All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 4: Uday S. Jagtap IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2022 Nana Bhondiba Desai & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ..... ….. None for the petitioners Mr. Y.M. Nakhwa, APP for the respondent - State CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. DATED : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2022. P.C. The aforesaid petition has been circulated by the petitioner no.1, who appears in person. However, the petitioner is absent. Stand over to 16th November, 2022. PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 5: 902-WP-2150-2022.doc SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Digitally signed by SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Date: 2022.09.30 14:39:38 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2022 Nana Dhondiba Desai and Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Nana Dhondiba Desai – Petitioner in person. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & S. M. MODAK, JJ. DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER 2022 P.C. : Heard. Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 17th November, 2022 . Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the respondent no.1. In addition to Court notice, the petitioner who appears in person to serve the respondent no.2, by private notice and file affidavit of service before the next date. S. M. MODAK, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 8: 117-wp.2150.2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2150 OF 2022 Nana Dhondiba Desai and Ors. Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. Respondents Mr. Nana Dhondiba Desai, Petitioner No.1 in-person. Mr. K. V. Saste, A.P.P for the Respondent No.1–State. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & $R. N. LADDHA, JJ.$ : 17 th NOVEMBER 2022 $DATE$ $P.C.:$ Mentioned out of turn at 10:30 a.m. The petitioner No.1, who appears in person requests for taking up the matter today itself. Considering, there are 176 matters on board as well as $2.$ fixed and part-heard matters at 2:30 p.m., it is not possible to take up the aforesaid matter today. $overline{3}$ . Hence, list the matter under the caption 'For Direction' on 3 rd January 2023 at 2:30 p.m., for fixing date of hearing. $R. N. LADDHA, J.$ REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2022 Nana Dhondiba Desai & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ..... Mr. Nana D. Desai, petitioner no.1 in person present in Court Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for the respondent - State ….. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. DATED : 3rd JANUARY, 2023. P.C. Vide order dated 29th September 2022, notice was issued to the respondents returnable on 17th November 2022. In addition to the Court Notice, the petitioner who appears in person, was directed to serve the respondent no.2 by private notice and file affidavit of service before the next date. We are informed by the petitioner no.1, who appears in person, that he has filed an affidavit of service in the Registry. So far as the office noting is concerned, perusal of the same shows that notice issued to the respondent no.2 is received back unserved with the remark "respondent is admitted in hospital for treatment of brain stroke". Hence, considering the office noting, we deem it appropriate to issue fresh notice to the respondent no.2, returnable on 23rd February, 2023. Notice to indicate that an endeavor shall be made to dispose of the petition finally at the stage of admission, time permitting. Learned APP to also ensure that the concerned officer of the concerned police station informs the respondent no.2 of the next date. In the meantime, till the next date, the trial Court shall defer the proceeding pending against the petitioners. [PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.] [REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.]

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2022 Nana Dhondiba Desai & Ors. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra $&$ Anr. Respondents Nana Dhondiba Desai – Petitioner No.1 in person. Mr. Y.M.Nakhwa, A.P.P for the Respondent-State. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : $23^{rd}$ FEBRUARY, 2023 $P.C.$ : Mentioned out of turn at 10.30 a.m. The petitioner No.1, who appears in person, requests for a fixed date. Stand over to 20 th March, 2023 at 4.00 p.m. $2.$ PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 15: nob-wp-2150.22.doc BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Digitally signed by BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Date: 2023.03.21 13:59:09 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2022 Nana Dhondiba Desai & Ors. … Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents ****** Mr. N. D. Desai - Petitioner No.1, present in-person. Mrs. Sharmila Kaushik, APP for the Respondent-State. ****** CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & R. N. LADDHA, JJ. DATE : 20 th MARCH, 2023 P.C. :- . Not on board. Taken on board, as the regular bench is not available. Petitioner no.1, appearing in-person, states that he has come from Balgaum (Karnataka). He states that this matter was to be taken up today. He intends that the matter be listed on 23 March 2023, and be placed on the Supplementary Board, as previously ordered by the regular bench. Stand over to 23 March 2023, to be placed on Supplementary Board. [R. N. LADDHA, J.] [G. S. KULKARNI, J.]

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2150 OF 2022 Mr. Nana Dhondiba Desai & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Nana D. Desai, Petitioner No.1 in person. Mr. Swarup D. Patil for Respondent No.2. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for Respondent No.1-State. CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & M.M. SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 27th MARCH, 2023. P.C. : Mr. Swarup Patil, learned counsel appears for Respondent No.2 seeks time to file his Vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent No.2 and also to file reply. Time is granted. Stand over to 10th April, 2023 High on Board. The interim order passed on 03.01.2023 is extended till the next date. [ M.M. SATHAYE, J ] [ SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J. ]

Order - Status 18: GAIKWAD Date: 2023.04.11 10:24:08 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2022 Nana Bhondiba Desai and Ors. … Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. … Respondents ------------------- Mr. Nana D. Desai-petitioner in person . Mr. J.P. Yagnik-APP for the State. CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & M.M. SATHAYE, J.J. DATED : APRIL 10, 2023. P.C. : . Petitioner is present in person. Nobody is present for respondent no.2. On 27th March 2023, Mr. Swarup Patil, learned Advocate had appeared for respondent no.2, he had sought time to file Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.2 and also to file reply. So far Vakaltnama has not been filed, reply also has not been filed on behalf of respondent no.2, as stated earlier respondent no.2 is absent and nobody is present on behalf of respondent no.2. In order to grant further opportunity to respondent no.2, put up on 25th April 2023 'High on Board'. Meanwhile, Investigating Officer to personally remain present before this Court on the next date together with copy of the charge-sheet. Interim relief granted earlier to continue till the next date. (M.M. SATHAYE, J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J)

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2150 OF 2022 Mr. Nana Dhondiba Desai & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Nana D. Desai, Petitioner in person. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Shantanu Raktate a/w. Mr. Amar Parsekar, Mr. Saurav Katkar i/b. Mr. Swarup Patil, for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & M.M. SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 25th APRIL, 2023. P.C. : For the reasons separately recorded, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (1), which reads as under:- "Wherefore the petitioners most humbly pray that F.I.R.No.49 of 2015 & charge-sheet / complaint lodged by Respondent No.2 / original complainant within the Chandgad Police Station vide F.I.R.No.49 of 2015 and Charge Sheet U/S 379, 411 R/w 34 of I.P.C., please be quashed and set aside, on such terms & conditions, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit & proper." Rule is made absolute in the above terms. [ M.M. SATHAYE, J ] [ SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J. ]

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2022 Mr. Nana Dhondiba Desai and Ors. ..Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Nana Desai Petitioner-in-person. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for Respondent No.1/State. Mr. Shantanu Raktate a/w Mr. Amar Parsekar, Mr. Saurav Katkar i/b Swarup Patil for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND M.M.SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 25th APRIL 2023 : JUDGMENT (PER: M.M.SATHAYE,J.): Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service for Respondent No.1/State. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 waives service. Heard finally by consent of parties. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrP.C.), the Petitioners are praying for quashing of FIR No. 49 of 2015 registered with Chandgad Police Station, District Kolhapur for offences punishable SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2023.05.30 17:38:28 +0530 under Sections 379, 411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and also for quashing of the consequent Criminal Case bearing RCC No. 65 of 2015 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Chandgad, District Kolhapur. Office report shows that pursuant to interaction dated 02.06.2022, the Petitioner No.1 Mr. Nana D. Desai was found to be able to put forth his case appropriately before the Court and as such requirement of scrutiny by the Registrar under the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, is duly passed by the Petitioner No.1. Accordingly, heard Petitioner No.1 Mr. Nana D. Desai, who appeared in person for and on behalf of all the Petitioners as their power of attorney holder. Heard Mr. Yagnik, learned APP for Respondent No.1- State and Mr. Raktate for Respondent No.2 original complainant/informant. Perused the record. Petitioner No.1 has taken us through the averments in the FIR filed by the Respondent No.2 as well as other documents produced by him on record. It is the case of the Petitioners that Respondent No.2 along with other persons who are members of Chamber of Commerce, were demanding illegal amount of Rs.25,000/- from Petitioner No.2, who refused to pay and therefore, Respondent No.2 has falsely implicated the Petitioners in this case. Be that as it may. Since this is a petition for quashing, we have to go by the averments in the FIR, considering them at face value. Perusal of FIR dated 10.04.2015 shows that it is the case of Respondent No.2 that he has a karkhana by named Bell-steel Industries in the Industrial Estate at Shinoli. It is alleged that on 09.04.2015, at evening time when Respondent No.2 was strolling around the premises of his karkhana, he found that two couplings from his karkhana (worth Rs.5,000/- according to FIR) were missing. Therefore, it is alleged that he went to the Chamber of Commerce office and informed the committee members and they went to the The Petitioner No. 1's shop, who is a scrap dealer and inquired about it. It is alleged by Respondent No.2 that he found the two couplings in Petitioners' shop, which were stolen from his karkhana. So also it is alleged that some more stolen goods from one 'Dipanjali Metals' were also found in the shop of the Petitioners. It is alleged that when he inquired with Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 about the presence of the alleged stolen goods in their shop, no satisfactory answers were received and therefore, the FIR was lodged against the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and unknown people. It is argued on behalf of the Petitioners that this FIR is based on assumption that the Petitioners have purchased goods stolen from Respondent No.2's karkhana and one Dipanjali Metals. It is argued that Respondent No.2 himself has acted as if he is an Investigating Officer and has already concluded the issue about alleged theft and on this conclusion of theft, the FIR is filed. It is further argued that the police or the investigating agency is supposed to look into the veracity of the claim before registering the FIR and without that being done, the impugned FIR is registered under Section 379 (theft) and 411 (receiving stolen property dishonesty) of IPC. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2/informant opposed this petition contending inter alia that the averments in the FIR are sufficient to attribute specific role to the Petitioners and that coupled with material collected during investigation, is sufficient to show that the Petitioners must face trial. Learned APP has taken us through the material collected during investigation. Careful reading of Section 378 of IPC (defining theft), shows that whoever intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. Taking these allegation in the FIR at its face value, it is not disclosed therefrom, how the Petitioners have taken dishonestly the alleged two couplings from karkhana of Respondent No.2. The FIR is filed after Respondent No.2 has himself taken up a role of investigating agency by gathering people from Chamber of Commerce, directly going to the shop of the Petitioners who are scrap dealers, finding out the alleged stolen couplings and identifying them, asking questions to Petitioners and then not being satisfied with their answers. This all is done without involvement of actual investigating agency i.e. police. We fail to understand how the police have accepted this usurpation of role by a private citizen such as Respondent No.2. It is not the case that Respondent No.2 has lodged complaint against unknown persons after finding that certain goods were missing from his karkhana and then during investigation, the Petitioners are found to be in possession thereof with stolen goods identified and therefore, they are accused. Also perusal of Section 410 of IPC (defining stolen property) shows that property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft is stolen property, but if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to it, then it ceases to be stolen property. In the matter at hand, the averments in FIR do not disclose clearly, how the so-called lack of satisfaction of Respondent No.2 about possession of the goods in the shop of Petitioners, can have any bearing on the issue of Petitioners being legally entitled to possess those goods or otherwise. In other words, the necessary ingredients of 'stolen property' and its alleged receipt by the Petitioners dishonestly (Section 411 of IPC), are not at all fulfilled. Another aspect worth noting is that the impugned FIR makes a reference to finding out certain goods allegedly stolen from Dipanjali Metals for which the Petitioners are accused. It is not case that this Dipanjali Metals have also filed any such complaint of theft. Overall, the manner in which Respondent No.2 has filed the impugned FIR and the manner in which its cognizance is taken, can not be sustained. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that this is a fit case to quash the impugned FIR and the consequent criminal case. The facts of this case, clearly cull-out a situation that falls in one of the exceptions carved out in the case of State of Haryana v/s. C. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. Therefore, the Petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, we pass following order: ORDER The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (1), which reads as under:- "Wherefore the petitioners most humbly pray that F.I.R.No.49 of 2015 & charge-sheet / complaint lodged by Respondent No.2 / original complainant within the Chandgad Police Station vide F.I.R.No.49 of 2015 and Charge Sheet U/S 379, 411 R/w 34 of I.P.C., please be quashed and set aside, on such terms & conditions, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit & proper." Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (M. M. SATHAYE, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE,J.)

Order - Status 8: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6437/2016 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. Kedar G. Prabhu for the petitioner CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : AUGUST 25, 2016 P.C.: At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter is taken up out of turn. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he received instructions from his clients to withdraw the Writ Petition. To that effect, he made an endorsement on a farad. Same is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Same is accepted. Writ Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs. JUDGE

Order - Status 8: SSK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8084 OF 2013 Shri Kiran Uttamrao Hole & ors. ....Petitioners Versus Shri Tukaram Genbhau Ambekar & ors. ....Respondents Mr. Vasant Adsul, advocate for the petitioners. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 19th November, 2013. P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition pertains to recording of mutation entry. It is now a settled position of law that mutation entry does not create or extinguish rights of the party and the same is recorded only for fiscal purposes. The parties are always at liberty to approach the Civil Court to get their rights adjudicated. A reference can be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Balwant Singh & Another V/s. Daulat Singh reported in 1997(7) SCC 137. Sr.No30. Wp 8084.13 In the present case, the petitioner as well as respondents have filed civil suits and same are pending for adjudication. A mutation entry is always subject to the outcome of the civil proceedings. Suffice it is to observe that the Civil Court shall decide the rights of the respective parties independently on its own merits and without being influenced by the findings recorded by the revenue authorities in the proceedings for recording mutation entry. In the light of the above observation, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in the jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)

Order - Status 8: Dusane 1/1 wp6529.2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6529 OF 2016 Fernandes John Salestin .... Petitioner Vs. Dy. Collector (ENC) & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. V.S. Deokar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A.R. Mitkari, AGP for Respondent no.1 – State Mr. R. Narula i/by Jhangiani Narula & Associates for Respondent no.2. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 17th June, 2016 P.C. 1 Mr. Deokar, the learned advocate for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the writ petition. The petition is allowed to be withdrawn. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)

Order - Status 7: Urmila Ingale IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7551 OF 2016 Bhimrao Bapurao Atigre .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Mr.Dhairyasheel Sutar, for the Petitioner. Mr.A.I.Patel, AGP for State. CORAM : SHANTANU.S.KEMKAR & M.S.KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 04st JULY , 2016 P.C. : . Matter is not on board. In view of the urgency, taken on production board and heard forthwith. Through this Petition, the petitioner is seeking various reliefs, however, at this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is pressing only prayer clause (a) which reads thus : "This Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for relevant record and proceedings from the office of respondents and after going through the legality, validity and propriety of the same direct respondent no.3 to hear and decide application dtd. 22.9.2015 submitted by the petitioner u/s. 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 within stipulated period; for that purpose issue appropriate Writ and/or order." According to the petitioner in regard to the aforesaid prayer clause (a), he had submitted a representation invoking the provisions of Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 before respondent No.3. Collector, Kolhapur. However, the petitioner's application has not been decided by the Collector yet. Without commenting upon the merits of the matter, in view of the submission made by the petitioner, we are inclined to dispose of the Petition by directing the Collector, Kolhapur to consider and take appropriate decision on the petitioner's application dated 22/09/2015 annexture Exhibit 'G' as expeditiously as possible but not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this Petition. In regard to the other reliefs claimed in the Petition, it is open for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Petition is disposed of. ( M.S.KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU.S.KEMKAR, J.) 2/2

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3466 OF 2021 M/s Laxmi Agni Components & .... Petitioners Forging Private Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge …. Respondents & Ors. Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Mr. Ajay Vazirani, Mr. Pratik Kothari and Mr. Avi Kshirsagar i/by Lexicon Law Partners for Petitioners. Mr. Zakir Shaikh for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. Date : 28TH JULY, 2021 P.C.: Heard. Issue notice to the Respondent for final disposal, returnable on 30th August, 2021 . Mr. Shaikh, waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Dusane 2/2 28 WP 3466.2021.doc 3 In addition to service of notice through Court, the Petitioners shall serve a private notice by Registered Post A.D. and/or by Courier service and/or by hand delivery or by e-mail/fax on the Respondent and shall file affidavit of service with tangible proof before the returnable date**.** Further proceedings shall remain stayed. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT Mr. Pratik Kothari i/by Lexicon Law Partners for Petitioner. Mr. Zakir M. Shaikh for Respondent No. 1 to 4. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NITIN W. SAMBRE J DATE : 30th August, 2021 P.C. : At the request of learned counsel for the Petitioner , stand over to 14/09/2021 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 LAXMI AGNI COMPONENTS AND FORGING ….PETITIONERS PRIVATE LTD AND ANR V/s. SOU PHULABAI PANDURANG LANDGE …..RESPONDENTS AND ORS Mr. Jesse Cornelious i/b Lexicon Law Partners for the Petitioners Mr. Zakir M. Shaikh Advocate for Respondent nos. 1 to 4 CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE: APRIL 20, 2022. P.C.: Perused the praecipe tendered in this Court under the signature of Partners for Lexicon Law Partners therewith email dated 20/04/2022 singed by the Petitioner. As such, appearance of Lexicon Law Partners for Petitioners stands discharged. Since the Petitioner has not taken any steps to engage new lawyer to pursue the matter, Petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution. [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.] ISM

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 29th November, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 13/12/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2918 OF 2022 In Writ Petition 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. PATEL & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. G. DIGE, JJ DATE : 9th January, 2023 P.C. : Wrongly on board. Remove from the Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: WP.3466.2021.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2918 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd & Anr. PETITIONERS V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge & Ors. RESPONDENTS Mr. Pratik S. Kothari for Petitioner. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J DATE : 31st MARCH, 2023 P.C.: This matter is circulated at the instance of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. However, nobody appeared for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 today. Hence, stand over to 18/07/2023. Ad-interim relief, if any, granted earlier to continue till then. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components and Forging Private Ltd. And anr. ...Petitioners : V/s : Sou. Phulabai Pandurag Landge and Ors. …Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3051 OF 2022 Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge and Ors. ...Petitioners : V/s : Smt. Aruna Bhausaheb Botare & Ors. …Respondents ---- Mr. Anand Pai i/by. Mr. Pratik Kothari, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP-3466-2021 and for the Respondent in Writ Petition No. 3051/2022. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. Dated : 8 August 2023. P.C. : Mr. Pai, the learned Counsel appearing for Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3466/2021 would invite my attention to order dated October 10, 2019 passed by the Trial Court rejecting application for amendment of the plaint at Exhibit-69. I have also gone through the application at Exhibit-69 which clearly made a reference to the transactions effected by Shri. Rajesh Krushnakumar Goel in favour of Laxmi Agni Components and Forging Pvt. Ltd and Mr. Abhayraj Kapoor (Petitioners). By way of application at Exhibit-69, the Plaintiffs sought to incorporate a prayer challenging not only the Development Agreement and Power of Attorney dated October 9, 2006 executed in favour of Shri. Rajesh Krushnakumar Goel but also 'further documents' executed by Shri. Rajesh Krushnakumar Goel in favour of Petitioners. Prima-facie, therefore it appears that the Plaintiffs had sought to incorporate a prayer to challenge all the transactions executed by Shri. Rajesh Krushnakumar Goel in favour of Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3466/2021 by way of application for amendment filed at Exhibit-69. The application at Exhibit-69 was rejected by the Trial Court by its order dated October 10, 2019. Later, the Plaintiffs filed another application for amendment at Exhibit-81, this time seeking to challenge sale-deeds dated December 8, 2006 and December 7, 2009 which are executed by Shri. Rajesh Krushnakumar Goel in favour of Laxmi Agni Components and Forging Pvt. Ltd and Mr. Abhayraj Kapoor. The only distinction that I see in application at Exhibit-69 and the application at Exhibit-81 is that while the application at Exhibit-69 did not specify the exact dates and nature of transactions executed by Shri. Rajesh Krushnakumar Goel, the application at Exhibit-81 described the nature of transactions and dates of execution thereof. Thus, the purpose behind seeking amendments under applications at Exhibit-69 and Exhibit-81, prima-facie appears to be the same. The Trial Court has proceeded to allow the application at Exhibit-81 by order dated June 16, 2021 which is subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 3466/2021. The Plaintiffs have filed Writ Petition No. 3051/2022 challenging order dated October 10, 2019 rejecting application for amendment at Exhibit-69. Though the order was passed on October 10, 2019, Writ Petition No. 3051/2022 appears to have been filed in September, 2021. Mr. Pai, would submit that the only reason behind filing of Writ Petition No. 3051/2022 at such a belated stage is the realisation on the part of the Plaintiffs that the rejection of application at Exhibit-69 would come in the way of the Plaintiffs in defending Writ Petition No. 3466/2021. He further submits that challenging order rejecting application under Exhibit-69 after filing of Writ Petition No. 3466/2021 would clearly establish that both applications under Exhibits-69 and 81 were filed for introducing same amendments qua Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3466/2021. Today, none appears on behalf of the Original Plaintiffs in either of the petitions. However since the board was notified at 12 noon today, it would be inappropriate to proceed further with hearing of the petitions. Stand over to August 23, 2023. SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2023.08.09 10:17:24 +0530 8-WP-3466-2021 &10-WP-3051-2022.odt 8 August 2023. Neeta Sawant

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3051 OF 2022 Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors PETITIONER V/S Smt. Aruna Bhausaheb Botare And Ors RESPONDENT Mr. Zakir M. Shaikh for Respondent in WP/3466/2021 and For Petitioner in WP/3051/2022. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR J DATE : 7th September, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 26/09/2023 . 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. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3051 OF 2022 Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors PETITIONER V/S Smt. Aruna Bhausaheb Botare And Ors RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR J DATE : 26th September, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 12/10/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3051 OF 2022 Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors PETITIONER V/S Smt. Aruna Bhausaheb Botare And Ors RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR J DATE : 12th October, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 06/12/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 25: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3051 OF 2022 Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors PETITIONER V/S Smt. Aruna Bhausaheb Botare And Ors RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR J DATE : 6th December, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 20/02/2024 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 27: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3051 OF 2022 Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S Smt. Aruna Bhausaheb Botare And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT Mr. Zakir M Shaikh for Petitioner in WP/3051/22 & Respondent No.1 to 4 in WP/3466/21 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 22nd July, 2024 P.C. : S. O. to 13/08/2024 ( at 2.30 pm). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 29: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3051 OF 2022 Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S Smt. Aruna Bhausaheb Botare And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Mr. Pratik Kothari for Petitioner in WP/3466/21 & Respondent NO. 9 & 10 in WP/3051/22 Mr. Zakhir M. Shaikh for Petitioner in WP/3051/22 & Respondent in WP/3466/21 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 13th August, 2024 P.C. : S. O. to 14/08/2024 ( F. O. B.). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 32: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3051 OF 2022 Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge and Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Smt. Aruna Bhausaheb Botare and Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components and Forging Private Ltd. and Anr. .. Petitioners Versus Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge and Ors. .. Respondents .................… Mr. Zakir M. Shaikh, Advocate for Petitioners in WP No.3051 of 2022 and Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in WP No.3466 of 2021. Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w. Mr. Pratik Kothari, Advocates for Petitioners in WP No.3466 of 2021 and Respondent Nos.9 and 10 in WP No.3051 of 2022. ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 14, 2024. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Shaikh, learned Advocate for Petitioners in Writ 23.wp.3051.22+.doc Petition No.3051 of 2022 and Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in Writ Petition No.3466 of 2021 and Mr. Khandeparkar, learned Advocate for Petitioners in Writ Petition No.3466 of 2021 and Respondent Nos.9 and 10 in Writ Petition No.3051 of 2022. 2. Today, learned Advocates have filed Minutes of Consent Order dated 14.08.2024 which are taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Parties have reconciled their disputes and differences and filed Minutes of Consent Order. The said Minutes are signed by the Advocates for Petitioners and Respondents whose signatures are appended at page No.4 of the Minutes of Consent Order on instructions received by them. 3. Minutes of Consent Order are running into 4 pages. For the sake of reference and convenience, the same are scanned and reproduced below for benefit of the parties:- Servin S " X" mandon 18 with IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICAT CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDIC WRIT PETITION, 3466 OF TURE AT BOMBAY CTION 2021 LAXMI AGNI COMPONENTS AND FORGING PRIVATE LTD. & A VS SOU. PHULABAI PANDURANG LANGDE & Ors ) Anr ) Petitioners ) ) Respondents AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICAT CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDIC WRIT PETITION. 3051 OF 2 TURE AT BOMBAY CTION 2022 SOU. PHULABAI PANDURANG LANGDE & Ors VS ) ) Petitioners ARUNA BHAUSAHEB & ORS. ) Respondents MINUTES OF CONSENT ORDER The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3466 of 2021 who is also the Respondent No. 9 to 10 in Writ Petition No. 3051 of 2022 and Original Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1931 of 2015 ( "said Suit" ) AND the Respondent No. 1 to 4 in Writ Petition No. 3466 of 2021 who are also the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3051 of 2022 and Original Plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 1931 of 2015 hereby agree that both writ petitions and disputes concerning between them in Civil Suit No. 1931 of 2015 filed in the Hon'ble Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune can be worked out on the following terms:- 2 2 The Original Plaintiff and Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3051 of 2022 and Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in Writ Petition No. 3466 of 2021, agree that they shall now proceed and seek reliefs against the Original Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 in Regular Civil Suit No. Civil Suit No. 1931 of 2015 filed in the Hon'ble Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune. Having regards to the aforesaid the Original Plaintiffs withdraw the said "Exhibit 69" and "Exhibit 81" filed in the said Suit and as such, the impugned Orders dated 10 th October, 2019 (subject matter of challenge in WP No. 3051 of 2022) and Order dated 16 th June, 2021 (subject matter of challenge in WP No. 3466 of 2021) are set aside by consent. It is agreed that as no substantive reliefs are being sought by the Original Plaintiffs against the original Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 and the Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 shall only be continued as formal parties to the suit for the purpose of execution of decree, if any that may be passed in the said Suit. It is clarified that the claim of the Original Plaintiffs against the Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 will remain so far as it relates to the other suit properties except those purchased by original Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 vide; 3 a. Agreement / Sale Deed dated 8 th December, 2006 bearing registration serial no. 8147/2006; b. Agreement / Sale Deed dated 8 th December, 2006 bearing registration serial no. 8148/2006; c. Agreement / Sale Deed dated Ph February, 2009 bearing registration serial no. 6333/2009. The original Plaintiff shall be at liberty to claim allocation and adjustment in respect of their shares against Original Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 only and not against Defendant Nos. 9 and 10. It is further clarified that the Original Plaintiff shall not be entitled to claim in the said suit or even otherwise the properties that are purchased by Defendant No. 9 to 10 vide the aforesaid three sale deeds / documents and the area of the properties described in the said 3 Sale Deeds / documents shall be reduced from the share of Original Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 from the properties that are subject matter of the suit i.e properties described at 1(a) to 1 (d) without in any manner affecting the rights of Defendant Nos. 9 to 10. In terms of the above, the original Plaintiff has expressly and unconditionally given up their challenge to the aforesaid three agreements and sale deed executed in favour of Defendant Nos. 9 & 10. 4. Rights and obligations as stated in the above Minutes of Consent Order dated 14.08.2024 are taken as undertaking given to this Court. Parties shall abide by the same. 5. Order in terms of Minutes of Consent Order dated 14.08.2024. 6. In view of the above, both Writ Petitions are disposed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6517 OF 2017 Bholanath R. Shukla ...Petitioner vs. The Transport Engineer (Projects) ...Respondent Mr. Ajinkya Patil a/w. Mr. Dharmapal Dave i/b. Naik Patil Salvi & Associates, for the Petitioner. Mr. B.B. Sharma, for RespondentCIDCO. CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M. S. SONAK, JJ. DATE : JUNE 19, 2017 P.C.: . The learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the Petition with liberty to file a fresh Petition if occasion so arises. With the aforesaid liberty, the Writ Petition is disposed of as withdrawn. (M. S. SONAK, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)

Order - Status 4: VISHWANATH SATYANARAYANA SHERLA Digitally signed by VISHWANATH SATYANARAYANA SHERLA Date: 2021.09.30 16:08:34 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2260 OF 2021 Chandrakant Dattatray Rajkuvar … Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra … Respondent Mr.J.P. Yagnik, APP, for Respondent – State CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & N.J. JAMADAR, JJ. DATED: SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 P.C.: 1. Issue notice to the Respondent, returnable on 20th October, 2021. 2. The learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent – State. 3. In the meantime, the High Court Legal Services Committee to appoint an advocate from the legal aid panel to represent the petitioner, where the petition has been received directly through Jail. 4. The learned advocate appointed to represent the petitioner through legal aid panel shall ensure that memo of petition is prepared and filed in the Registry after serving the copy of the same to the Public Prosecutor, before the next date. 5. List on 20th October, 2021. (N.J. JAMADAR, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2260 OF 2021 Chandrakant Dattatray Rajkuvar PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NITIN JAMDAR & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, JJ DATE : 20th October, 2021 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 25/11/2021. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2260 OF 2021 Chandrakant Dattatray Rajkuvar … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Ajinkya Udane i/b. Niranjan Bhavke, appointed through Legal Aid for the Petitioner Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent - State CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : 18 NOVEMBER 2021 JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR Digitally signed by JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR Date: 2021.11.24 12:17:57 +0530 P.C. :- By this Petition the Petitioner is seeking Emergency (Covid-19) Parole. By order dated 19 September 2020 the request is rejected by the Respondent – authority. During the pendency of the Petition, another application was made by the Petitioner which is rejected by order dated 6 May 2021 which is placed on record. The reason given for rejection is that when the Petitioner was released on parole on 7 March 2013, he did not return within the period stipulated and overstayed for 2193 days and had to be arrested and brought back to the jail. If in view of this conduct of the Petitioner, the authority is of the opinion that the Petitioner will not be available if he released on emergency parole, the opinion cannot be considered to be unjustified. The exercise of discretion by the Respondents is not arbitrary or perverse. The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. NITIN JAMDAR, J.