All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4736 OF 2004 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. ... ... .... ... Petitioner. Versus Manny C. D'Mello & Ors. ... ... Respondents. Mr. M. D. Sidia with Ms. D. S. Retiwala i/by Rustamji & Ginwala for the Petitioner. Mr. Hitesh Jain for Respondent No.1. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATED : 29TH APRIL, 2005. P.C.: Rule. Having regard to the dealership agreement dated 12th March, 1999 between the petitioner and the respondent No.1, it is clear that the respondent No.1 was inducted into the premises as dealer vide clause 2 for the purposes mentioned therein. The Petitioner itself is a Lessee of the property leased out to it by the Natu family. Clearly, this is a dispute arising out of the dealership agreement vide clause 2 thereof and is within the scope of Clause 66 which is the arbitration clause. Having regard to the admitted position that the arbitration clause has been invoked by the respondent No.1, prima facie case is made out for interim stay of the impugned order passed in a suit filed by the Respondents. Prima facie, there is no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 is a dispute between the landlord and tenant and therefore, the suit is maintainable. Even the appellate court has observed that the respondent was inducted by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner i.e. M/s. Caltex India Limited. The Respondent No.1 has himself pleaded that he has been inducted by M/s. Caltex India Limited as a dealer, vide para 4 of the plaint. There is no cogent and reliable evidence at this stage to suggest that the respondents were inducted by the Lessor of the property in question i.e. Natu family, who is the landlord of the petitioner, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. Hence, there shall be ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (c), which reads thus: (c) that pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, the impugned judgment dated 11th February, 2003 be stayed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner requests for stay of this interim order. Prayer is rejected. Sd/- (S. A. BOBDE, J. )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 1651 OF 2009 Javed Nihal Ahmad Nihal Ansari ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Through jail Mr. Rajesh More, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : DATE: OCTOBER 5, 2009 P.C. : The Jail Superintendent shall file his affidavit personally by next Monday. List on 12th October, 2009. BILAL NAZKI, J. A.R. JOSHI, J.

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1651 OF 2009 Javed Nihal Ahmad Nihal Ansari .... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Through Jail Shri Rajesh More, APP, for the State. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED: OCTOBER 12, 2009 P.C: It appears that the petitioner was punished when he was lodged in the Thane Jail. Now the petitioner is lodged in Nashik Road Central Prison. Let an affidavit be filed by the Superintendent of the Thane Jail disclosing the details of the work allotted to the petitioner which he allegedly refused to do. S.O. to 9-11-2009. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE 1 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1651 OF 2009 Javed Nihal Ahmad Nihal Ansari .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for State. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & R.Y. GANOO, JJ. November 09, 2009. P.C. This petition was received through Jail and challenges the order dated 7/1/2008 passed by the Superintendent of Central Prison at Thane, thereby removing the name of the petitioner from the remission register for one year. The petitioner himself has admitted that he was called upon to join the work allotted to him in the Jail premises and he made representation to the effect that he should be given a suitable work in view of his qualifications. He claims that he has passed B.Com. and, therefore, the work allotted to him in the factory was not suitable to him. It is his case that though he was called upon to work in the factory section, he was not informed as to which section and what kind of work he was required to do. Show cause notice was issued to him on 8/11/2007 and he had submitted his reply. On 7/1/2008 the impugned order was passed and the same has been approved by the learned District and Sessions Judge. We have perused the affidavits filed by Smt. Swati Madhav Sathe, Superintendent of Nasik Central Prison, as at present and the affidavit filed by Shri Yogesh Desai, who is presently the Superintendent of Central Prison at Thane and as per the said affidavit the petitioner was allotted work in the factory section on 20/8/2007 and he ought to have reported there. Instead, he did not report to the factory section where there are number of trades i.e. carpentry, power looms, stitching, bakery etc. and this was refused by the petitioner. We do not see any procedural error in passing the impugned order and in any case we are informed that the petitioner is likely to be released towards the end of December, 2009. No case is made out to cause interference in the order passed by the Superintendent, Central Prison at Thane and hence the petition is rejected. This order be communicated to the petitioner in the concerned jail. (R.Y. GANOO,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6504 OF 2004 Mohammed Maqbool Khan. .. Petitioner (Org.Defendant) Vs. Shaikh Riaysat Ali Driver. .. Respondent (Org.Plaintiff) -- Shri A.A.Mirza & N.Y.Shaikh for the petitioner. Shri P.S.Dani with Shri J.S.Yadav for the respondent. -- CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J DATED : 26th OCTOBER, 2004. P.C. Heard. The petitioner challenges the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte decree which was passed against the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that the matter was adjourned from 14th July, 2000 to 26th July, 2000. However, instead of taking up the matter on 26th July, 2000, it was taken up for hearing on 25th July, 2000, and thereafter it was adjourned to 20th September, 2000. But, the trial Court disposed of the matter on 11th August, 2000 itself i.e. much prior to the date fixed for hearing of the matter. The contention of the petitioner is that on 26th July, 2000, the petitioner's advocate appeared in the Court but having been informed by the clerk of the advocate that the matter was adjourned to 20th September, 2000, he did not attend the hearing of the matter which took place subsequent to the 26th July, 2000 i.e. much prior to 20th September, 2000. Both the Courts below have disbelieved the petitioner's contention in this regard while observing that the records do not disclose that the advocate for the petitioner himself having attended the Court either on 26th July, 2000 or any other date thereafter. Undisputedly, no steps were taken by the petitioner and his advocate to record their presence in the Court on 26th July, 2000, neither any application was filed for taking the matter on board on 26th July, 2000 if the matter was not listed for hearing on the same day on the board of the trial Court, nor attention was drawn of the trial Court regarding the appearance of the petitioner and his advocate in the Court on 26th July, 2000. It is not also the case of the petitioner that steps were taken to verify the adjourned date of hearing of the matter either on 26th July, 2000 or any time thereafter till 20th September, 2000. In case, the petitioner was genuinely interested in contesting the matter, certainly knowing well that the matter was adjourned from 14th July, 2000 to 25th July, 2000 or 26th July, 2000 as alleged by the petitioner, for regarding of evidence, he would have certainly verified as to what had happened on 25th July, 2000 in order to avoid the consequence of ex part proceeding against the petitioner. Apparently, the petitioner did not bother to know anything about the proceedings which had taken place on 25th July, 2000 even though he claims to have appeared in the Court on 26th July, 2004. In the circumstances, therefore, both the Courts below having arrived at the concurrent findings regarding failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose the reason for absence in the Court on the date when the matter was disposed of ex parte, no fault can be found with the said findings, nor the same warrant any interference in writ jurisdiction as it cannot be said that the Courts below have exercised their discretion either arbitrarily or illegally, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Being so, the petition is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. _____ 4 -

Order - Status 5: 924 wp 1885.16.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1885 OF 2016 M/s. N. F. Construction … Petitioner Vs State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent Mr. Subhas Jha a/w Mr. S. A. Vaidya i/b. M/s. Law Global Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for State. … CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKARJOSHI, JJ. DATE : 25 MAY, 2016 VACATION COURT P.C. : Issue notice returnable on 8th June 2016. (DR. SHALINI PHANSALKARJOSHI, J.) (B. R. GAVAI, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1885 OF 2016 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1886 OF 2016 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1887 OF 2016 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1888 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memorandam of appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders …... Mr. Subhash Jha i/b. M/s. Law Global, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the Respondent – State in W.P.1885 and 1888 of 2016. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP in W.P. No.1886 of 2016. Mr. J. P. Yagnik, APP in W.P. No.1887 of 2016. …... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND P.D. NAIK, JJ. DATED : JUNE 8, 2016. P.C. : The learned counsel Mr.Jha appearing for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw these petitions with liberty. Leave is granted. Petitions are disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. (P.D. NAIK, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1292 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6289 OF 2017 Pradeep Kumar M.S. ..Applicant/Petitioner Vs Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and ors. ..Respondents Mr. A.D. Shetty for the Applicant/Petitioner.. Y.S.Bhate i/b Anirudha Garge for Respondents No.5. CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M. S. SONAK, JJ. DATE : JUNE 15, 2017. P.C. : . Not on board. In view of urgency, taken on production board. In Civil Application NO. 1292 of 2017 2] Heard learned counsel applicant as well as the respondent in an application seeking amendment. On due consideration, the application is allowed. 3] Necessary amendment to be carried out within one week. In Writ Petition No. 6289 of 2017 4] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. Issue notice to the respondents. Steps to be taken within two weeks. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 waives notice. 5] Till the next date of hearing, there shall be interim order in terms of prayer clause (b) of the civil application, which reads thus: "b) That pending the hearing of this Application, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the the effect, operation, implementation and execution of the letter no. T-2/CBR/PKMS/ RECOVERY dated 25.05.2017 issued by Smt. B.Renuka, Assistant Personnel Officer, Recovery Section, Department of Construction, Services & Estate Management, Department of Atomic Energy and Government of India which is at Exhibit "D",until further orders; copy from page 13 6] List on 11th July 2017. (M. S. SONAK, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)

Order - Status 9: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6289 OF 2017 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 : R. M. JOSHI REGISTRAR (JUDLI) Date : 11 JULY 2017 One week time i.e. 18.07.2017 is granted to supply copies of petition. If copies are supplied within time, issue notice to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 returnable within six weeks i.e. 22.08.2017 from today. REGISTRAR (JUDLI) RJ I gpj / 11.07.2017

Order - Status 11: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6289 OF 2017 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Advocate Swapnil Kamble instructed by A.D. Shetty for Petitioner is present. Advocate Suyash Sule instructed by George A.A., Advocate for Respondent No. 5 is present. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI REGISTRAR (JUDL­I) Date : 22 AUGUST 2017 One week time i.e. 29.08.2017 is granted for supply of copies of petition. If copies are supplied within time, issue notice to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 returnable within six weeks i.e. 03.10.2017 from today. REGISTRAR (JUDLI) RJ I gpj / 22.08.2017

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6289 OF 2017 Pradeep Kumar M.s. ....Petitioner V/S Central Industrial Security Force (cisf) And Ors. ....Respondent Ashok D. Shetty For Petitioner Garge Aniruddha Arun for R.no. 5 CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA & MANISH PITALE, JJ DATE : 30th October, 2017 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the respondent, Stand over to 06/11/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6289 OF 2017 Pradeep Kumar M.s. ....Petitioner V/S Central Industrial Security Force (cisf) And Ors. ....Respondent Ashok D. Shetty For Petitioner Y.S. Bhate a/w Garge Aniruddha Arun Res.No. 5 & 6. S.b.Kalel, AGP for state. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA & MANISH PITALE, JJ DATE : 6th November, 2017 P.C. : Office to verify and place before appropriate bench. Stand Over to 13/11/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 17: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6289 OF 2017 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 :A.N. MARE REGISTRAR (JUDLI) Date : 04 JANUARY 2018 Await service to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for five weeks i.e. 08.02.2018. S.O. to 09.02.2018. REGISTRAR (JUDLI) RJ I gpj / 04.01.2018

Order - Status 19: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6289 OF 2017 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders Registrar's orders None for Petitioner Niranjan Kulkarni i/b Garge Anirudha Arun for R.No. 5 is present. CORAM : AJIT N. MARE REGISTRAR (JUDLI) Date : 9th FEBRUARY 2018 Petitioner to take appropriate steps for effective service on R.No. 2. S.O. three weeks i.e. 05/03/2018 REGISTRAR (JUDLI) RJI/GCI/09.02.2018

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6289 OF 2017 Pradeep Kumar M.s. ....PETITIONER V/S Central Industrial Security Force (cisf) And Ors. ...RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NITIN JAMDAR & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. M. SATHAYE, JJ DATE : 15th April, 2024 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 19/08/2024 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 25: TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Digitally signed by TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 6289 OF 2017 Pradeep Kumar M.S. … Petitioner. V/s. Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and Others … Respondents. Mr. Aditya R. Deolekar i/b. Mr.Ashok D. Shetty for the Petitioner. Mr.Y.S.Bhate with Mr.Aniruddha A. Garge for the Respondents. …... …... CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR, AND M.M. SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 19 August 2024. P.C. : The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that instructions have been received to withdraw the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. (M.M. SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J/CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : A. S. OKA AND REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ. DATED : 22nd JUNE, 2015 P.C. : On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on Daily and Supplementary Board stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 183 to 189, 191, 197, 209, 211, 217, 220 to 228, 251 (A.S) 02/07/2015 192 (A.S), 231, 232, 243, 276 (O.S) 03/07/2015 195 (O.S.) 19/08/2015 198, 229 (A.S) 16/07/2015 199, 200, 230 (A.S) 30/07/2015 201 to 204 (A.S.) 03/08/2015 205, 206, 249 (A.S.) 04/08/2015 207 (O.S.) 03/09/2015 208 (O.S.) 16/09/2015 210, 212 (O.S.) 30/09/2015 213 to 216, 219 (O.S.) 05/10/2015 233 to 235 (O.S.) 06/10/2015 236, 252 to 256 (O.S.) 07/10/2015 237 (A.S.) 06/08/2015 239 (A.S.) 13/07/2015 240, 242, 282, 286 (O.S.) 06/07/2015 241 (A.S.) 07/08/2015 244, 273 (A.S.) 10/08/2015 245, 246, 274 (O.S.) 07/07/2015 Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 247, 257, 259 to 268, 271, 272, 280, 281, 283, 284, 295, 299 to 304 (A.S) 24/07/2015 248, 275 (O.S.) 08/07/2015 258, 285, 287, 288 (O.S.) 09/10/2015 269, 270 (A.S.) 11/08/2015 277, 278 (O.S.) 09/07/2015 279 (A.S.) 23/07/2015 289 to 291 (O.S) 13/10/2015 292 to 294, 296 to 298 (O.S) 14/10/2015 305 to 308, 311, 316 (A.S) 27/07/2015 313 (A.S) 28/07/2015 314, 315 (A.S) 29/07/2015 317 (A.S) 30/07/2015 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 adinterim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.) (A. S. OKA, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : A.S. OKA & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ. DATE : JULY 2, 2015 P.C. On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on Daily and Supplementary Board stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 55 05/10/2015 56 to 63, 84, 85, 91, 94, 95, 97, 98, 903, 905 30/07/2015 64 12/08/2015 65 to 75, 96 21/08/2015 76(OS), 81 13/07/2015 77(OS) 07/10/2015 78(OS) 14/10/2015 79, 82, 83, 88, 89, 90, 93(OS) 16/11/2015 80(OS) 20/07/2015 86(OS) 14/07/2015 87(OS) 22/07/2015 92(OS) 24/07/2015 901 16/07/2015 904 31/07/2015 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 adinterim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected.

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL/CRIMINAL JURISDICTION / O.O.C.J. COMMON ORDER CORAM : A.S. OKA, AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 21st AUGUST, 2015 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 by C.M.I.S. Sr. No. C.M.I.S Date 67 03/09/2015 68 05/10/2015 69, 70 06/10/2015 71 08/10/2015 72 16/10/2015 73 17/10/2015 74, 75, 76 27/10/2015 77, 78 28/10/2015 79 20/11/2015 80, 89, 90, 91, 92 23/11/2015 81 13/10/2015 82, 84, 85 01/09/2015 83, 87, 88, 123, 124, 125, 139, 140 (O.S.) 14/12/2015 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98 24/11/2015 99, 100 26/11/2015 101 to 120 30/11/2015 121, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 142, 143, 144, 148, 149, 150, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 158, 160, 162, 163, 164, 902 01/12/2015 126 (Criminal) 14/10/2015 127 (O.S.) 11/09/2015 128 (O.S.) 14/09/2015 129, 130, 131, 132, 145, 146, 147, 151, 157, 159, 161 15/10/2015 137 (O.S.) 15/09/2015 141 (O.S.) 15/12/2015 . If any adinterim relief or interim relief in the aforesaid matters is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the dates which are fixed under this order. If any adinterim or interim order is to operate till further orders, such orders shall remain unaffected. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)

Order - Status 11: Shephali IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE AND ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER FOR BALANCE BOARD OF DAILY BOARD DATED 23RD NOVEMBER 2015 CORAM: A.S. OKA & G.S. PATEL, JJ. DATED: 23rd November 2015 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. Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 54, 56, 57, 58, 61 03/12/15 55 (O.S.), 70 23/03/16 59 (O.S.), 71 to 80, 87 (O.S.), 106, 111, 114 29/03/16 60, 85, 86, 88, 89 (O.S.) 11/04/16 62, 64, 65, 81 (O.S.) 16/12/15 63 20/01/16 66 to 69 22/03/16 82, 83, 84 (O.S.) 17/12/15 90 to 98, 100, 105, 107 to 110, 113 25/01/16 99, 104 (O.S.) 05/12/15 101, 102, 103 (O.S.) 12/04/16 112 (O.S. 07/12/15 116, 117 14/01/16 If in any of the above matters, ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If the ad-interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (G. S. PATEL, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : A.S. OKA & G.S.PATEL, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 16, 2015 P.C. On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on Daily and Supplementary Board stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 27 21­03­2016 34, 35, 37, 46 to 06­05­2016 61 28 02­05­2016 39, 40, 41 06­01­2016 29 05­05­2016 42 (OS) 15­06­2016 30 (OS) 15­02­2016 43, 44, 75, 76, 77, 79 (OS) 28­06­2016 31 09­03­2016 45, 74 22­02­2016 32, 36, 38 10­03­2016 62 to 72, 78, 80 to 85 06­06­2016 33 08­02­2016 73 (OS) 27­01­2016 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 adinterim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. ( G.S.PATEL, J ) (A.S. OKA, J ) ssp

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4182 OF 2015 Mohan Somla Pagi … Petitioner Versus The Administrator, Union Territory of Daman & Diu and Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Ors. … Respondents Ms. Dipti Kuber i/by Devmani Shukla for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & MAKARAND KARNIK, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 19, 2016. P.C. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not taken any action on the petitioner's complaint dated 8.1.2015 Exh.A in regard to the raising of the illegal construction on the land bearing S. No. 244, located at Silvasa, Dadra Nagar Haveli. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we dispose of this petition by directing the respondents to examine the petitioner's complaint and take appropriate action in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as also to the concerned affected persons. Let the action as aforesaid be taken as expeditiously as possible but not latter than four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Petitioner to give copy of the complaint dated 8.1.2015 to the respondents along with the copy of this order. With the aforesaid directions, petition is disposed of. (MAKARAND KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)

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.)