All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1669 OF 2004 M/s.Standard Industries Ltd. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.O.A.Siddiqui for the petitioners. Mr.R.Y.Mirza APP for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 27TH AUGUST, 2004 P.C.: . Heard Mr.Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Mirza, learned A.P.P. for the respondent. Mr.Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if they are given liberty to approach the concerned Magistrate for appropriate relief. This application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners as prayed for. If such application seeking relief as prayed for in the instant petition is filed by the petitioners, same may be considered on merits and disposed of expeditiously. The application is disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FARAD CONTINUNATION SHEET WRIT PETITION NO.5398 OF 2006 ............................................................. Office Notes,Office memorandum of Coram, appearances,Court's Court's or orders or directions Judge's orders & Registrar's orders. ............................................................. Mr.Anil Singh i/b Mr.D.R.Shah for the Petitioner CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 5,2007. P.C.: Rule returnable early. Prayer for Ad-interim relief cannot be granted. The Trial court cannot be prevented from hearing the Application, if any, for grant of leave to defend the suit. Rule on interim relief is made returnable on 12th April 2007. In the meanwhile, the Trial Court can proceed with the hearing of the Application for leave, if any. However, trial of the suit cannot proceed till further orders. JUDGE

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5398 OF 2006 Office notes, office memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders. · • • • Shri D.R.Shah Shri D.R.Shah for the Petitioner. ••• CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED : APRIL 12, 2007. P.C.: 1.If Bhatta is not paid within a period of two weeks from today, the Writ Petition will stand dismissed for non prosecution without further reference to the Court. If Bhatta is paid within the stipulated time, office will issue notice returnable on 13th June, 2007. JUDGE

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5398 OF 2006 M/s.Kalpana Industries Ltd. Petitioner versus Jaiprakash Devoo Kamble Respondent Mr.Yadav for petitioner. Ms.Foziya Shaikh for respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18th June 2007 PC : Heard advocates appearing for the parties. By the impugned order the learned Trial Judge has rejected the application made by the petitioner under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for stay of the proceedings of Summary Suit No. 3 of 2005 on the ground that the civil suit bearing T.S.No.693 of 2005 is pending between the same parties in the City Civil Court, at Kolkata. The learned advocate for the respondent has produced for my perusal a copy of the order dated 23rd February 2007 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, at Kolkata which shows that the Suit No.693 of 2005 has been dismissed for default. In view of dismissal of the said suit for default, nothing survives in this petition and the same is disposed of. In the event, the Suit No.693 of 2005 is restored, the petitioner will be entitled to apply for restoration of this petition. (A.S.OKA, J.)

Order - Status 9: ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5617 OF 2008 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Court's or Judge's Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.C.G.Gavnekar for the Petitioners. Mr.R.D.Soni i/by M/s.Ram & Company for Respondent No.2. CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED : 21st November, 2008. P.C. . The Petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 24/04/2008 whereby, on application filed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and 17 to 20, basically contending that before hearing of the Application Exhibit 5, it is necessary to consider the aspect of deficit in stamp as per Bombay Stamp Act. There is no dispute that the appeal against the said injunction order is also dismissed. The learned Judge, therefore, while deciding this application clearly observed that the parties are at liberty to raise this point while leading the evidence and at the time of hearing of the suit. In view of this, I see there is no reason to interfere with the said order. The intention with regard to the deficiency and as contemplated under Section 34 of the Bombay Stamp Act need to be considered at the earliest by the Trial Court. However, for grant of injunction/relief that may be one of the facet, but that itself cannot be the reason not to consider the application at this stage of the proceedings. There is no dispute that while passing the injunction order at Exhibit 5, there is always various facets which court consider to grant interim order. The validity or deficiency of stamp is a matter which can be gone into at the appropriate stage of the proceedings. Court cannot decline any interim relief on this ground. In view of this keeping all points open, the present Writ Petition is dismissed. . No costs. [ ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.]

Order - Status 6: srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1874 OF 2011 Jogindar Rikai Paswan Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents Mr.D.G.Khamkar for petitioner. Dr.F.R.Shaikh, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. July 27, 2011. P.C. Heard. The learned APP seeks further time of two weeks. Time granted by way of last chance. S.O. for two weeks. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)

Order - Status 11: 10WP.1874-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1874 OF 2011 Jogindara Rikai Paswan. ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another. ..Respondents. .......... Mr.D.G. Khamkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs.M.H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR AND P. D. KODE, JJ. .......... DATED : 22nd AUGUST, 2011. P.C. Learned APP, on instructions, states that the petitioner's case for premature release was duly considered by the appropriate authority and the petitioner has been categorized under Category No.4(d). That decision has been taken on 4th August, 2011. If the said decision is not communicated to the petitioner, we hope and trust that the appropriate authority will do the needful in that behalf. In view of the above, nothing survives for consideration in the matter. Accordingly, Petition is disposed of. (P. D. KODE, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.) 1

Order - Status 8: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 5: Sequeira IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2082 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or Judge's Orders order or Directions and Registrar's Orders Mr.Shriram Kulkarni for the Petitioner. None for Respondents. CORAM : N.M.Jamdar, J. Thursday, 22 September 2016. P.C. : Place the Petition on board on 17 October 2016. If the Petitioner makes an application for adjournment, the learned Civil Judge, Daund, Pune will grant the same. (N.M.Jamdar, J.)

Order - Status 7: dik IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2082 OF 2016 Raghunath Sahebrao Konde ...Petitioner vs Ramakant Dattatraya Deshpande & Ors. ...Respondents ..... Mr S.S.Kulkarni for the Petitioner None for the Respondents CORAM : N. M. JAMDAR, J. 17 OCTOBER, 2016 P.C. : None for the Respondents. S.O. to next CMIS date i.e. 2 March 2017. The Petitioner will give notice of the next date to the Respondents and file an affidavit of service. Earlier liberty to continue till the adjourned date. ..... ( N.M.JAMDAR J. )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2082 OF 2016 Raghunath Sahebrao Konde .. Petitioner V/s. Ramakant Dattatraya Deshpande ... Respondent Mr.Shriram Kulkarni a/w Ms.Madhura Deshmukh for the petitioner CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATED : MAY 2, 2018 P.C. : 1 Heard. 2 By this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner plaintiff is challenging the order dated 19.11.2015 passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune rejecting Petitioner's Application below Exhibit 53 in Regular Civil Suit No.193 of 2010 for amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3 In the present Writ Petition, Petitioner plaintiff initially filed Regular Civil Suit No.193 of 2010 for an order of injunction restraining Respondent original defendant from disturbing his possession in respect of suit property as described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. In that Suit, Respondent defendant filed written statement as well as counter claim. Thereafter Petitioner plaintiff filed Application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on 25.10.2012 for allowing him to carry out amendment and claimed specific performance of agreement dated 06.08.1996 on payment of court fees and also for joining Sou.Chinga alias Kunda Suresh Deshpande as defendant no.5. 4 Bare reading of the Application filed by the plaintiff for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 dated 25.10.2012 shows that though the Suit was filed in 2010, amendment Application was filed on the basis of document executed in the year 1996. Not only, that plaintiff wanted to carry out amendment by converting suit for injunction in Suit for specific performance. 5 It is to be noted that even Apex Court in the matter of North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur vs. Bhagwan Das (D) by Lrs., 2008(8) SCC 511 held that the principles governing the question of granting or disallowing the amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are well settled. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 postulates amendments of pleadings at any time of the proceedings. All amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy two conditions (a) of not working any injustice to the other side; and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real question of controversy between the parties. Amendment should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleadings had been originally corrected, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be Mohite 2/3 compensated in costs. In the case in hand, the original Plaintiff – Petitioner filed simplicitor suit for injunction inspite of having entire knowledge about the earlier agreement dated 06.08.1996 and by way of amendment he wants to convert the same for specific performance of the said agreement dated 06.08.1996. On delay a reference can be made to the Apex Court judgment in the matter of Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. Ramesh Chander (2010) 14 SCC 596. 6 Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned order. 7 Hence, Writ Petition stands rejected. 8 At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner may be permitted to make appropriate application before the Trial Court for joining Sou.Chinga alias Kunda Suresh Deshpande as defendant no.5. 9 Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, liberty granted to the petitioner to make application in the Trial Court for joining Sou.Chinga alias Kunda Suresh Deshpande as party defendant no.5 in Suit within 8 weeks from today. 10 If such application is filed, Trial Court to decide the same on its own merits, after hearing both the sides. ( K.K. TATED, J. )

Order - Status 5: 1 of 3 7-wp-1874-23 @ other mtrs. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1874 OF 2023 Zakir Ramzan Qureshi & Ors. ..Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1876 OF 2023 Danish Elyas Hingora ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1877 OF 2023 Zakir Ramzan Qureshi & Ors. ..Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1878 OF 2023 Zakir Ramzan Qureshi & Ors. ..Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1879 OF 2023 Danish Elyas Hingora ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Digitally signed by VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Date: 2023.06.07 14:48:25 +0530 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1880 OF 2023 Danish Elyas Hingora ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Ms. K. R. Shah for Petitioners in all W.Ps. Mr. N. B. Patil, APP for State/Respondent No.1 in WP/1874/23, WP/1877/23 and WP/1878/23. Mr. A. R. Patil, APP for State/Respondent No.1 in WP/1876/23, WP/1879/23 and WP/1880/23. __________ __________ CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 6 JUNE 2023 PC : Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that, she has an alternate remedy of approaching the Sessions Court challenging the order of issuance of process. She seeks liberty to withdraw these petitions and to approach the Sessions Court by way of filing revision applications against the impugned order by keeping all the contentions open. Her only concern is that, because of pendency of these petitions, the revision applications may be beyond the period of limitation. Since the petitioners have already filed these petitions before this Court, pendency of these petitions before this Court shall be taken into consideration by the Sessions Court if and when the revision applications are filed by the applicants challenging the order which is impugned in all these petitions, for the purpose of consideration of period of limitation. If such proceedings are filed, they shall be decided in accordance with law. With this observation and liberty, the petitions are allowed to be withdrawn and disposed of. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Order - Status 5: spb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4379 OF 2011 Zilla Parishad Pune ... Petitioner. V/s. Shir Ganesh Kisan Adsare & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Shekhar i/by J. Shekhar & Co. for the Petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 11th July 2011 P.C. 1 Issue notice to the respondents returnable at the end of eight weeks. Notice to indicate that the petition may be heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 2 In addition to the court service, the petitioner is directed to serve the respondents by a private notice by hand delivery or by speed post registered AD and file affidavit of service on or before the next date. 3 In the meanwhile, it is clarified and ordered that the order of injunction granted by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court shall not in any prevent the petitioner from initiating any proceedings in accordance with the law. The petitioner, however, shall not disturb the possession of the respondents nor evict them except by due process of law. (D.G.KARNIK, J) .....

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4379 OF 2011 Zilla Parishad Pune .. Petitioners v/s. Ganesh Kisan Adsare & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. J. Shekhar for the petitioners Mr. Abhijit B. Kadam for respondent no.3 Mr. S.R. Agarkar for respondent nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 26th MARCH, 2012. P.C. : Respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed R.C. Suit No.99 of 2010. In the said suit, learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Junnar passed order on 30th November, 2010 thereby restraining present petitioners from demolishing the suit property and from constructing the compound wall till the final disposal of the suit. The said Judge also issued an order of injunction restraining the petitioner nos.1 and 2 from disturbing peaceful possession and enjoyment of respondent nos. 1 and 2 from the suit property till the disposal of the suit. This order was challenged by the petitioners in Misc. Civil Appeal No.369 of 2010. The said appeal has been dismissed by learned District Judge14, Pune by order dated 19th April,l 2011. Hence, this writ petition is filed. After having perused the impugned order, it is clear that the learned trial Judge accepted the case of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and issued an order of injunction. The order passed by the learned trial Judge was confirmed by the appellate Court i.e. District Court. In such a situation, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below. The learned advocate for the petitioners states that the petitioners shall adopt appropriate proceedings to redress their grievances so far as respondent nos. 1 and 2 in a competent Court. Statement made by learned advocate for the petitioners is recorded. As and when such proceedings are filed, the petitioners are free to apply to the Court of learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Junnar, Dist. Pune for vacation the order passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Junnar on 30th November, 2010 on the ground that no purpose will be served by continuing the order of injunction on account of the proceedings, which would be filed by the petitioners. With the aforesaid observation, petition stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]