All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7840 of 2016 M/s. Hotel Keepers & Halwai Co-op.Soc.Ltd. ….Petitioner versus Controller of Rationing, Royal Insurance Building, Churchgate and ors. …Respondents Mr. S. P. Kanuga, advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Aparna D. Vhatkar, AGP for the State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE & ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. DATE : 13th JULY, 2016. P. C. : Having heard Mr. Kanuga, learned counsel for the petitioner, we direct learned AGP to file reply before the returnable date. Stand over to 27th July, 2016. (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) [RANJIT MORE, J.]

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7840 OF 2016 M/s. Hotel Keepers And Halwai Co.op. Soc.ltd. ....Petitioner V/S Controller Of Rationing And Ors ....for Respondent Sheroo Kanuga ....for Petitioner Mr. P.p. Kakde, Government Pleader, R.no. 1 To 3. ....Respondent CORAM : RANJIT MORE. & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ DATE : 3rd August, 2016 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the petitioner, Stand over to 10/08/2016. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7840 OF 2016 M/s. Hotel Keepers And Halwai Co.op. Soc.ltd. ....Petitioner V/S Controller Of Rationing And Ors ....Respondent SHEROO KANUGA GOVERNMENT PLEADER WRIT CELLR.NO. 1 TO 3 CORAM : RANJIT MORE. & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ DATE : 10th August, 2016 P.C. : Mentioned. At the request of learned advocate for the petitioner Stand over to 18/08/2016. Ad-interim relief if any granted earlier to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL AND CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION AND ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM: S.S. KEMKAR & M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED: 18th August 2016 PC: The following matters on Balance Board / Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. The matters will appear on the dates as may be fixed by C.M.I.S. Civil Appellate Side C.M.I.S. Date Original Side C.M.I.S. Date 216, 217 28/08/16 218, 224 29/08/16 225 14/10/16 146 24/10/16 223 03/10/16 210, 211, 212, 213, 214 27/10/16 147, 204 07/04/17 215, 219, 220, 222, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 238, 239, 240 15/11/16 141 23/12/16 142, 143, 144, 145, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 100, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184 06/03/17 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 221, 226, 227 07/03/17 141, 147, 168, 178, 204, 218, 223, 224, 237 16/09/16 If in any of the above matters, adinterim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If the adinterim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (M.S. KARNIK, J.) (S.S. KEMKAR, J.)

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATTE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7840 OF 2016 M/s. Hotel Keepers and Halwai CSL ...Petitioner vs. Controller of Rationing and Others ...Respondents Mr. Sheroo Kanuga, for the Petitioner Mr. P.P. Kakade, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2State. CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & MAKARAND KARNIK, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 30, 2016 P.C.: . Not on board. Upon mentioning taken on board. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission. Issue notice to the Respondents. The learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. He seeks time to get instructions and file reply. Three weeks time as prayed for is granted. List the matter on 20th September, 2016. (MAKARAND KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL AND CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION AND ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : S.S. KEMKAR & M. S. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 2 0/09/2016 P.C.: The following matters on balance Board/Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. The matters will appear on the dates as may be fixed as per C.M.I.S. Civil Appellate Side C.M.I.S. Date Original Side C.M.I.S Date 38 27/09/16 63 18/10/16 32, 33,34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54,55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 11/10/16 35, 36 27/07/17 46, 47, 48 16/12/16 In any of the above matters, in case any ad interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, then the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If adinterim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (M.S. KARNIK, J.) (S.S. KEMKAR, J.)

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7840 OF 2016 M/s. Hotel Keepers And Halwai Co.op. Soc.ltd. ....Petitioner V/S Controller Of Rationing And Ors ....Respondent Sheroo Kanuga For Petitioner Mr.V.M.mali.Addl.Government Pleader Writ Cell R.no. 1 To 3 For Respondent CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M. S. KARNIK, JJ DATE : 28th September, 2016 P.C. : Stand over to 01/10/2016. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 25: mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7840 OF 2016 M/s. Hotel Keepers & Halwai CSL ...Petitioner Vs. Controller of Rationing & Ors. ...Respondents Ms. P.P. Bhosale i/b. Mr. S.P. Kanuga, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Vikas Mali, AGP for the State Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED :1ST OCTOBER, 2016 P.C. : Petitioner's Counsel seeks time to file rejoinder. 2 weeks time as prayed for is granted. List as per CMIS date. (M.S. KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)

Order - Status 30: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7840 OF 2016 M/s. Hotel Keepers & Halwai CSL Petitioner vs. Controller of Rationing and others Respondents Mr. Sheroo Kanuga for the petitioner. Mr. Manish M. Pabale, AGP, for the respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM : A.S.OKA, & A. K. MENON, JJ. DATE : 3RD MAY, 2017 P.C. After it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no document placed on record to show that at one stage 187 authorised ration shops were attached to the petitioner, he seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to make an application/representation to the State Government for satisfying the State Government that earlier there were 187 shops attached to the petitioner and out of 187, only 107 shops have been again attached to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. All the contentions on merits are kept open. If such application is made, the same shall be disposed of expeditiously. (A. K. MENON, J.) (A. S. OKA, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2019 Aniket Anand Pawar ...Petitioner Versus Ruchita Aniket Pawar & Ors. ...Respondents …… Mrs. Veena J. Kamble, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. Ruchita Pawar, Respondent No. 1 in person. Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for State. CORAM : S. S. Shinde J. DATED : 12th June, 2019 P.C . Respondents No. 1 is present in Court. Learned APP Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar interacted with Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 has made request to appoint advocate to represent her. Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority to appoint senior advocate from the panel within a period of one week to represent Respondent No. 1. At the request of Respondent No. 1 stand over to 4th July 2019. [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

Order - Status 7: 48-wp-2531-2019.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2019 Mr.Aniket Anand Pawar ...Petitioner Versus Mrs.Ruchita Aniket Pawar & Ors. ...Respondents …... Mrs.Veena J. Kamble for the Petitioner. Mr.Ajit M. Savagave for the Respondents. Mrs.G.P.Mulekar, APP for the Respondent -State. CORAM : S.S.SHINDE J. DATE : 4 JULY 2019 P.C.: The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this matter does not pertain to the assignment of this Court. Hence, remove from board. …... (S.S.SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 9: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2019 Office Notes, Office Memorandam of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- Ms. Veena J. Kamble for the Petitioner. CORAM: SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATE : 22nd OCTOBER 2019. P.C. : 1 Liberty to move before Vacation Court. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)

Order - Status 11: Dond IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2019 Aniket Anand Pawar ..Petitioner Vs Ruchita Aniket Pawar And Ors. ..Respondents Ms. Veena Kamble for the Petitioner. Mr. A.M. Savagave for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 15th November 2019. P.C.: 1] At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that, there is an arrears of Rs.1,42,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent No.1. 2] Before the petitioner be heard on merits, the petitioner is directed to either deposit the said amount of arrears in the Registry of this Court or to pay to the respondent No.1 directly within a period of one month from today. 3] Stand over to 7th January 2020. (A.S.GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2019 Aniket Anand Pawar ....Petitioner V/S Ruchita Aniket Pawar And Ors. ....Respondent None for Petitioner Mr. Ajit M. Savagave a/w Jyotsna Kamble For Respondent Adv.S.S.Hulke APP for State CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J DATE : 22nd January, 2020 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the Respondent No. , Stand over to 29/01/2020 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: Bharat D. Pandit by Bharat D. 13:17:49 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2019 Mr. Aniket Anand Pawar …. Petitioner. V/s Mrs. Ruchita Aniket Pawar and Ors. ….. Respondents. ---- None for the Petitioner. Mr. Ajit M. Savagave for Respondents. Mr. S.S. Hulke, APP for the State. CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE: JANUARY 29, 2020 P.C.:- Stand over to 30/1/2020 for dismissal. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2019 Mr. Aniket Anand Pawar .... Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Ruchita Aniket Pawar & Ors. .... Respondents Smt. Veena J. Kamble for Petitioner Mr. Ajit M. Savagave for Respondents. Ms. P.N. Dabholkar, APP for State. Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. Date : 30th January, 2020 P.C.: The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that in compliance with the last order, the petitioner is willing to deposit an amount of Rs.90,000/- in this Court by tomorrow. The petitioner is present in the Court. Since the statement is made on instructions, the same is accepted as an undertaking. The petitioner is permitted to deposit an amount of Rs.90,000/- as undertaken. The respondent-wife will be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited. The learned Magistrate in a proceeding initiated by the respondent-wife under the provisions of D.V. Act ordered maintenance of Rs.4,000/- and additional Rs.4,000/- towards accommodation expenses, which was modified in appeal under Section 23 of the D.V. Act by reducing the amount of accommodation expenses to Rs.2,000/-. The petitioner-husband feeling aggrieved preferred this petition. The contention of the counsel of the petitioner is, the petitioner is a self employed and though he earns very meager income, he is ready and willing to maintain his wife. According to him, the respondent-wife is resident of Mumbai and presently staying with her parents. He would further urge that there is independent source of income, as the respondent is practising profession of beautician. While countering aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife would urge that the petitioner has neglected to maintain the respondent as the petitioner is in habit of not Dusane 3/4 905 wp 2531.2019.doc attending family duties his routine conduct creates serious doubt that the petitioner has some extra marital affair. According to the respondent, even if the respondent has taken training of beautician, still her earning from such profession is not sufficient to maintain herself. As such, she is forced to stay with her parents. Having appreciated rival submissions, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is self employed person, as such his average income is around Rs.12,000/- to Rs.16,000/- per month i.e. Rs.300/- to Rs.400/- per day. In the aforesaid background order of award of interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month is very much justified. As the respondent-wife is staying with her parents and it is not her case that she intend to stay independently or her parents are incurring expenses towards the rent, the order of award of accommodation charges, in my opinion, is not justified. As such, the order of maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month is confirmed, whereas, the order of award of accommodation charges of Rs.2,000/- per month is quashed and set aside. It is, however, clarified that the petitioner will be liable to pay accommodation charges till this date of the order. In response to the Court query, the petitioner submits that he shall clear entire arrears of maintenance within a period of four weeks from today, which statement is accepted as an undertaking. Let the entire amount be deposited in the Court of Magistrate within four weeks from today, to which the respondent-wife will be entitled to withdraw. The petition is partly allowed. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

Order - Status 19: Dusane 1/1 906.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2019 Mr. Aniket Anand Pawar .... Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Ruchita Aniket Pawar & Ors. .... Respondents Smt. Veena J. Kamble for Petitioner. Shri. Ajit M. Savagave for Respondent Shri. N.B. Patil, APP for State. Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. Date : 5th February, 2020 P.C.: Time to deposit the amount is extended till tomorrow, i.e. 6th February, 2020. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

Order - Status 2: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 15223 OF 2018 Tetra Park India Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner V/S The Union Of India And Ors. ....Respondent Mr Prakash Shah i/b Pds Legal For CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI HARISH DANGRE, JJ DATE : 4th June, 2018 P.C. : Mentioned at 11.00 a,m, Place the matter on board for urgent admission on 11/06/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6151 OF 2018 Tetra Park India Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner V/S The Union Of India And Ors. ....Respondent Mr Prakash Shah, i/b Pds Legal For Petitioner Mr Pradeep S.Jetly a/w D.P.Singh for Respdt. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI HARISH DANGRE, JJ DATE : 11th June, 2018 P.C. : Stand over to 12/06/2018 at 3.00 p.m,. Mr Jetly has tendered affidavit in Court is kept in matter. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6151 OF 2018 Tetra Pak India Pvt. Ltd. } Petitioner versus The Union of India and Ors. } Respondents Mr. Prakash Shah i/b. M/s. PDS Legal for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly with Mr. D. P. Singh for respondent nos. 1 to 3. CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ. DATE :- JUNE 12, 2018 P.C. :- After this writ petition was heard on the earlier occasion and even today, Mr. Jetly, on seeking instructions from the Joint Director General, Foreign Trade, who is also the deponent of the affidavit and present in court, states that the said Joint Director General will grant the petitioner the licences which are subject matter of the petition, namely, licence authorisation under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS) and the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) and allow the petitioner to avail of the benefits of the schemes, that of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2015-2020. However, this is subject and without prejudice as well to the powers conferred in the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade/Directorate of Foreign Trade under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. We accept these statements made on instructions by Mr.Jetly as undertakings given to this court. In the light thereof, we are of the opinion that once licences would be granted in pursuance of the petitioner's applications, then, the orders of rejection of these applications made earlier do not survive. They stand quashed and set aside. Needless to clarify that once the above statements are made on behalf of the Union of India, Ministry of Commerce and the Director General and the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, then, respondent no. 4-Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva shall not preclude or prevent the clearance of the consignments of the petitioner provided the petitioner can seek the benefit of the licences. The communication dated 14th May, 2018 from the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva Customs House Exhibit "II" to the petition to stand quashed and set aside. The writ petition is disposed of. (SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7085 OF 2004 Hiralal Narayan Harihar .. Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents. Mrs.V.B.Thadani for the petitioner. Mr.R.M.Sawant with Mr.P.I.Khemani for the respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 26TH OCTOBER, 2004 P.C.: . In view of notification dated 7th August, 2004 Mrs.Thadani, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of this petition. The writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.7727 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------ Office NOtes, Office Court or Judge's Order Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's order --------------------------------------------------- Shri T.B.Bhosale for petitioner. CORAM: A.P.SHAH J. 14th October,2005 P.C. . Issue notice before admission to the respondents retutrnable on 28th November, 2005. Notice to indicate that the petition shall be disposed of at the admission stage. . Notice of the State Govt. to be served on the Government Pleader, High Court (Appellate Side,Writ Cell) Bombay.

Order - Status 5: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.523 OF 2008 Yeshwant Prabhakar Meshram & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. The Hon'ble Registrar, District Court, Chandrapur & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.P.P.Thakare i/b D.D. Fulzele for the petitioners Mr.V.S.Masurkar, G.P. for the respondents CORAM : J.N.PATEL & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED : 25TH JANUARY, 2008 P.C.: Heard. These two petitioners have approached this court seeking a declaration that they are entitled for being considered for the candidature for selection and entitled to appear for the written examination to be held on 27.1.08 for the post of Clerk and Peon respectively on the establishment of District and Sessions Court, Chandrapur and therefore, this court should direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear for the written examination to be held on 27.01.2008. In view of the fact that the examinations are going to be held on 27.01.2008, we called upon the learned G.P. to get instructions from the Principal, District and Sessions Judge, Chandrapur. Accordingly, the communication received in respect of both the candidates from the Principal, District and Sessions Judge, Chandrapur is placed on record. Copies are furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioners. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned G.P. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are eligible in all respects and qualify for being considered for appointment to the post of Clerk and Peon respectively. 2 The communication received from the Principal, District and Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in respect of Petitioner, Yashwant Prabhakar Meshram clearly indicates that he has not filled in the required information and therefore, his application form came to be rejected as the advertisement clearly provides for want of complete information, the application form will not be considered and will be rejected. Similarly, in case of Bhimrao Maroti Undirwade, he not only failed to provide the necessary information but also did not calculate his age correctly. Well, the incorrect calculation of age will not make any difference but the other deficiencies are of substantial nature. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, we find that as the petitioners have failed to furnish the required information which is of substantial nature, for this deficiency the respondent Principal, District and Sessions Judge, Chandrapur was justified in rejecting their application. As such, the petition is dismissed. 3 The communication received from the Principal, District and Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in respect of the petitioners be retained on record and marked 'X' collectively for identification. ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J )

Order - Status 4: Ashwini IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1360 OF 2023 SBI Cap Ventures Ltd …Petitioner Versus Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Bengaluru Zonal Office & Ors …Respondents Mr Shyam Mehta, Senior Advocate *, with Pranav Badheka, Ranjit Shetty, Yuvraj Choksy, Tejas Gokhale & Rahul Dev, i/b Argus Partners, for the Petitioner.* CORAM G.S. Patel & Dr Neela Gokhale, JJ. DATED: 6th February 2023 PC:- 1. Prima facie we are unable to see how the impugned order of 11th August 2022 could have been passed in respect of the flats, apartments and properties in the residential project previously known as Mantri Serenity. These apartments and properties that were mortgaged to the Petitioners against security for repayment of funding advanced by the Petitioner. The papers annexed to the Petition prima facie do not show that these apartments and properties were claimed by the Respondents to be, or to have been, 'proceeds of crime' as required under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. ASHWINI HULGOJI GAJAKOSH Digitally signed by ASHWINI HULGOJI GAJAKOSH Date: 2023.02.08 10:04:04 +0530 2. We grant ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) at page 44 which reads thus: "(c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the Respondents, their servants, officers, agents and representatives from acting upon and/taking any coercive steps/implementing the impugned order dated August 11, 2022 bearing reference no. F.No. ECIR/BGZO/31/2022/1667 issued by the Respondent No.2." 3. This order will continue until the next date. We request the Attorneys for the Petitioners to give fresh notice enclosing a copy of this order. The matter is to be listed on 20th February 2023 under the caption for interim relief. 4. Both sides are put to notice that, on the next date, an endeavour will be made to dispose of the Petition at the stage of admission. (Dr Neela Gokhale, J) (G. S. Patel, J)

Order - Status 6: Arun IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1360 OF 2023 SBICAP Ventures Ltd …Petitioner Versus Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Bengaluru Zonal Office & Ors …Respondents Mr Yuvraj Choksy *, with Tejas Gokhale, i/b Argus Partner, for the Petitioner.* CORAM G.S. Patel & Neela Gokhale, JJ. DATED: 20th February 2023 PC:- 1. Mentioned out of turn. 2. The ad-interim order dated 6th February 2023 will continue until 17th March 2023. 3. List the matter on 15th March 2023. ARUN RAMCHNDRA SANKPAL Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHNDRA SANKPAL Date: 2023.02.21 09:53:05 +0530 (Neela Gokhale, J) (G. S. Patel, J)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1360 OF 2023 Sbicap Ventures Ltd. ....PETITIONER V/S Joint Director, Directorate Of Enforcement , Bengaluru Zonal Office And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. PATEL & HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE, JJ DATE : 15th March, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 20/03/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: Gaikwad RD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1360 OF 2023 SBICAP Ventures Ltd, A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and presently operating as per the Companies Act, 2013, having its registered office at 202, Maker Tower "E", Cuff Parade, Mumbai 400 005. …Petitioner ~ versus ~ 1. Joint director, Directorate of Enforcement (Bengaluru zonal office), having office at 3rd Floor, 'B' Block, BMTC, Shantinagar, TTMC, K.H. Road, Shantinagar, Bangalore, Karnataka 560 027. 2. Deputy director, Directorate of Enforcement (Bengalure zonal office), having office at 3rd Floor, 'B' Block, BMTC, Shantinagar, TTMC, K.H. Road, Shantinagar, Bangalore, Karnataka 560 027. 3. Assistant director, Directorate of Enforcement (Bengaluru zonal office), having office at 3rd Floor, 'B' Block, BMTC, Shantinagar, TTMC, K.H. Road, Shantinagar, Bangalore, Karnataka 560 027. …Respondents APPEARANCES for the petitioner Mr Shyam Mehta, Senior Counsel, with Pranav Badheka, Ranjit Shetty, Yuvraj Choksy & Tejas Gokhale, i/b Argus Partners. for respondents Mr Harsh Dedhia, i/b HS Venegavkar. CORAM : G.S.Patel & Neela Gokhale, JJ. DATED : 20th March 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per GS Patel J) :- 1. Rule . Having heard both sides and considered the material, we do not think there is any possible answer to this Petition and therefore we make Rule returnable forthwith and take up the Petition for hearing and final disposal. 2. The Petitioner is SBICAP Ventures Ltd (" SBICAP "). It is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 2013 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of SBI Capital Markets Ltd, which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of the State Bank of India (" SBI "). 3. The challenge in the Petition is to an order of 11th August 2022 passed by the 2nd Respondent, the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Bengaluru Zonal Office. The 1st Respondent is the Joint Director of the Directorate of Enforcement. Both are Authorities under Section 49 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (" PMLA "). The 2nd Respondent enjoys powers conferred under PMLA read with the Prevention of Money Laundering (Issuance of Provisional Attachment Order) Rules 2013 (" POA Rules "). The 3rd Respondent is an Assistant Director of the Directorate of Enforcement, also appointed under Section 49 of the PMLA. 4. The 11th August 2022 impugned order is a provisional attachment of assets worth Rs. 300,43,00,000/-, i.e., over Rs. 300 crores. The attachment was supposed to be in respect of 'assets' of the Mantri Group which includes two entities and one individual, (a) Castles Vista Pvt Ltd, (b) Mantri Developers and (c) Sushil Mantri. SBICAP has a beneficial interest in some assets of Castles Vista. 5. The Mantri Group, essentially through Castles Vista had undertaken a development of a project known as "Mantri Serenity" valued at over Rs. 285 crores. SBICAP had a first charge over certain units in that project. Because of the 11th August 2022 order, that first charge of SBICAP is compromised and has directly Page 3 of 13 20th March 2023 affected the funding being sought by flat purchasers in respect of those units. There is, in paragraph 5, a mention of orders of 2020 and 2022 by the Karnataka High Court staying the operation of the FIR of the predicate offence under the PMLA. The FIR regarding the predicate offence was thus, it is submitted, not in effect or operational at the time of the 11th August 2022 impugned order. 6. A brief background about the investment of SBICAP in the project is from paragraph 6. In 2019, the Union Government approved the setting up of a Special Window in the form of an Alternate Investment Fund (" AIF "). This was to provide priority debt financing specifically to complete housing projects that had been interrupted or stalled and which were meant for the affordable or middle income housing sector. SBICAP is the Investment Manager of the first AIF established under the Special Window. It formed a fund called the "Special Window for Affordable and Middle-Income Housing Investment Fund-I" also known as the SWAMIH Investment Fund-I (" SWAMIH "). This fund is registered with the Securities Exchange Board of India (" SEBI "). Its sponsor is the Government of India itself. The idea was to invest in stalled residential projects which did not enjoy support from conventional banking channels. Obviously, the objective was directed towards welfare to provide relief to home buyers, to realize the completion of projects so that home buyers could actually get possession of their long-promised homes. The fund's mandate is to invest in projects to achieve completion. There is no regular interest servicing requirement until the project is complete. The entire intent is to mitigate the debt servicing burden. Two timelines Page 4 of 13 20th March 2023 operate in parallel: the first is a stricter timeline for project completion and the second is a relaxed timeline for debt repayment. 7. Many such projects were stalled across the country for various reasons. While the Petition does not actually say this, in this Court itself, at least four and possibly six Mantri Group projects have received this Court's attention. Some of those matters came before one of us, GS Patel J, sitting singly in the company jurisdiction. One group involved two projects in Bengaluru itself. One was brought to completion with the cooperation of the land owners and the flat purchasers who formed an association. Possession was delivered. There were similar projects in Gwalior, Solapur, a second project in Bengaluru and at least two projects in Mumbai. In every one of these cases, there were distressed buyers either for residential or commercial properties. Many of them had taken loans from banks, but without the project being completed, these purchasers were confronted with having to service the debt on their own but without any prospect of realizing the asset for which they had taken the loan in the first place. This is the kind of stressed situation that is the underlying philosophy of SWAMIH. SWAMIH steps in to ensure project completion while closely monitoring fund spending. The funding is only for project completion. No amount of funding is allowed to be diverted. Sums that are due and are collected from purchasers are held in an escrow account controlled by SWAMIH and these are also used only for construction-related expenses. The entire fund is driven by financial input from the Government of India and other public sector financial institutions including Life Insurance Corporation and SBI itself. There is thus a clear fiduciary responsibility. Page 5 of 13 20th March 2023 8. In December 2004, Castles Vista was incorporated. Mantri Developers held the majority stake. Sushil Mantri and his wife held the remainder. There was a Joint Development Agreement of 29th September 2010 with one Gokulam Shelters Pvt Ltd for the development of a residential project called Mantri Serenity. The agreement contemplated that another entity in the Mantri Group, Krishna Lila Park Foundation, and Gokulam would respectively receive 27% and 3% from the sale proceeds. The project had five phases. Each phase had a separate Real Estate Regulatory Authority (" RERA ") registration. Castles Vista made an investment of Rs. 650 crores which it obtained with financing from Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd. 9. Ten years went by. Castles Vista could not complete the project. Only about 50% work was done. Last mile funding was necessary. Castles Vista came to SBICAP for funding through SWAMIH. After a due diligence, SBICAP agreed to fund Rs.360 crores through a subscription of 36000 non-convertible debentures of a specified description (senior, redeemable, secured and transferable), each of the face value of Rs One Lakh. SBICAP subscribed through SWAMIH to these debentures in seven tranches for a total investment of Rs. 230 crores. An additional Rs. 128 crores needed to be spent for project completion and delivery of possession of the new homes. 10. There was the debenture trust deed dated 30th September 2020 by which SBICAP Trustee Company Ltd was appointed as a Debenture Trustee. There was also an inter-creditor agreement between the Debenture Trustee and Piramal and by this, Piramal ceded its first right in charge in relation to its security in favour of the Debenture Trustee. Thus, Piramal has a second ranking subsidiary charge in comparison to SBICAP. The first charge was created in favour of SBICAP by a Memorandum of Entry dated 30th September 2022 over all the project lands, the project, its construction development including building and so on. There were 622 unsold units across all five phases. There was a Deed of Hypothecation over receivables and this was also dated 30th September 2020. An amended and restated Escrow Agreement dated 30th September 2020 was also put in place as was another Escrow agreement with SBI and the Debentures Trustees. These provided for cash flow mechanisms. 11. The details of these are unimportant for our purposes today. The fact is that the unsold units were mortgaged to SBICAP and the receivables were hypothecated to it. 12. Mantri Groups projects everywhere were in trouble. Some home buyers filed police complaints. The substance of these was that the Mantri Group had taken funds but did not deliver possession. There were also allegations of diversion of funds for non-project expenses, such funds having been received either through loans or from home buyers. Sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 were invoked and applied. Now these are scheduled offences under the Section 2(i)(x) and (y) of the PMLA Act. This is why the Respondents registered a case and triggered an investigation under the PMLA. Page 7 of 13 20th March 2023 13. On 7th April 2022, the 3rd Respondent sent a letter to the Debenture Trustee asking for documents regarding credit and loans extended to Mantri Developers Pvt Ltd. There was another notice dated 11th April 2022 calling for further information. The Debenture Trustee clarified on 29th April 2022 that it had not extended a credit or a loan to Mantri Developers at all, but to Castles Vista which was a wholly owned subsidiary of Mantri Developers and that the loan was by SWAMIH, a fund sponsored by the Union of India and managed by SBICAP. The issuance of debentures was also pointed out. 14. There appears to have been no further correspondence from the Respondents. 15. Then came the 11th August 2022 impugned order, a copy of which is at page 53. It is issued under Section 5(1) of the PMLA. The 'reasons to believe' are that the Mantri Group diverted funds received from customers or home buyers to other projects and that this constitutes criminal breach of trust. Since Castles Vista did not complete the Mantri Serenity project in a timely manner, this caused anxiety and stress. As regards the SBICAP rights, the impugned order itself says that Mantri Developers collected funds partly either from loans or from home buyers and then diverted these. 16. But SWAMIH is sponsored by the Central Government for rescuing or resuscitating stressed or stalled projects by providing much needed funding. SWAMIH is the initial debenture holder and Page 8 of 13 20th March 2023 it has sanctioned an investment of Rs. 360 crores to Castles Vista of which Rs.230 crores has been disbursed. The impugned order itself noted that SWAMIH has a first charge over the land and building and other hard infrastructure. The repayment of SWAMIH is also noted. 17. SBICAP is not a party to any proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA. 18. There is no disputing the investment by SBICAP or SWAMIH or the creation of the security documents. There is no finding that the assets over which security has been created are proceeds of crime. What is sought to be equated is the value of the assets for recovery. But the Petition points out that this approach not only jeopardizes but possibly torpedoes the entire purpose of SWAMIH and for no discernible reason. The effect of this attachment under the impugned order is that banks and financial institutions have stopped lending to flat purchasers. This has a direct impact on the cash flow and the sales in the project. We leave aside for the moment the question of servicing the debt on the SBICAP-driven investment. Even project completion across all five phases is now directly under threat. 19. That the Petitioner has a first ranking charge cannot be disputed. Mr Mehta is correct in saying that this kind of an approach defeats the purpose of the establishment and formation of SWAMIH, the centrally funded project meant to assist desperate home buyers. 20. We do not understand how the impugned order can say that the 'beneficial interest in the attached units might be transferred by the Mantri Group'. There is not the slightest possibility of this ever happening, because these units are all secured to the Petitioner and it is impossible for "the Mantri Group" to effect any such transfer or to transact these assets. Every sale of a flat in this project is subjected to what is called a waterfall mechanism. The funds run through the Debenture Trustee. The funds are first put towards completion of the rest of the projects and are then utilized to repay the amounts due under the debentures. There is no involvement of any Mantri Group entity in this at all and it cannot transfer any interest in the attached units. No such transfer would be recognized or valid in law. The second charge, that of Piramal, continues and is for Rs. 650 crores. Now there is a hypothecation of the receivables in favour of the Petitioner and the Piramal Group. From where this theory is derived that the Mantri Group "might" transfer an interest is unclear; and it is only speculation The Mantri Group must have an interest to be able to transfer it. Absent that interest there is nothing for the Mantri Group to transfer. 21. This may be a classic case of the Enforcement Directorate's reach exceeding its grasp. The impugned order seems to proceed on the footing that since the project was once being taken up by 'the Mantri Group', therefore that group still has divestible rights. This is supposition. It then goes on to say that the Mantri Group 'might' transfer assets, which is guesswork. It implies that whatever 'rights' the Mantri Group once had, these are immutable for all time, which is a presumption. And it more of less insinuates that the SBICAP and SWAMIH involvement is not lawful, is a planned-in-advance as Page 10 of 13 20th March 2023 some kind of smokescreen or a nefarious subterfuge — and this last, we believe, belongs in the realm of fantasy. 22. This is not a matter of the assets of a private entity shown to be engaged in money laundering. What the impugned order has thrown into jeopardy are extraordinary amounts of public funds raised from the Central Government, LIC, SBI and nine public sector banks. The Department of Economic Affairs contributes 50% and the balance 50% comes from this consortium. The loss apprehended by SBICAP is between Rs.140 to Rs.180 crores and ED cannot explain how those public funds will ever be recovered. 23. But leave aside the money consideration. What the impugned order does not tell us is how the interest of the home owners or flat purchasers are in any way secured by the impugned order. Will they receive their money back? Will they be able to realize their longdelayed dreams of obtaining possession of completed apartments? There is no illegality in the title or the rights acquired by the SBICAP. There is no charge of money laundering against SBICAP. Yet the impugned order seeks to clamp down on the assets over which SBICAP has a first charge. 24. We are unable to see any provision of the PMLA that has, combined with the non obstante clause, an overriding charge that would defeat, efface or render subservient the rights of a secured creditor. It is even unclear whether the attachment by the PMLA constitutes a sovereign debt in a case like this. Even if it did, it would not prevail over the rights of a secured creditor claiming security Page 11 of 13 20th March 2023 under a contract. We are unable to see from the impugned order a single finding rendered after the due process of law that there is anything remotely untoward let alone illegal within the meaning of the PMLA in the Petitioner's acquisition of rights over the flats in question, the project or the receivables. It is no argument to say that the PMLA proceedings are in the public interest. Every statute is in the public interest. But is it being suggested that the SWAMIH fund is not in the public interest, despite all that is known? SBICAP is not even made a party to the PMLA proceedings. 25. All this is apart from the fact that the Karnataka High Court has by its orders of 1st October 2020 and 12th July 2022 stayed further proceedings on the FIR containing the predicate offence against the Mantri Group. That would speak to the substratum of the PMLA orders. Mr Mehta tells us that the Petitions before the Karnataka High Court have been finally disposed off with similar orders. We note the statement. 26. We must, we believe, look in this matter to the much larger public purpose that is being subserved by SBICAP, i.e., of completing these delayed projects and of serving the needs of home buyers who have taken loans and have to service their debts. 27. Having regard to these circumstances, we believe that there is no conceivable answer to the Petition. Apart from anything else, no amount of affidavits can supply reasons if these are not to be found in the impugned order itself. We have considered the impugned order to see if there is the slightest justification for moving against the secured assets. RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Digitally signed by RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Date: 2023.03.24 10:42:21 +0530 28. Finding none, we proceed to make Rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. (Neela Gokhale, J) (G. S. Patel, J) Page 13 of 13 20th March 2023