the impugned orders. He submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.1 died on 30.06.2008 leaving behind, Hitesh Suresh Bhagat (son) and Maniben Kalyanji Bhagat (mother). Advocate for respondent No.1, therefore, addressed a letter to the petitioners, who were the appellants before the appellate Court for amending the appeal memo and bringing on record Maniben Kalyanji Bhagat, mother of respondent No.1 - plaintiff (since deceased). However, petitioners did not suitably amend the appeal memo. He further submitted that Tanuja is the grand-daughter of Maniben and niece of respondent No.1 Suresh Kalyanji Bhagat. Vinod is the real brother of respondent No.1 – Suresh Bhagat. He also relied upon Section 152 of C.P.C. to contend that Court has power to correct clerical mistake on its own motion or on the application made by any of the parties to the proceedings. He submitted that in fact from the record, it would be evident that decree was executed and possession was obtained on 22.03.2004, and therefore, the direction issued by the Courts below against the defendants to handover possession was required to be deleted. He submitted that even in the order dated 27.04.2011, while issuing injunction restraining respondents from creating third party rights or inducting any third party, this Court noted that decree has already been executed and the respondents have taken possession. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. I have also perused the material on record. As noted earlier, respondent No.1 had instituted Suit against defendants for recovery of possession of the suit premises. Perusal of the trial Court's order dated 22.02.2003 shows that defendants were duly served with the writ of summons. Though defendants No.1 and 2 engaged Counsel to file written statement, they did not file written statement. Defendant No.3 remained absent. Thus, despite service of suit summons on defendants, they chose to remain absent. During the pendency of the Suit, original plaintiff took out interim notice for appointment of the Court Commissioner. Court Commissioner visited the suit premises after giving notices to the defendants and after inspection, submitted a report along with photographs. After considering the plaintiff's evidence together with documents as also Commissioner's report and after recording that defendants chose not to contest the Suit, the learned trial Judge observed that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff remained unchallenged and accordingly, decreed the Suit. Defendants filed application under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. for setting aside ex-parte decree. As noted earlier, Order 9, Rule 13 application was rejected by the learned trial Judge on 06.07.2004. Appeal preferred therefrom was also dismissed on 16.03.2006. Though defendants instituted four Petitions in this Court challenging these orders, they did not press Writ Petitions and Petitions were disposed of on 25.01.2007. I have already extracted the order dated 25.01.2007. Perusal of the order shows that while giving liberty to the defendants to file appeal, this Court directed that the same shall be considered on merits in accordance with law. Mr. Patil submitted that the impugned decrees passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside as no opportunity was given to the defendants to participate and contest the Suit. It is not possible to accept this submission. In the first place, defendants were duly served with the suit summons. Despite that, they chose not to participate in those proceedings. Secondly, against the ex-parte decree, defendant has as many as 4 options available, namely, (i) filing of application under Order 9, Rule 13; (ii) filing of substantive appeal under Section 96; (iii) filing of Review Petition and lastly, (iv) filing of Suit on the ground that decree was obtained by playing fraud upon the Court. The proceedings filed by the defendants under Order 9, Rule 13 were decided against the defendants with liberty to file substantive appeal under Section 96. In the substantive appeal, defendants have to challenge the decree passed by the trial Court on merits. In other words, in the substantive appeal, defendants cannot be permitted to agitate the points which are available in proceedings under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. In view thereof, the Court has to proceed to decide the appeal on its own merits and not on the grounds available for setting aside ex-parte decree under Order 9, Rule 13. In view thereof, it is not possible to accept the submission advanced by Mr. Patil that the impugned decrees are liable to be set aside for giving opportunity thereby restoring the Suits with permission to the defendants to file written statement and cross examine plaintiff's witness and lead evidence in support of their case. As far as merits of the case are concerned, the Courts below have considered the fact that the evidence of the plaintiff remained unchallenged. In view thereof, no fault can be found in the decrees passed by the Courts below. That brings me to the contention advanced by Mr. Patil that application under Section 152 was made by persons, who were not parties to the proceedings. Section 152 of C.P.C. reads thus, 6/8 "152. Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders.- Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. (emphasis supplied) " Mr. Pawar submitted that Maniben died executing Will and appointed Tanuja Bhagat as Executrix. As far as Hitesh Suresh Bhagat is concerned, though he was brought on record, he was arrested in MCOCA case and died. In fact perusal of record shows that on behalf of the original plaintiff, letter dated 15.09.2008 was addressed to the Advocate for defendants for bringing on record Maniben Bhagat, mother of original plaintiff and Hitesh, son of original plaintiff. Vinod is the real brother of original plaintiff – Suresh Bhagat and Tanuja is the grand-daughter of Maniben Bhagat and is also Executrix. In view thereof, it cannot be said that they are totally strangers to the lis between the parties. That apart, Section 152 enables the Court to exercise its power suo motu for correcting any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. While allowing the application under Section 152, Court has noted that decree was executed on 22.03.2004. This is also evident from - (i) paragraph 5 of the application dated 02.04.2004 wherein defendants No.1 and 2 have stated that possession of the suit premises was forcibly taken on 22.03.2004; (ii) paragraphs 22 and 33 of the trial Court's order dated 06.07.2004 dismissing notice under Order 9, Rule 13. In paragraph 22, the learned trial Judge has noted the submission advanced on behalf of the plaintiffs that the decree was executed on 22.03.2004. In paragraph 33, the learned trial Judge noted that the decree was executed on 22.03.2004, after passing two years. Thereafter, plaintiff has handed over the possession to Mr. Hira Chauhan and Mr. Rahul D. Jadhav by executing leave and licence agreement in their favour on 23.03.2004. Thus, from the record, it is evident that decree was executed and possession was obtained on 22.03.2004. In view thereof, I do not find that the trial Court has committed mistake in deleting the direction issued to the defendants to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. Hence, no case is made out for invocation of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitions fail and the same are dismissed. At this stage, Mr. Patil orally applies for continuation of the adinterim order dated 27.04.2011 for a period of 12 weeks from today. He further assures that petitioner will not apply for further extension. Mr. Pawar opposes this application. Having regard to the fact that the interim order is operating from 27.04.2011 as also having due regard to the fact that the petitioner intends to challenge this order in the higher Court, I find that the request made by Mr. Patil is reasonable. In view thereof, notwithstanding dismissal of the Petitions, interim order dated 27.04.2011 shall remain in force for a period of 12 weeks from today with express understanding that petitioner will not apply for further extension. Order accordingly. (R. G. KETKAR, J.) Minal Parab

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5538 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.Sagar Kasar, for the petitioners. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 18/08/2009 PC: When the petition was called out, the learned counsel for the petitioners was not in a position to argue the petition. Stand over to 29.9.09. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5538 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. Sagar Kasar, for the petitioners. Mr Prakash M. for the respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 10/11/2009 PC: Mr.Kasar, learned Advocate, submits that he has instructions to appear for the sole respondent. Hence, service is complete. The petition to come up for admission on 1.12.09. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)

Order - Status 15: MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.5538 OF 2009 Shashikant B. Kamble & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. The Bharat Cooperative Bank Ltd. ...Respondents Mr.S.K.Shinde i/b. Mr. Sagar Kasar, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr.Prakash Mulky i/b. Gopal C. Poojary & Co. Advocate for the Respondents CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 20TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C. : Heard both sides. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The impugned orders relate to refusal of condonation of delay in filing an application for setting aside the Exparte Award passed by the Cooperative Court on 29th February 2008. The application has been filed since 10th October 2008. The delay was of 193 days. The case for condonation of delay was that in view of the Writ Petition filed concerning the Bank's powers under Multi State Cooperative Bank, the dispute was adjourned sine die. After the decision was rendered the Dispute was taken on board for hearing. At that time no notice was issued upon the Petitioners. They did not know of the Award passed. Hence, the application. Their case is that the case has been adjourned sine die and is reflected in the noting dated 24th October 2002 of the learned Cooperative Court, Mumbai. Though a date is mentioned against the noting it shows that the case was adjourned sine die. The fact remains that the substance of the noting shows that it was indeed adjourned sine die. It would have been prudent for the Bank to issue notice upon the Petitioners when the dispute reached hearing. The Petitioners were not represented by Advocates. Hence no Advocate could appear or be informed. Consequently, the duty of the Court as well as the Disputant would be doubled. The fact remains that an Exparte decree was passed which is open to challenge. The challenge is not seen to be completely devoid of merits. The Petitioners would be required to be heard on merits. The cause shown is justifiable. Hence both the orders of the Cooperative Court and the Cooperative Appellate Court which refused to condone the delay are required to be interfered with. Both the orders are set aside. The dispute shall be heard on merits. The Petitioners shall forthwith file their written statement, give inspection of the documents, produce copies of their documents and get themselves ready for trial. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5111 OF 2014 Shri Jeevan Krishna Thakre. … Petitioner. V/s. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Grampanchayat, Division Thane. … Respondents. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of appearances, R.M.Kolge for the petitioner. S.P.Thorat for respondent No.1. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND R.V.GHUGE, JJ. DATED : 9 th June 2014. P.C. : Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Issue notice to the respondents returnable after three weeks. Court's or Judge's orders In case the petitioner has not been relieved so far, by way of adinterim relief, we direct that the respondents shall maintain statusquo in respect of posting of the petitioner. (R.V.GHUGE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) Sanjay Nanoskar, P.S.

Order - Status 6: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5111 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders Registrar's orders None present. CORAM : SHRIKANT D.KULKARNI REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) Date : 30 June 2014 One week time is granted for payment of Bhatta. If Bhatta is paid within one week, issue notice to Respondents returnable within seven weeks from today. REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) RJ -I aap/mvm 26/06/2014

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5111 OF 2014 Shri Jeevan Krishna Thakre. ... Petitioner. V/s. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Thane. ... Respondent. Rajesh M. Kolge for the petitioner. Shankar P. Thorat with Karan Thorat for the respondent. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. DATED : 12th August 2014. P.C. : The petitioner has challenged his transfer order from Kalyan to Murbad. The petitioner's contention is that once the petitioner was transferred from tribal to nontribal area vide order dated 22nd August 2013 by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, there was no reason for the Zilla Parishad authority to transfer him again to the tribal area. Learned counsel submits that the transfer of the petitioner is against the policy adopted by the State in respect of transfer of employees to the tribal and nontribal ares. It is submitted that the petitioner's wife is also serving and therefore the policy of the Government that couple be placed at one station is not followed while transferring the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that this transfer order is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner and his family. It is made with malafide intention and against the policy of the State. The respondent State has filed affidavit of Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Thane. In paras 4, 5 and 6, the deponent has stated as under: "4. I further say that pursuant to the direction and order passed by this Hon'ble Court number of Thane Zilla Parishad employees have been transferred in the adiwasi area. Since right from beginning the present Petitioner did not take the experience in the adiwasi area he is transferred from Kalyan non adiwasi area, to village Panchayat Shirol Shahapur in the adiwasi area. The distance between Kalyan and Shahapur is about 30 km. and therefore there is no reason for the Petitioner to be aggrieved. The Petitioner is relying on the old government policy regarding the transfer order. And on the basis of the said policy the Petitioner is claiming that the Zilla Parishad employee should be in one place for a period of 10 years, however the said policy is changed by the recent government resolution dated 15.5.2014. Pursuant to the said resolution the period of 10 years is minimized and now the said period is from 3 to 5. Now it is compulsory for the employee to have a turn in the adiwasi area. In the year 2013 the Petitioners turn to go at adiwasi was to be implemented, however because of his request he was again shifted at Kalyan immediately and therefore the Petitioner cannot insist in one place. The Petitioner is also insisting that he should be transferred at the area and place where his wife is doing service at Ambernath, however at Ambernath no post is vacant for the Petitioner moreover the Petitioner already had done his service at Ambernath he was doing service for a period of fifteen years right from 12.4.90 till 13.7.2005. Therefore he is not entitled to be posted at Ambernath which is non adiwasi area. After the ambernath the Petitioner has done his duty at Kalyan, Bhiwandi in the non adiwasi area. And therefore it is obligatory on the part of the Petitioner to go at Adiwasi area and he should not insist again for the non adiwasi area. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner's service career shows that except some brief service in tribal area, he has served only in nontribal areas. Learned counsel submits that on the recommendation of the President of the Thane Zilla Parishad, petitioner's transfer order was cancelled. The policy of the Government is to transfer the employees to tribal areas so that they can provide services to the tribal areas. Learned counsel submits that the administration would, ultimately, suffer if this Court interferes in the transfer order of the petitioner passed by the administration in the larger interest of the tribal people. We have heard both parties and perused the record. We find that the petitioner, in his 15 years of service, has mostly served in nontribal areas and for a very brief period he served in tribal area. In the month of August 2013, when the petitioner was transferred to tribal area he approached the President of Thane Zilla Parishad and on the recommendations of the President his transfer order was cancelled and he was again transferred in nontribal area. The petitioner is discharging his duties as Block Development Officer. It is submitted that the petitioner was relieved from his duties from Kalyan in the month of May 2014. Thereafter the petitioner is on leave and some other officer is holding charge. It is unfortunate that the petitioner is not honouring the transfer order. The petitioner could have joined the transferred post without prejudice to his rights and subject to result of this petition. Taking over all view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this petition and interfere with the transfer order. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. In view of dismissal of petition, civil application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) Sanjay Nanoskar, P.S..

Order - Status 4: NITIN DINKAR JAGTAP Digitally signed by NITIN DINKAR JAGTAP Date: 2021.10.09 12:06:01 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel … Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents Mr.S.G.Kudle for the Petitioner. Mr.S.B.Kalel, AGP for the State. Mr.Saurabh Oka for Respondent No. 8. CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 8TH OCTOBER, 2021 P.C. : The Respondents shall file their respective Affidavits-in-Reply within a period of one week from today. Stand over to 18th October, 2021. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ) ( S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. )

Order - Status 6: 69.6555-21-wp.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel ….. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….. Respondents Mr. S.G.Kudale for the petitioner Mr.Prashant Suryawansh i/b Mr.G.M.Savagave for the respondents Smt.A.A.Purav, A.G.P. for the State Mr.Saurabh Oak for the respondent no.1 CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA & VINAY JOSHI, JJ. DATED : APRIL 12, 2022 P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner was apprised of the fact that the order that is sought to be challenged is passed in Second Appeal. The proper procedure is to move the second appellate court if the petitioner feels that fraud is being played by the respondents. The order passed in Second Appeal i.e. Civil Court cannot be challenged by way of Writ Petition. The Second Appeal is under the Civil Jurisdiction. The order is passed below Exhibit 1 in Regular TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Digitally signed by TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2022.04.18 15:14:04 +0530 Darkhast also. If the petitioner contends that the fraud has been played by the respondents then the proper procedure is to challenge the said order obtained by fraud before the appropriate forum and not in Writ Petition. Provisions of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure would come into play. The learned counsel for the petitioner may consider this aspect. Stand over to 07.06.2022. (VINAY JOSHI, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel Thr Her Att Nasir Nuruddin Patel ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....RESPONDENT Mr. Shikur Gafur Kudle for Petitioner Mr. N.K.Rajpurohit, AGP for Respondent-State Mr. Prashant R. Suryawanshi i/b Mr. G.M.Savagave, Advocate for R.No.6 & 7 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ DATE : 7th June, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 28/06/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel Thr Her Att Nasir Nuruddin Patel ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ DATE : 28th June, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 03/08/2022 . 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 WRIT PETITION NO. 6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel Thr Her Att Nasir Nuruddin Patel ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. M. SATHAYE, JJ DATE : 13th February, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 27/03/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 6555 OF 2021 VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Shankerabanu Afsar Patel ….Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ….Respondents Digitally signed by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date: 2023.03.10 14:32:26 +0530 Mr. S.K. Kudle, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. N.K. Rajpurohit, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 Mr. P.r. Suryawanshi i/by Mr. G.M. Savagave for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 Mr. Ketan Dhavle i/by Mr. Saurabh Oka, Advocate for Respondent No.8 Mr. T.J. Pandian, Advocate for Respondent No.5 Mr. S.S. Aradhye, Advocate for Respondent No.6 CORAM:- R.D. DHANUKA & GAURI GODSE, JJ. DATE :- 6TH MARCH, 2023. P. C.: The Petitioner has impugned the order passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 690 of 2014 in this Writ Petition, on the ground that fraud is committed by some of the Respondents in obtaining the order in Second Appeal No. 690/2014. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 raises an issue regarding maintainability of this Writ Petition. Our attention is invited to the order dated 12th April, 2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. By the said order, dated 12th April, 2022, this Court has already observed; if the Petitioner contends that the fraud has been played by the Respondents then the proper procedure is to be challenge the said order obtained by fraud before the appropriate forum and not in Writ Petition. Provisions of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure would come into play. This Court after making these observations, directed the learned counsel for the Petitioner to consider this aspect. Mr. Kudale, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that since the fraud is committed in obtaining the order in Second Appeal, this Court can set aside the order passed in Second Appeal, in Writ Petition. We are afraid, we cannot accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner . Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the correctness of the order passed in Second Appeal for want of jurisdiction. If any appropriate proceedings are filed by the Petitioner, the same shall be decided on its own merits. All contentions of the parties are kept open. (GAURI GODSE, J.) ( R.D.DHANUKA, J. )

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 17th January, 2020 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 07/02/2020 . In case any ad-interim/interim relief is operating till today, the said order will continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar And Ors ....RESPONDENT for Petitioner for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 30th November, 2022 P.C. : Wrongly on board. Remove from the Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 11: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 439 OF 2022 Parekh Market Premises Co-op Ltd. ....APPLICANT V/S Shree Padmanabh Builders, Ghatkopar And Ors. ...RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh And Ors PETITIONER V/S Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar And Ors RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15545 OF 2022 Mr. Nirmal Madanlal Tater And Anr PETITIONER V/S Shri Padmanabh Builders And Ors RESPONDENT Mr. Amit Shroff a/w Ashna Shah i/by HARISH SHROFF AND CO for Petitioner Kishore D. Shah for Respondent No.1 & 2 Mr. Karl K. Shroff i/by Mr. Kalpesh Nansi Adv. for R. No. in wp No.15545/22 & Petioner in WP 11053/2019 Mr. Sachin Punde, Adv. for R. No. 6 & 7 in CRA & Petitioner in WP CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 23rd January, 2023 P.C. : S. O. to 06/02/2023 ( at 2.30 pm). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 439 OF 2022 Parekh Market Premises Co-op Ltd. ....APPLICANT V/S Shree Padmanabh Builders, Ghatkopar And Ors. ...RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15545 OF 2022 Mr. Nirmal Madanlal Tater And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Shri Padmanabh Builders And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 20th February, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 10/04/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.439 OF 2022 [Parekh Vs. Shree Padmanabh] WITH WRIT PETITION NO.15545 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.11053 OF 2019 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders. Mr. Amit Shroff, Advocate a/w. Ashna Shah i/b Harish Shroff & Co. for Applicant in CRA/439/2022. Mr. Sachin S. Punde, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP/15545/2022. Mr. Karl K. Shroff, Advocate i/b. Kalpesh J. Nansi for the Petitioner in WP/11053/2019. Mr.V.V. Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate a/w. K.D. Shah for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in all matters. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 25th APRIL, 2023 P.C.: Due to paucity of time, both sides agree that the matters can be heard post-vacation. By way of interim arrangement, learned counsel of both sides agree that the affidavit-in-evidence can be filed in the suit, however, the cross-examinations may not be conducted till these matters are heard by this Court on the next occasion. Therefore, this arrangement shall continue till the next date of listing before this Court. Stand over to 25.7.2023. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) Deshmane (PS)

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 439 OF 2022 Parekh Market Premises Co-op Ltd. ...Applicant. Versus Shree Padmanabh Builders, Ghatkopar & Ors. ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15545 OF 2022 Nirmal Madanlal Tater & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus Padmanabh Builders & Ors. ...Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh & Ors. ...Petitioner. Versus Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar & Ors. ...Respondent. Mr. Amit Shroff i/b Harish Shroff and Co. for the applicant in CRA & respondent No.1 in WP 11053/2019. Mr. Kishore D. Shah for the respondent No. 1 & 2 in CRA and respondent no.1 in WP 11053/2019. Mr. Kalpesh Nansi for respondent No 3 & 5. in CRA & WP 15545/2022 & Petitioner in WP 11053/2019. Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : July 25, 2023. P. C. : Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on production board. $Patil_{SR}$ 1 of 2 Application has been moved seeking extension of ad-interim relief granted vide order dated 25th April 2023. List the matter on 31st July 2023 . Interim arrangement recorded in the order dated 25th April 2023 to continue till the next date. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Amit Shroff i/b Mr. Kalpesh Nansi for the Petitioners. Mr. Virendra V. Tulzapurkar i/b Mr. Kishore D. Shah for Respondent No. 1. Ms. Ashna Shah i/b Mr. Harish Shroff & Co. for Respondent No.4. —————— —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : July 31, 2023. P. C. : Heard. The challenge in the Petition is to the order dated 24th April 2019 allowing the Notice of Motion No. 3320 of 2015 preferred by the original Respondent No. 1 seeking recall of the order dated 15th July, 2015. Heard Mr. Amit Shroff, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Dr. Virendra V. Tulzapurkar, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 and Ms. Ashna Shah, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4. Mr. Shroff, Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submit that the Petitioners are one of the unit holders of first floor of the property known as Parekh Market and would submit that in view of termination of the Power of Attorney by Respondent No. 2 on 7th February, 2000 the Respondent No. 1 does not acquire any right to continue with the proceeding. He would further submit that the termination was challenged by the Respondent No. 1 which was taken right up to Apex Court in an application filed by Respondent No. 2 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and has been held to be time barred. He has taken to this Court to the order 24th November, 2006 passed by the Single Judge of this Court holding that the counter claim which was filed on 9th August, 2004 will not be maintainable in terms of the provisions of the Limitation Act. He would further submit that the Power of Attorney was in respect of the tenants who were occupying part of the property admeasuring 2455 sq. ft. and has nothing to do with the Respondent No. 4 society in which the Petitioners are one of the Unit holders. He has invited the attention of this Court to the Power of Attorney dated 8th June, 1990 which is at page No. 204 of the Petition and would submit that the proceedings in question have been instituted on the basis of this Power of Attorney. He would submit that the power which was given under the Power of Attorney was to file against the occupants of the structures which forms part of the portion of land admeasuring 2455 sq. ft. He would further submit that the said Power of Attorney having been terminated which challenge has failed right up to Apex court, Respondent No. 1 does not acquire any right to act on behalf of Respondent No. 2. He would further contend that the agreement which was executed with the unit holders was on 6th February, 1987 which was prior to the execution of the Power of Attorney. He would further urge that the Trial Court while allowing the Notice of Motion has failed to take into consideration the orders of the Single Judge of this Court as well as the Apex Court which upheld that the counter claim filed was barred by limitation. He would urge that as the challenge to the termination of the Power of Attorney has failed, the Power of Attorney cannot be said to be subsisting. He would further assail the finding of the Trial Court on the ground that the Trial Court has erroneously recorded that the affidavits filed by Defendant Nos. 2 to 4, no ground has been taken that the Power of Attorney concerned only the tenants and not the Defendant Nos. 2 to 4. He would further submit that the Trial Court has given specific findings in respect of the Power of Attorney being an irrevocable Power of Attorney was given for consideration coupled with interest. He would urge that by these findings, the challenge if any, to the Power of Attorney has been foreclosed by the Trial Court. Per contra, Dr. Virendra Tuljapurkar, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent-Plaintiff submits that the Notice of Motion was taken out by the Respondent for setting aside the order dated 15th July, 2015 listing the matter for dismissal under Order 39 Rule 11 of the CPC. He would further contend that the entire issue which was for consideration before the Trial Court was the application of provisions of Order 39 Rule 11 of the CPC and it is in that context, that the Trial Court has examined the Power of Attorney and has held that the provisions of Order 39 Rule 11 is not attracted in the present case. He would further submit that the order dated 15th July, 2015 was passed as the Trial Court had directed the original Plaintiff to appear in the Court. He would submit that the original Plaintiff, if required, will appear before the Court and in the present case, the only inquiry is the impugned order permitting recall of order of dismissal. He would further urge that in exercise to the power under Article 227, this Court may not go into the merits of an interlocutory order. Considered the submissions and perused the papers. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has made submissions as regards the validity of the Power of Attorneys which have been executed by the Respondent No. 2 in favour of Respondent No. 1. Perusal of the impugned order dated 24th April, 2019 discloses that the application was moved seeking recall of the order dated 15th July, 2015 keeping the matter for dismissal for non compliance of the order directing presence of the original Plaintiff by invoking the powers under Order 39 Rule 11 of the CPC. The Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion seeking recall of the order contends that there was a development agreement entered into in favour of the Respondent No. 1 and the possession was handed over for valuable consideration on a partly developed property and building was constructed thereon and various tenements were sold. The contention advanced was that Respondent No. 1 was granted irrevocable Power of Attorney as well as other Power of Attorney as required for development of the said properties and as such, considering the provisions of section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 the Power of Attorney is a power coupled with interest and hence, irrevocable. Apart from the prayer of seeking recall of the order an alternate prayer was sought that the Applicant be substituted in place of the Plaintiff under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which was not allowed and only the relief of recall of the order of dismissal was sought. It is in the context of the contentions taken up by the Respondent No. 1 for the purpose of assailing the order of dismissal that the Trial Court has gone into the issue as to whether the Power of Attorney is a power coupled with interest. After observing the provisions of section 2022 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 the Court has held that at this stage the Defendant No. 2 to 4 cannot challenge the validity of the power of Attorney which would otherwise be the matter in issue and can only be decided when both the parties will get an opportunity to lead evidence into that effect. The order of the Trial Court is clear in paragraph No. 10 that the issue which was being considered by the Trial Court was only the order dated 15th July, 2015 listing the matter for dismissal by invoking the provisions under Order 39 Rule 11 which according to the Trial Court was not applicable in the given circumstances. The Trial Court specifically observed that the documents place on record by the parties are subject matter of the evidence and therefore, for continuation of the suit on merits, the order dated 15th July, 2015 needs to be recalled and the suit needs to be proceeded on merits. In my view upon reading of the impugned order 24th April, 2019 it cannot be said that by the said order, the Trial Court has conclusively held that the Power of Attorneys which have been pressed into service by the Respondent No. 1 are irrevocable Power of Attorney given for consideration coupled with interest. On the contrary it appears that the Trial Court has held that the documents which are placed are the subject matter of evidence and only for the purpose of continuation of the suit on merits, at that stage, the order dated 15th July, 2015 was recalled. Considering that the impugned order only recalls the order of dismissal dated 15th July, 2015 no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition being devoid of merits stand dismissed. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6730 OF 2023 AND WRIT PETITION NO.6731 OF 2023 AND WRIT PETITION NO.6732 OF 2023 AND WRIT PETITION NO.6733 OF 2023 M/s. Rishi Construction .. Petitioner Vs. Municipal Corporation for the City of Kalyan Dombivali & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. D.S. Mhaispurkar a/w. Mr. Hrishikesh Pawaskar a/w. Mr. S.M. Mangaonkar, for the Petitioner in all petitions. Mr. A.S. Rao, for Respondent Nos.1 & 2-Corporation. Ms. M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent No.3-State. CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & R.N. LADDHA, JJ DATE : 7TH JUNE, 2023. P.C. : Leave to file additional documents on record is granted to the petitioner. Issue notice for final disposal at the admission stage to the respondents, returnable on 21st June, 2023. Mr. A.S. Rao, learned counsel waives service of notice for Respondent Nos.1 and 2-Corporation. Learned AGP waives service of notice for Respondent No.3-State. Stand over to 21st June, 2023. [ R.N. LADDHA, J. ] [ SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J. ]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6730 OF 2023 M/s. Rishi Construction ....PETITIONER V/S Municipal Corporation For The City Of Kalyan Dombivali Thru Municipal Commissioner And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6731 OF 2023 M/s. Rishi Construction ....PETITIONER V/S Municipal Corporation For The City Of Kalyan Dombivali Thru Municipal Commissioner And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6732 OF 2023 M/s. Rishi Construction ....PETITIONER V/S Municipal Corporation For The City Of Kalyan Dombivali Thru Municipal Commissioner And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6733 OF 2023 M/s. Rishi Construction ....PETITIONER V/S Municipal Corporation For The City Of Kalyan Dombivali Thru Municipal Commissioner And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUNIL B. SHUKRE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ DATE : 21st June, 2023 P.C. : Wrongly on board. Remove from the Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8514/2018 Prashanti CHS Ltd. … Petitioner V/s. District Dy. Registrar of Cooperative Society & Ors. … Respondents Mr. Zain Mookhi a/w. Ms. Palak Patel & Ms. Janhavi Doshi i/b. Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co. for the Petitioner CORAM: K.K. TATED & S. K. SHINDE, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 4, 2018 P.C. : 1 Heard. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner challenges the order dated 31.05.2016 passed by the learned District Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mumbai – 4, the competent authority u/s.5A of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the promotion of construction, sale, management and transfer) Act,1963 rejecting the Petitioner's Application for deemed conveyance. 2 Hence, office to verify and place the matter before appropriate Bench. (S. K. SHINDE, J.) ( K. K. TATED, J. ) Basavraj Gurappa Patil Digitally signed by Basavraj Gurappa Patil Date: 2018.10.06 13:23:16 +0530 Basavraj G. Patil 1/1

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8514 OF 2018 Prashanti CoOp. Hsg. Society Ltd. … Petitioner V/s. District Deputy Registrar of Coop. Society & Ors. … Respondents Mr. Zain Mookhi a/w Ms. Palak Patel and Ms. Janhavi Doshi for the Petitioner. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1 State. CORAM : V.L. ACHLIYA, J. DATE : 13th FEBRUARY, 2019. P.C. : Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 13.03.2019. Learned A.G.P. waives the notice for Respondent No.1. In addition the service through the process of Court, the Petitioner is granted liberty to serve the Respondents by all other modes of service as permissible in law. Parties are put to notice that Petition may be heard finally at the stage of admission. (V.L. ACHLIYA, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8514 OF 2018 Prashanti Cooperative Housing Society Limited .....Petitioner V/s. District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative .....Respondents Society and others Mr. Zain M. a/w Ms. Janhavi Doshi i/b Mansukhlal H. & Co. for the Petitioner Mr. Sandeep Maurya for Respondent no. 6 Mr. Rajesh A. Kanojia for Respondent nos. 2 to 5 CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE : MARCH 13, 2019. P.C. The learned counsel appearing for Respondents seek three weeks time so as to enable them to file reply. 2 Time is granted as prayed for. Stand over to 08/04/2019. Needless to observe that copy of the reply be served upon the learned counsel for the Petitioner in advance. [S. S. SHINDE, J.]

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8514 OF 2018 Prashanti Co-operative Housing Society Limited ….. Petitioner VERSUS District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Society & Ors. ….. Respondents Mr.Zain Mookhi, i/b. Mansukhlal Hiralal & Company for the Petitioner. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P. for the Respondent no.1. Ms.Krishna Borkate, i/b. Mr.R.A.Kanojia for the Respondent nos. 3 to 5. Mr.Sandeep Maurya for the Respondent no.6. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : th APRIL, 2019 8 P.C . Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 3 to 5 by way of last opportunity prays for time till 22nd April,2019 for filing reply. Time granted as prayed for as last opportunity. A copy of the reply shall be served in advance upon the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. List the writ petition on board on 26th April,2019. [S.S.SHINDE, J.]

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8514 OF 2018 Prashanti Co-operative Housing Society Limited ....Petitioner V/S District Deputy Registrar Of Cooperative Society ....Respondent And Ors CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J DATE : 26th April, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for 19.07.2019. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: 44-WP-8514-18.DOC Sayali Upasani IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.- 8514 OF 2018 Prashanti Co-Op Hsg. Soc. Ltd ...Petitioner Vs. District Deputy Registrar of Co-op Soc. And Others ...Respondents Ms. Sayali Puri i/b Mansukhlal Hiralal and Co., for Petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Maurya, for Respondent No. 6. Mr. Rajesh Parwani, for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Mr. S. H. Kankale, AGP for State. CORAM:- N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED:- 3rd JULY, 2023 PC:- Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. Parwani, the learned Counsel submits that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and undertakes to file Vakalatnama. It seems that the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have already filed an affidavit-in-reply. By way of final indulgence, three weeks time is granted to the Counsel to file Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and work out the matter. Stand over to 24th July, 2023. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8514 OF 2018 Prashanti Co-operative Housing Society Limited....PETITIONER V/S District Deputy Registrar Of Cooperative Society And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR J DATE : 24th July, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 07/08/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8514 OF 2018 Prashanti Co-operative Housing Society Limited....PETITIONER V/S District Deputy Registrar Of Cooperative Society And Ors ....RESPONDENT Mr. Akash Rebello a/w Ms. Sayali Puri and Mr. Mohammed Lokhandwala i/b Mansukhlal Hiralal and Co for Petitioner Mr. Piyush Raheja i/b Rajesh Parwani for Respondent No. 2 to 5 Mr. C. D. Mali AGP for State for Respondent No. 1 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE J DATE : 4th September, 2023 P.C. : S. O. to 25/09/2023 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 24: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8514 OF 2018 Prashanti Co-operative Housing Society Limited ...Petitioner Versus District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Society and Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Akash Rebello a/w Ms. Purvi Asheri, Ms. Sayali Puri, Mr. Mohammed Lokhandwala i/by Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co. for Petitioner. … … Mr. Piyush Raheja i/by Mr. Rajesh Parwani, for Respondent Nos.2 to 5. Mr. Sandeep Maurya, for Respondent No.6. Mr. P. P. Pujari, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 25 2023. P.C.: Petitioner-Society has filed this Petition challenging order dated 31 May 2016 passed by District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai City (4) and Competent Authority rejecting the application filed by Petitioner-Society for grant of unilateral deemed conveyance. I have heard Mr. Rebello, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner, Mr. Raheja, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, Mr. Maurya, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.6 and Mr. Pujari, the learned A.G.P. appearing for Respondent No.1. Perusal of the impugned order dated 31 May 2016 would indicate that the main reason why the Competent Authority had rejected the application for deemed conveyance is the alleged amalgamation of plot of Petitioner-Society with the neighbouring plot of Nirmal's Nest Cooperative Housing Society. ("Nirmal's Nest"). Another ground for rejection is nonimpleadment of Nirmal's Nest Society. I find both the grounds of rejection to be totally untenable. Firstly, there is no concrete evidence of two plots being amalgamated. Reliance is placed on a communication issued by the Municipal Corporation on 19 October 2007 for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion that there is amalgamation of plots bearing C.T.S. No.2403 of Plot Eksar and C.T.S. No.436 of Village Borivali. The relevant portion of the communication reads thus: " Your plans submitted of the layout/amalgamation of above plot along with your letter dated 20.10.2006 are approvable as they are as per Development Control Rules, subject to the terms and conditions already registered under No.BDR2-06908-2007 dated 16.10.2007. These terms and conditions of the layout shall be binding not only on the Owners for the time being but also on their heirs executors, administrators, assignees and every person deriving title through or under them. Final approval to the amalgamation/layout will be given after you construct the roads including lighting, drainage, sewerage, etc and recreation amenity spaces is developed by leveling and adequate number of trees are provided on the same. You will please make it clear to your client that in case of breach of any of the terms and conditions, the deposit amount is liable to be forfeited and the permission granted liable to be revoked." The communication of Municipal Corporation dated 19 October 2007 would indicate that the Municipal Corporation had merely stated that the proposal of amalgamation was "approvable". The communication does not approve the amalgamation nor effects such amalgamation. Furthermore, the amalgamation of plots will have to be done by Revenue Authorities and not by Municipal Corporation. Municipal Corporation, being a Planning Authority, may consider whether joint development could be carried out on two neighbouring plots. Actual amalgamation of two C.T.S. numbers will have to be ultimately approved by the revenue authorities. Furthermore even if such amalgamation was to take effect on the basis of communication dated 19 October 2007, the same would have no effect on right of Petitioner-Society to seek deemed conveyance in respect of plot bearing C.T.S No.436, Village Borivali. It is submitted that a common developer appointed by Petitioner and Nirmal's Nest Society, who had decided to construct building on both plots and had moved a proposal before MCGM for sanctioning plans on amalgamated plots. That the said developer had already been removed and at present there is no proposal for effecting joint development on two plots. Be that as it may. The amalgamation has not actually been effected and even if it was to be effected, the same would not defeat the right of the Petitioner-Society to seek deemed conveyance. The ground of non impleadment of Nirmal's Nest Society for rejection of unilateral deemed conveyance by the competent authority is also unfounded. The Petitioner-Society is claiming deemed conveyance of land on which its building is standing. For considering that application, why presence of neighbouring society is necessary is difficult to fathom. I am therefore of the view that the presence of Nirmal's Nest Society is not necessary while deciding application for grant of unilateral deemed conveyance in favour of Petitioner-Society. I therefore find that the impugned order dated 31 May 2016 passed by the competent authority to be indefensible. The competent authority is required to ignore the aspect of amalgamation and reconsider the application filed by Petitioner-society for grant of deemed conveyance. Accordingly, order dated 31 May 2016 is set aside and the proceedings are remanded to the competent authority for a fresh decision. All contention of parties, except on issues of amalgamation and joinder of Nirmal Nest Society, are let open. The Writ Petition is accordingly partly allowed. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)