All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5479 OF 2008 Mr. L.M.Jamkar ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents Mr. M.L.Patil, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. M.P.Thakur, Addl.G.P. for the Respondents. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & J.H.BHATIA,JJ. DATED: 10th October, 2008. P.C. After an enquiry by the Director of Education of Secondary & Higher Secondary, Maharashtra State, Pune, by his letter dated 24.9.2007 informed the Chief Secretary, Education & Sports Department, to dissolve the society and appoint an administrator. However, on 18.10.2007, he withdrew the letter seeking appointment of an Administrator on the ground that he had received a letter from the society dated 15.10.2007 requesting that the discrepancies shown to the Society had been removed and, therefore, they may be given another opportunity 1 before the matter was decided by the Director. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the letter dated 18.10.2007 on the ground that once the Director had made up his mind after conducting enquiry, he should not have withdraw the letter addressed by him to the Government. We do not feel that the Director of Education has done anything wrong. If some fresh application was made before him by the Society and he was convinced that an opportunity can be given to the Society, he could withdraw the letter earlier written by him in case he has not decided the matter and he will draw his conclusion after giving an opportunity to the Secretary of the Society, who had claimed that he had removed the discrepancies. With these observations, we do not find any merit in this Writ Petition. It is dismissed. However, we direct the Director of Education (Secondary & Higher Secondary) to decide the matter on merits and as expeditiously as possible. (BILAL NAZKI,J.) 2 (J.H.BHATIA,J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4796 OF 2010 Shamrao Mahadev Phate : Petitioner V/s. The Collector & District Election Officer, Solapur & Ors. : Respondents .... Mr.S.S.Salunkhe for the petitioner. Mr.S.N.Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos.1 & 2. .... CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE : JUNE 23, 2010. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner orally seeks permission to implead Solapur District Central Co-operative Bank as a partyrespondent. Leave granted. Appropriate amendment in the cause title be carried out forthwith. Notice before admission, returnable on 12.7.2010. Mr.Patil, the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, waives service for the respondent nos.1 & 2. (D.D. SINHA, J.) (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4796 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.S.S.Salunkhe for the petitioner. Mr.S.N.Patil, AGP for resp. nos.1 & 2. Mr.Sarag Aryadha for respondent no.3. Mr.S.S.Inamdar for respondent no.4. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : JULY 09, 2010. P.C.: Considering the cause of action involved, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to mention the matter before the appropriate Court. Permission granted. (D.D. SINHA, J.) (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 WRIT PETITION NO.4796 OF 2010 Petitioner Respondents Mr.S.S.Rajeshirke for petitioner. Mr.S.N.Bhosale, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr.Sarang Aradhye for respondent no.3. Mr.Inamdar for respondent no.4. CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. DATE : 12th July 2010 PC : Not on on board. In view of urgency, the production is allowed and matter is taken on board. Heard Mr.Rajeshirke for the petitioner, Mr.Aradhye for respondent no.3, Mr.Inamdar for respondent no.4 and Mr.Bhosale, learned AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2. The petition pertains to the election of respondent no.4 The Solapur District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Solapur (hereinafter referred to as "the said bank"). The Gardi Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd; Gardi (hereinafter referred to as "the Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd.") is the member of respondent no.4. The said Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd. passed a resolution on 20th March 2010 thereby nominating the respondent no.3 as it's delegate to take part in the general election of respondent no.4 bank. The resolution was sent to the respondent no.4 bank by the said Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd. and respondent no.3's name was shown in provisional voters list as a delegate of said Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd.. The petitioner contends that a resolution came to be passed by the said Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd. on 24th March 2010 thereby nominating him as a delegate of the said Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd.. In spite of this resolution, his name is not entered into the provisional voters list. An objection was raised before the Collector, however, the same was rejected only on the ground that the signature of the Secretary of the said Society does not appear on the resolution. By order dated 18th March 2010, the learned Collector rejected the petitioner's petitioner for non inclusion of his name in the provisional voters list as a delegate of the said Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd.. The final voters list thereafter was published in the month of May 2010 and against the name of said Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd; the name of respondent no.3 is shown as it's delegate. Rule 16 programme was subsequently published on 3rd July 2010 and the last date for filing the nomination is today. The election is at an advanced stage. The petitioner, in spite of rejection of objection by the Collector on 18th May 2010, filed present petition on 18th June 2010 i.e. after nearly about one month. The petitioner is guilty of laches. Apart from these facts, admittedly there are two resolutions passed by the said Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd; one in favour of respondent no.3 and another in favour of the petitioner. The respondent no.4 bank acted upon the resolution of the said Society wherein respondent no.3 was nominated as a delegate. The relevant question would be, which, out of the two resolutions, is the valid resolution. The validity of said two resolutions can be gone into by the Co-operative Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the validity of the said resolution along with the out-come of the election. Taking totality of the circumstances into consideration, I am of the opinion that the petition is devoid of any substance and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (R.V.MORE, J.)

Order - Status 7: ingale IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6447 OF 2013 Smt.Ashwini Ravindra Pingle .. Petitioner Vs. Shri Sanjay Ramchandra Kamthe and another .. Respondents Mr.Avinash B.Avhad, for Petitioner. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 01st August, 2013 P.C. : . The application for amendment in the written statement is rejected. Mr.Avhad, the learned Counsel for petitioner states that simply because, the matter is at the stage of final argument, that could not have been reason for rejecting the application for amendment. It was only at that point of time, the petitioner got the knowledge of the other properties owned by the plaintiff and given for redevelopment. The defendant had given details in the application, only because the defendant could not get the relevant documents, that could not have been the ground of denying the amendment application. According to the learned Counsel, the ground for eviction agitated by plaintiff is bonafide requirement. The said amendment would be relevant and material for effective adjudication of the dispute. The plaintiff had filed say to the application denying the said fact. The Court has observed that not a single document is produced along with the application substantiating the factum of the plaintiff possessing the survey No. 87 and given it for redevelopment. The parties have concluded the evidence. The plaintiff has even advanced his final argument. The matter was adjourned thrice for the argument of the defendant and thereafter, present application has been filed. The Court has considered the said aspect of the matter. I do not see any error committed by the Court while passing impugned order. The petitioner may assail the said order in case is required to file the appeal, if in law as it is permissible, relying on section 105 of C.P.C. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) 909.wp.6447.13

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1944 OF 2003 Shri Devidas Sadashiv Savale aged adult, P.B. No.9684, H.A.L. Aircraft Division, Nasik ... Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032 Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims Nasik Division, Nasik through its Deputy Director (R) and Member-Secretary, having its office at Adivasi Vikas Bhavan Old Agra Road, Nasik Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. through its Deputy General Manager (Planning and Tooling) and Disciplinary Authority, Aircraft Division, Nasik Executive Magistrate Niphad Dist., Nasik ... Respondents Mr.R.K. Mendadkar for Petitioner Mr.C.R. Sonawane, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 Mr.A.M. Vernekar for Respondent No.3 CORAM: V.G. PALSHIKAR & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: JANUARY 27, 2005 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.): . The Petitioner questions the invalidation of his caste certificate by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The facts in this case are not disputed. The Petitioner is in employment with Respondent No.3 Hindustan Aeronautics Limited since 1978. The Petitioner claims that he belongs to the Mahadeo Koli tribe which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe under the Presidential notifications issued under Article 342 (1) of the Constitution of India. He was issued a caste certificate by the Executive Magistrate, Niphad, who was then the Competent Authority to issue such a certificate. It appears that the caste certificate was then sent for verification by the employer to the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe claims. This was done in 1994. The Petitioner appeared before the Committee without prejudice to his contention that the Committee was acting without jurisdiction. The caste certificate of the Petitioner was invalidated by the Committee on coming to the conclusion that the Petitioner did not belong to the Mahadeo Koli Tribe on 19.10.1995. Consequent upon the caste certificate being invalidated, the employer issued a chargesheet to the Petitioner alleging misconduct on the part of the Petitioner for having obtained employment on the basis of a false caste certificate. A domestic enquiry was held. The enquiry officer found the Petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. A second show-cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on 27.1.2003 directing the Petitioner to show cause against the proposed punishment of dismissal. The Petitioner thereupon filed the present petition. When the petition was admitted on 25.8.2003, interim relief was granted injuncting the Respondents from terminating the services of the Petitioner. Earlier, the petitioner furnished an undertaking on 22.8.2003 averring that he would not claim any benefit as a member of the Mahadeo Koli tribe while in employment with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. The principal contention raised in this Petition is that the caste certificate has been invalidated by a Committee which had no jurisdiction to do so. There is no dispute that it was only by a Government Resolution issued on 11.6.1998 that such certificates could be verified by the scrutiny committee. These Committees which were functioning earlier by the Government Resolution of 23.1.1995 were reconstituted and conferred a specific jurisdiction enabling them to verify the caste certificates of employees of Central Government undertakings. By this Government Resolution, the Committee has been given wider powers than the earlier committee. The contention of the Petitioner that the jurisdiction to scrutinise the claims of employees of Respondent No.3 was conferred upon the Committee only by Resolution of 11.6.1998 therefore, must be accepted. In our opinion, therefore, the invalidation of the Petitioner's caste certificate by the Committee by its order dated 19.10.1995 cannot be sustained as the Committee had no jurisdiction to entertain the Reference made by the employer. In the case of Bhaskar Sitaram Koli v/s. Executive Magistrate, Thane & Ors., (W.P. 1414 of 1995) the Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us Palshikar, J. was a Member), this Court has already held that the jurisdiction of the Committee to scrutinise the claims of the employees in respect of their caste was conferred upon it for the first time on 11.6.1998. The reference made in 1994 by the employer to the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the invalidation of the certificate by the Committee is therefore, set aside. The action taken by the management pursuant to the invalidation of the caste certificate also cannot be sustained and, therefore, must be quashed and set aside. However, it would be open to the employer to refer the certificate obtained by the Petitioner in 1975 for verification by the Caste Scrutiny Committee which has been constituted pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 11.6.1998. Assuming the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds that the certificate issued to the Petitioner needs to be invalidated, the Petitioner who has been in service since 1978 will be continued in service and not be subjected to any disciplinary proceedings on this count. Rule is, thus, made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (ST.)NO.15103 OF 2018 Shyamlal Sampatraj Soni & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. .. Respondent …... Mr.Vijay V. Sonawane, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.Shashank N. Fadia, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. (VACATION COURT) DATED : MAY 30, 2018. …... P.C. : After having heard Mr.Sonawane, learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court was inclined to show indulgence subject to condition that applicant depositing an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- through a Demand Draft in this Court by 1st June, 2018. The petitioner is not agreeable to the said condition. Mr.Fadia, learned counsel for the respondent has informed that the outstanding against the petitioners are to the tune of Rs.57,00,000/-. According to him, the petitioners have already approached DRT Mumbai vide Securitisation Application No.85 of 2018, wherein similar prayer was already rejected on 7th March, 2018. He has tendered copy of the order passed by the DRT Mumbai to that effect. 2 When confronted, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has no instructions on the said issue as to whether the petitioners have approached DRT Mumbai in the matter or not. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the petitioners have already approached the DRT Mumbai and appropriate remedy is available to the petitioners against the order of DRT Mumbai passed on 7th May, 2018, we are not inclined to cause any interference. Writ Petition is dismissed. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)