All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 1784 OF 2017 In WRIT PETITION 6942 OF 2016 Rajani Arvind Parchure ....Applicant V/S Shri. Narhari Mahadev Gole @ Badekar ....Respondent CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI, J DATE : 22nd December, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned as per CMIS date. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: Shailaja IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1784 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6942 OF 2016 Rajani Arvind Parchure ] Applicant Vs. Shri Narhari Mahadev Gole @ Bedekar ] Respondent ….. Mr. Sandesh Shukla a/w Mr. Amit Singh i/b Santosh Sawant, for Applicant. ….. CORAM : R.G. KETKAR, J. DATE : 22ND MARCH, 2018. P.C. Heard Mr. Shukla, learned Counsel for the applicant. This is an application for bringing heirs and legal representatives of the petitioner on record. Office remark shows that the Civil Application is filed in time. For the reasons stated in the application, Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) with no order as to costs. Leave to convert Writ Petition into Civil Revision Application is granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. At the request of Mr. Shukla, Writ Petition is taken up for admission. By this application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioner hereinafter referred to 'plaintiff' has challenged the judgment and decree dated 28th October, 2013 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge, Sangli in Regular Civil Appeal No.197 of 2009. By that order, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant and dismissed the suit. The learned District Judge held that the defendant is in possession of the suit premises on the basis of oral agreement of sale of the year 2002. He submitted that Section 17 (1A) of the Registration Act, 1908 lays down that the documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for the purpose of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, shall be registered, if they have been executed on or after 24th September, 2001 and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement then, they shall have no effect for the purpose of Section 53A of the Act. He submitted that the learned District Judge, therefore, was not justified in holding that the defendant is in possession of the suit premises on the basis of oral agreement of sale of 2002. In view of this submission, issue notice to the respondent returnable on 19th April, 2018. Parties are put to the notice that subject to the time constraint and convenience of the Court, Petition will be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. Notice shall further indicate that despite service if the respondents fail to appear, the Court will proceed to decide the petition on its own merits. In the meantime, call for record and proceedings. [R.G. KETKAR, J.]

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6730 OF 2023 AND WRIT PETITION NO.6731 OF 2023 AND WRIT PETITION NO.6732 OF 2023 AND WRIT PETITION NO.6733 OF 2023 M/s. Rishi Construction .. Petitioner Vs. Municipal Corporation for the City of Kalyan Dombivali & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. D.S. Mhaispurkar a/w. Mr. Hrishikesh Pawaskar a/w. Mr. S.M. Mangaonkar, for the Petitioner in all petitions. Mr. A.S. Rao, for Respondent Nos.1 & 2-Corporation. Ms. M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent No.3-State. CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & R.N. LADDHA, JJ DATE : 7TH JUNE, 2023. P.C. : Leave to file additional documents on record is granted to the petitioner. Issue notice for final disposal at the admission stage to the respondents, returnable on 21st June, 2023. Mr. A.S. Rao, learned counsel waives service of notice for Respondent Nos.1 and 2-Corporation. Learned AGP waives service of notice for Respondent No.3-State. Stand over to 21st June, 2023. [ R.N. LADDHA, J. ] [ SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J. ]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6730 OF 2023 M/s. Rishi Construction ....PETITIONER V/S Municipal Corporation For The City Of Kalyan Dombivali Thru Municipal Commissioner And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6731 OF 2023 M/s. Rishi Construction ....PETITIONER V/S Municipal Corporation For The City Of Kalyan Dombivali Thru Municipal Commissioner And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6732 OF 2023 M/s. Rishi Construction ....PETITIONER V/S Municipal Corporation For The City Of Kalyan Dombivali Thru Municipal Commissioner And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6733 OF 2023 M/s. Rishi Construction ....PETITIONER V/S Municipal Corporation For The City Of Kalyan Dombivali Thru Municipal Commissioner And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUNIL B. SHUKRE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ DATE : 21st June, 2023 P.C. : Wrongly on board. Remove from the Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE. WRIT PETITION NO. 4503 OF 2006 ... ordersOrders. or directions and Registrar's orders. OfficeCourt's Notes, Office Memorada or Judge's Mr. A.K.Abhyankar , P.S.Dani with H.N.Vakil i/b. M/s. Mulla & Mulla for the petitioners. Shri R.D.Rane GP for Respdt.5. CORAM; V.G.PALSHIKAR Acg.C.J.& V.M.KANADE, J. DTAED: 11TH AUGUST, 2006. P.C. To Rule. 1. be heard with W.P. of 2003. No.2697 . Status Status-quo wi continued be with liberty to get ers in interim or appropriate interim orders in in this case.

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4503 OF 2006 TATA MOTORS LIMITED )...PETITIONER V/s. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD MUNICIPAL CORP. ) AND ORS. )...RESPONDENTS Mr.H.N.Vakil i/b. M/s.Mulla & Mulla and Craigie Blunt and Caroe, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.S.B.Kalel, AGP for the Respondent State. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA & A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 14th JULY 2017 P.C. : 1 Issue fresh notice to respondent nos.1 to 4, returnable on 11th August 2017. The learned AGP appears for respondent no.5. (A. M. BADAR, J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA), J.)

Order - Status 11: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4503 OF 2006 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Rushi Mathur instructed by M/s Mulla and Mulla Co. and Craige Blunt and Caroe is present. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI REGISTRAR (JUDL­I) Date : 13 SEPTEMBER 2017 Await service to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for four weeks i.e. 11.10.2017. S.O. to 12.10.2017. REGISTRAR (JUDL­I) RJ I gpj / 13.09.2017

Order - Status 13: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4503 OF 2006 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. H.W. Vakil a/w Ms. S.M. Vakil and Mr. Andre Shah instructed by Mulla and Mulla CBC, Advocate for Petitioner is present. CORAM :A.N. MARE REGISTRAR (JUDL­I) Date : 12 OCTOBER 2017 Await service to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for four weeks (excluding diwali vacation) i.e. 23.11.2017. S.O. to 24.11.2017. REGISTRAR (JUDL­I) RJ I gpj / 12.10.2017

Order - Status 31: VAI IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4503 OF 2006 Tata Motors Limited …Petitioner Versus Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation And Ors. ..Respondents Mr P. S. Dani, Senior Advocate , a/w Mr. H. N. Vakil a/w Mr. Samkit Shah i/by Mulla and Mulla and Craigie Blunt & Caroe for the Petitioner. Ms S. S. Bhende , A.G.P. for the Respondent – State. CORAM: M.S. Sonak & Kamal Khata, JJ DATED: 27th August 2024 PC:- 1. Place this matter along with Writ Petition No.2697 of 2003 on 19th November 2024. If full Bench has decided earlier, liberty to apply. (Kamal Khata, J) (M.S. Sonak, J) VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2024.08.30 12:04:10 +0530

Order - Status 33: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4503 OF 2006 _______ _______ Tata Motors Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation & Ors. ...Respondents None for Petitioner. Ms. M. P. Thakur, AGP for State. CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & ARIF S. DOCTOR, JJ. DATE: 27 JUNE 2025 P.C. None for the petitioner. As a matter of last chance, stand over to 04 July 2025. In the event, the petitioner is not represented on the adjourned date of hearing, there shall be no alternative but to dismiss the petition for want of prosecution. (ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

Order - Status 36: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4503 OF 2006 _________ __________ Tata Motors Limited ...Petitioner Vs. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation & Ors. ...Respondents None for the Petitioner. Ms. S. A. Prabhune, AGP for the Respondent-State. CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & ARIF S. DOCTOR, JJ. DATE: 04 JULY 2025. MUGDHA MANOJ PARANJAPE Digitally signed by MUGDHA MANOJ PARANJAPE Date: 2025.07.07 12:09:33 +0530 P.C. On 27th June 2025 we had passed the following order :- "1. None for the petitioner. As a matter of last chance, stand over to 04 July 2025. In the event, the petitioner is not represented on the adjourned date of hearing, there shall be no alternative but to dismiss the petition for want of prosecution." Today again the Petitioner is not represented. Considering our aforesaid order, it clearly appears that the Petitioner is not interested in prosecuting this Petition. It is accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution. (ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1071 OF 2020 Charansingh Kanhiyalal Solanki APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL J DATE : 21st February, 2022 P.C. : Matter did not reach till the court time was over. Hence adjourned. Stand over to 14/03/2022. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1071 OF 2020 Charansingh Kanhiyalal Solanki ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI J DATE : 14th March, 2022 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 08/04/2022. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1071 OF 2020 Charansingh Kanhiyalal Solanki .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent … Mr.Hrishikesh Hatalkar i/b Pankaj Kavale for the applicant. Mr. A.A. Palkar, APP for the State. CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 8th JUNE, 2022 P.C:- 1 Learned counsel for the applicant, on instructions, seek leave of this Court to withdraw the Bail Application. 2 Application is permitted to be withdrawn and stands disposed off as such. ( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. COMMON ORDER. CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 12th September, 2014 P.C. On account of paucity of time rest of the matters on Daily Board are adjourned to dates fixed as per the CMIS (Court Management Information System) which read as under : Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. 24/09/14 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51. 26/09/14 25 03/11/14 27 08/10/14 49 20/01/2015 28 22/09/14 50 07/04/15 29 07/10/14 30, 31, 32, 33, 40 08/10/14 35, 36, 37, 38, 52, 53, 54 23/09/14 39 10/11/14 48 14/10/2014 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 fixed in the matters. If adinterim or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. If there is an extreme urgency, the parties can get the papers produced before this Court. The original of this order be kept in Sr.No.12, Criminal Bail Application No.1408 of 2014. (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J )

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1105 OF 2015 Ghanshyam Jagannath Vishwakarma ... Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Ms. Priyanka S.Karnik, Advocate appointed ,for the applicant. Ms. P.P.Shinde, APP, for the State CORAM: SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV,J. DATE : 18th June, 2015. P.C . An application is received through jail. The applicant is praying for bail in Case No.253 of 2012 registered at Kandivli Police Station. This Court had requested the learned counsel Ms. Priyanka S. Karnik, to espouse the cause of the applicant. He has graciously accepted to do the same. Office to furnish copy of the application to the Advocate so appointed. The learned APP to take specific instructions in respect of the stage of the trial. S.O. 30.6.2015 (SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1105 OF 2015 Ghanshyam Jagannath Vishwakarma .....Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent None for Applicant Ms. P. P. Shinde APP for the State. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATED : 30th JUNE 2015 PC : Learned APP has placed on record the report showing that applicant herein has been enlarged on bail on 12/06/2015. It is also fairly submitted that applicant has attended Sessions Court on 18/06/2015. Report is taken on record and marked as article 'X' for the purpose of identification. In view of this, prayers in the application have become infructuous. Application stands disposed of in above terms. Office to communicate this order to the Sessions Court. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6285 OF 2017 Shri. Ajay Rajendra Pawar ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent Suresh M Sabrad For Petitioner Mrs.R.M.Shinde,A.G.P.for state. CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M.S. SONAK, JJ DATE : 14th June, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 12/07/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6285 OF 2017 Shri. Ajay Rajendra Pawar ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent Suresh M Sabrad For Petitioner Shri P.P. More, AGP for State. CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M.S. SONAK, JJ DATE : 12th July, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 13/07/2017 under the caption of withdrawal. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6285 OF 2017 Ajay R. Pawar ..Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents Mr. S.M. Sabrad for the Petitioner Mr. P.P. More, AGP for the Respondents – State. CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M. S. SONAK, JJ. DATE : JULY 13, 2017. P.C. : . The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order dated 6th May 2016 did not consider the Government Resolution (G.R.) dated 12th March 2013 (ExhibitW), the report dated 16th February 2016 of the Additional Collector and the various judgments passed by this Court from time to time. 2] We find that there is no mention about consideration of the said G.R., report of the Additional Collector as also the judgments on which the petitioner has placed reliance. In the circumstances, we allow the petitioner to withdraw this petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition before respondent No.1. The petitioner may file the review petition within two weeks. 3] Needless to say that we have not commented upon the merits on the petitioner's entitlement. The respondent No.1 is free to decide the review petition, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of filing of such review petition. 4] With aforesaid liberty, the petition is allowed to be withdrawn. (M. S. SONAK, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16 OF 2014 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2013 Mr.Kobad Dorabji Davierwalla ...Applicant / Orig.Respondent No.1 In the matter between Mrs.Perin Hoshang Davierwalla & Anr. ...Appellants vs. Mr.Kobad Dorabji Davierwalla & Ors. ...Respondents AND REVIEW PETITION (STAMP) NO. 19448 OF 2014 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2013 WITH CIVIL APPLIATION NO. 171 OF 2014 Mrs.Perin Hoshang Davierwalla & Anr. vs. Petitioners / Orig.Appellants Mr.A.V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Prathamesh Bhargav i/b. Mr.S.B. Deshmukh for Applicant (Original Respondent No.1). Mr.Darius Khambata, Senior Advocate with Mr.J.B. Sen, Senior Advocate, Mr.Akshay Patil i/b. M/s.Federal & Rashmikant for Respondent No.1 and 2 (Original Appellants). Mr.Priyanka Vegad for Respondent No.2 in Review Petition No**.**19448/2014, Arb.Appeal No.42/2013, Respondent No.3 in CA 16/2014. Mr.B.K. Bali i/b. M/s.Bali Associates for Respondent No.3. CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J. 01 SEPTEMBER 2014 P.C. : The delay of fourty-five days in taking out the review petition is condoned, and the review petition is taken up for hearing. 2 The review petition is filed by the original Appellants seeking a review of paragraphs 16 and 17(ii) of the order passed by this Court on 7 May 2014 and modification of the same by directing Respondent No.1 to vacate the two rooms in the hotel premises, currently in occupation of Respondent No.1 as agent of the Court Receiver without payment of royalty and security. The application is made in the following facts. 3 The Appellants and Respondents are partners in a partnership firm called IL Palazzo Hotel running a business of lodging and boarding house at Panchgani in Maharashtra. During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings between the parties for adjudication of disputes arising out of dissolution of this partnership firm by the Appellants, by an order passed by this Court on 7 May 2014, Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay has been appointed as a receiver of the assets and business of the partnership firm. The Appellants have been appointed as agents of the Court Receiver for conducting the business of IL Palazzo Hotel on payment of royalty. Paragraph 15 of this order inter alia records that Respondent No.1, who was carrying on business on the date of this order, not only had the suit business as the only source of livelihood, but even lived in two rooms within the building where the partnership business of lodging and boarding house was carried on. The order records the plea of Respondent No.1 that the residence of Respondent No.1 inter alia needs to be protected since he was actually using the two rooms. Accordingly, paragraph 17(ii) of the order provides that Respondent No.1 would be entitled to retain these two rooms presently in his personal use for the residence of himself and his family as agent of the Court Receiver without payment of any royalty or security. 4 It is a case of the Appellants in the present review petition that on or about 20 April 2014, after the conclusion of the hearings in the appeal, the Appellants came to know that Respondent No.1 has been in possession of a two storied apartment bungalow with a workable basement in Khinger village (about 3 to 4 km from IL Palazzo Hotel) admeasuring an area of more than 2000 sq.ft.; that this bungalow was in the name of Respondent No.1 and his wife; that the bungalow has a telephone installed therein; that the Respondent has been paying telephone and electricity charges; that this bungalow has been used by Respondent No.1 for the residence of himself and his family since much before the passing of the order dated 7 May 2014 and till today; that in the premises, Respondent No.1 has never actually resided in the hotel premises even once after the charge of the hotel was handed over to the Appellants, as agents of the Court Receiver and that, on the other hand, Respondent No.1 and his wife have only visited the two rooms occasionally during all this period; that the wife of Respondent No.1 had been interfering with the administration and functioning of the hotel and ordering around the staff and interacting with the hotel guests; and that in the premises, it is necessary and in the interests of justice that the directions in the order dated 7 May 2014 be modified and Respondent No.1 and his family be directed to vacate the rooms occupied by them in the hotel premises. 4 Along with the review petition, there is an application filed by Respondent No.1 himself inter alia for certain modifications to the order of 7 May 2014. It is prayed by Respondent No.1 that he should be allowed to use all common facilities, services, amenities, etc. provided in the hotel such as common hot and cold water, appliances, common generators and other infrastructure and utility services without any charge. Respondent No.1 has also applied for use of boarding facilities and services provided by the hotel at a charge of Rs.10,000/ per month. By an amendment proposed in the affidavit dated 22 June 2014, Respondent No.1 sought to amend the prayer inter alia providing for payment of charges in the sum of Rs.3500/- per month for use of the common and shared amenities and services provided in the hotel. Respondent No.1 does not press his prayer for provision of boarding facilities against payment of Rs.10,000/- per month, as originally proposed in his civil application. Thus, the application is now for permission to use all common amenities and facilities provided by the hotel on payment of a charge of Rs.3500/- per month. 5 It is obvious that the original application for permission to retain the two rooms claimed to be in occupation of Respondent No.1, as agent of the Court Receiver and without payment of royalty or security, was on the express footing that Respondent No.1 had all along been using, and even now requires, the two rooms for residence of himself and his family. At no stage in the pending appeal, before the order was passed on 7 May 2014, had the Respondent indicated that he was in possession of, and using, a bungalow of more than 2000 sq.ft. at Khinger village near IL Palazzo Hotel. In fact, in his reply filed in the review petition, Respondent No.1 has not disputed his residence in the bungalow at Khinger. All that the Respondent mentions in his reply to the review petition is that the two rooms in the hotel are his permanent residence; that all official documents, fax documents and administrative documents have the address of the hotel as his permanent residence; and that it would cause great difficulty to Respondent No.1 if this permanent address has to be changed temporarily. It is also submitted by Respondent No.1 that the bungalow at Khinger is not habitable round the year; that residence at this bungalow is not practicable due to its distant location, extreme weather conditions, etc. However, Respondent No.1 has not said that he does not actually use the bungalow as his residence. 6 Secondly, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 that photographs of this bungalow were shown to the Court by the Appellants, before this Court passed its order on 7 May 2014. Since these photographs were before the Court, it is submitted that the attention of the Court was invited to the existence of this bungalow and that therefore, the facts narrated before the Court in the review petition are neither new nor brought for the first time before the Court to enable the Appellants to apply for review of the order. It may be that the photographs were shown to the Court when this Court passed its order on 7 May 2013. The photographs were, however, not shown by Respondent No.1. The contest as to whether this bungalow was actually used as residence by Respondent No.1 throughout the relevant period was not before the Court when the order of 7 May 2014 was passed. The Appellants have claimed in the review petition that this fact came to light after the hearing of the matter concluded on 23 April 2014 and the order was reserved. On the basis of their knowledge acquired subsequently, the Appellants have averred in the review petition that Respondent No.1 and his family have been residing in the bungalow at Khinger and have not used the two rooms for residence at any time during the period of pendency of the arbitration appeal. There is no effective denial of this fact in the reply of Respondent No.1. Secondly, it is submitted that right from inception, four rooms have been kept for three groups of partners of the firm for their residence and that these rooms have been kept for residence of the parties in spite of the fact that even the Appellants have their bungalow at Panchgani, not very far from IL Palazzo hotel. It is submitted that even today, two rooms are in occupation of the Appellants. Whether or not the two rooms are in occupation of the Appellants, it is a fact that these two rooms have been treated to be a part of the hotel premises under the order of 7 May 2014 and the compensation payable by the Appellants as agents of the Court Receiver has been worked out on that basis. Whether the rooms are, in fact, used as guest rooms to be rented out for the hotel business or whether they are actually used for occupation of the Appellants, is immaterial as long as these two rooms are in occupation of the Appellants as agents of the Court Receiver for conducting the hotel business and the Appellants are paying compensation for the same as agents of the Court Receiver. In fact, the fact that two rooms in occupation of the Appellants for their residence have been made part of the hotel premises, in occupation of the agents of the Court Receiver and for which compensation is payable by the agents, supports the Appellants' case that the two rooms which are in occupation of Respondent No.1 and which are not actually used for his residence ought to be made over to the Court Receiver for conducting the hotel business. The Appellants have offered to pay an additional royalty of Rs.6 lakhs per annum for the two rooms to be vacated by Respondent No.1 and allowed to be used for the hotel. This additional royalty is offered with a view to account for the additional revenue that may accrue to the agents, if these two rooms are allowed to be used for the hotel. 7 Lastly, it is submitted that the Court Receiver has not been appointed of the four rooms which were in occupation of the partners for their respective residence. This submission is made on the basis of the licence issued by the authorities, which is in respect of 17 rooms only. It may be that the licence for renting out room to the guests exists in respect of 17 rooms for the lodging business of the hotel, but there is nothing to indicate that these two rooms are not part of the assets of the partnership firm of which Court Receiver is appointed. In fact, it is on the basis that the Court Receiver is appointed also of these four rooms that the two rooms in occupation of the Appellants have been made part of the agency business and for which the Appellants have been asked to pay compensation. So also, it is on the same basis that Respondent No.1 is directed to be appointed as agent of the Court Receiver without any royalty for the two rooms purportedly in his occupation. There is no substance in the plea that the Court Receiver is not appointed of these four rooms. 8 In the premises, the review petition filed by the Appellants deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the order of 7 May 2014 is modified by directing Respondent No.1 to vacate the two rooms in his occupation and make over the same to the Court Receiver for being used as part of the hotel premises. With effect from the expiry of a period of 45 days after the rooms are vacated and possession thereof is handed over to the Court Receiver by Respondent No.1, the Appellants shall pay an additional royalty of Rs.6 lakhs per annum for use of these two rooms as part of the agency agreement. This amount shall be paid on a quarterly basis as in the case of royalty of Rs.70 lakhs payable per annum for the agency of the hotel. 9 At the time of handing over of the two rooms by Respondent No.1 to the Court Receiver, the Court Receiver shall prepare an inventory of the furnitures and fixtures lying within the premises. Respondent No.1 shall be at liberty to make a claim in respect of these furnitures and fixtures at the hearing before the District Court or before the Arbitrator, as the case may be. The Court Receiver will, of course, permit Respondent No.1 to take away his movables lying within the two rooms. 10 Having regard to the order passed on the review petition, the civil application of Respondent No.1 for use of additional amenities and facilities provided by the hotel in connection with the two rooms in his occupation as agent of the Receiver, does not survive and is disposed of. 11 There shall be no order as to costs. 12 On the application of the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, this order is stayed for a period of five weeks from today. (S.C. Gupte, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3353 OF 2021 Ramesh Baban Gavhane & Anr. Petitioners Vs. Shaila Suresh Kanhurkar Respondent Mr. Drupad Patil for Petitioners Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. Date : 26th JULY, 2021 P.C.: Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, on instructions makes a motion for withdrawal of the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, this will not preclude the Petitioner from taking out such other proceedings as are permissible and available in law, which be dealt with in accordance with law without being influenced by the withdrawal of the present petition. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)