All Cases

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4848 of 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 5th July 2010. Mr.R.R.Sonawane for the petitioner. P.C. : Issue notice before admission to the respondents returnable on 9 August 2010. Notice shall indicate that the writ petition may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself. In addition to the court service, petitioner shall serve the respondents by private notice and file affidavit of service. Interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) to be operative till 9 August 2010 only. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 10: FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4848 of 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr.R.R.Sonawane for the petitioners. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 18th November 2010 P.C. : Office to verify and report service. S.O for four weeks. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 12: FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4848 of 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders None for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 20thDecember 2010 P.C. : None present for the petitioner when called. Writ Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 4848 of 2010 Smt. Sumanbai w/d. Of Damu Bodake & ors. ... Petitioners v/s. Manohar Narayan Bodake & anr. ... Respondents Mr. R.R. Sonawane for the petitioners. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- APRIL 27, 2011. P.C. Inspite of being duly served with notice for final disposal, none appears for the respondents. Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally. The petitioners by way of present petition challenges the order dated 10th November, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for setting aside no written-statement order. The respondents-plaintiffs have filed suit for partition. The petitioner no. 1 is the wife of deceased brother of the plaintiffs whereas no. 2 and 3 are the children of the petitioner no. 1. Respondents 4 and 5 are the sisters of the plaintiff. The suit summons came to be received by some of the defendants on 7th April, 2008 and by the others on 11th April, 2008. On being summoned the petitioners appeared on 3rd May, 2008 and thereafter from time to time on 26th June, 2008 and 4th July, 2008 file an application for grant of time to file written-statement. The same were granted. On the next date i.e.. 5th August, 2008, the written-statement was filed. However, since it was brought to the notice of the plaintiffs that the written-statement was filed after the period of 90 days, the application was filed on 15th September, 2008 below exhibit 19 for condonation of delay. The same was rejected on 15th October, 2008. As such the present application came to be filed for setting aside no written statement order. The parties are closely related to each other. The suit is for partition. It appears from the record that the applications filed by the present petitioner for adjournment, so as to enable them to file written-statement were granted and as such the written statement was filed beyond the period of 90 days. The delay is of 30 days. The petitioner no. 1 is the widow and no. 2 and 3 are her sons taking education whereas other petitioners are married sisters of the plaintiff who are residing at far away places. Taking into consideration these aspects of the matter and particularly that the learned trial Judge himself has granted adjournment to the petitioners to file written-statement, I am inclined to allow the petition. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (B.R. GAVAI, J)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.72 OF 2005 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION ST. NO.16223 OF 2005 Shri Madhukar Narayan Karandikar (expired as on 13.4.2004 L/R on record) Smt.Lilabai Madhukar Karandikar &.. ors. Applicants v/s. Maharashtra Chittapavan Sandh, Pune.. & ors. Respondents Mr.A.P.Vanarase for the applicants. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. DATED : 10th October, 2005 P.C. Heard Mr.Vanarase, the learned counsel for the applicants. No.16223 stamp under Application Appli Revision R Civil 2. hence, and dly belatedly t 1 but filed been has 2005 of per As delay. of 0 ion condonation for ation application this The days. 32 of 5 ( is caused delay note, office the and age old be to stated stat been has delay for reason awarding ä by condoned hereby he is delay The illness. the to remitted re and 8 Rs.500/- at ed quantified cost two within ty Authority A Services Ser Legal Court High weeks. Place this Civil Revision Application for admission after vacation. (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5935 OF 2009 Smt.Vijaya Arvind Kurne. ..Petitioner. Versus Smt.Jyoti Pramod Nigudkar, The President / Secretary, Suvidya Prasarak Sangh. The Head Mistress, S.P.S.'s Suvidyalaya. The Education Inspector, Brihanmumbai (West Zone), Mumbai. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondents. Mr.S.V. Pitre, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Seema Sarnaik, Advocate i/b. Ameya Tamhane, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms.Indrayani M. Koparkar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3. Mr.C.I. Khemani, A.G.P., for the Respondent - State. ... ... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ DATED : 23rd JULY, 2009. P.C. :- Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 1981 in the school run by respondent No.1. She did her B.A. In 1990 and B.Ed. In 1991 and thus entered in category "C" in 1991. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Mistress w.e.f. 20.6.2007. Respondent No.1 challenged the promotion of the present petitioner before the School Tribunal. By order dated 30th June, 2009, the appeal filed by respondent No.1 came to be allowed. Respondent No.2 – Management was directed to promote respondent No.1 to the post of Head Mistress in place of the present petitioner from the date of the order. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition. A few admitted facts are as under : Respondent No.1 is from open category. She was appointed as an Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 2.7.1984 in category "C" in one of the schools run by respondent No.2 – Management. Respondent No.1 did her B.Ed. in 1979 and acquired M.A. Degree in the year 1982. Hence, on her appointment, she was placed in category "C". Respondent No.1 thereafter came to be appointed to the post of Assistant Head Mistress in Suvidyalaya w.e.f. 1.8.2008. It is an admitted fact that respondent No.2 runs three schools namely (1) S.P.S's Suvidyalaya, Borivali (West), (2) S.P.S.'s Mangubhai Dattani Vidyalaya, Borivali (East), and (3) S.P.S.'s Manohar Hariram Chogale Vidyalaya, Borivali (West). There are three posts of Head Mistress and two posts of Assistant Head Mistress in the institutions run by respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 challenged the grant of promotion to the petitioner as Head Mistress on the ground that there were three posts of Head Master in the schools run by respondent No.2. Out of the three posts, two posts were occupied by Open Category and one post was occupied by reserved category candidate i.e. the present petitioner. The case of respondent No.1 is that as there were three posts and the petitioner being from the reserved category was appointed to one of the said posts, the reservation amounted to 33% which was against the provisions of the M.E.P.S. Act, 1987 and the Rules framed thereunder. The contention of respondent No.1 is that as per Rule 9(10)(A) of the M.E.P.S. Act there could only be 24% reservation in any institution and as this reservation had been exceeded there were violation of Rule 9(10)(A) and hence it was prayed that the promotion of the petitioner be set-aside and respondent No.1 be appointed as Head Mistress as she was first in the seniority list. The case of the Management is that one Mr.Manohar Waradkar was promoted to the post of Head Master. He belonged to Scheduled Caste. When vacancy arose in the post of Mr.Manohar Waradkar, the present petitioner who also belongs to S.C. was promoted to the post as per roster. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that if at all respondent No.1 was aggrieved by the order of promotion of the petitioner on 20.6.2007, it ought to have been immediately challenged by respondent No.1. He submitted that as the cause of action arose on 20.6.2007, it ought to have been challenged by respondent No.1 immediately thereafter. However, it was challenged by respondent No.1 by filing appeal on 1st January, 2009. As the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Mistress on 20.6.2007 and the said promotion came to be challenged by respondent No.1 only in January, 2009, it is submitted that there is an inordinate delay on the part of respondent No.1 in challenging the order. He submitted that there was no explanation for this inordinate delay. Hence on the ground of delay itself the complaint ought to have been dismissed. As far as the aspect of delay is concerned, from the seniority list as on 1.8.2006, which is not disputed by any of the parties, it is seen that Mr.S.K. Khillare was the senior most and respondent No.1 was at Sr.No.2, whereas the petitioner was at Sr.No.22. As respondent No.1 was not the senior most teacher and as Mr.Khillare was the senior most teacher when the petitioner came to be promoted on 20.6.2007, respondent No.1 could not have challenged the promotion of the petitioner. As at that point of time, there was no possibility of appointing respondent No.1 to the post of Head in the place of the petitioner as respondent No.1 was not the senior most teacher in category "C" at that time. At that stage only Mr.Khillare could have challenged promotion of the petitioner. Hence, on 20.6.2007 when the petitioner came to be promoted, it could not be said that respondent No.1 was an aggrieved party as she was not the senior most and hence there was no question of respondent No.1 being promoted as head. Thus, there was no question of respondent No.1 challenging the promotion of the petitioner at that stage and it is only when she became eligible she has filed an appeal. As stated earlier, the main contention of respondent No.1 is that by promoting the petitioner, the reservation exceeded 24% which is in violation of Rule 9(10) (A) and hence the petitioner could not have been appointed to the post of Head. The learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that admittedly respondent No.2 runs three schools and there are three posts of Head and two posts of Assistant Head in the three schools, hence, if the three posts of Head and two posts of Assistant Head are taken together then in that case Rule 9(10)(A) which provides for 24% reservation is not exceeded. As far as this aspect is concerned, this Court (Nagpur Bench) in the decision dated 15.2.2007 in Writ Petition No.4723 of 2005 held that the post of Head Master and Assistant Head Master are different posts and the same cannot be clubbed together for adjudication of 24% roster. This decision has been considered by the Tribunal while deciding the dispute. In the case of R.S. Garg Vs. State of U.P. and ors. (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 430 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under : "40. We are not concerned with the reasonableness or otherwise of the percentage of reservation. 21% of the posts have been reserved for the Scheduled Tribe (sic Caste) candidates by the State itself. It, thus, cannot exceed the quota. It is not disputed that in the event of any conflict between the percentage of reservation and the roster, the former shall prevail. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the roster to fill up the posts by reserved category candidates, after every four posts, in our considered opinion does not meet the constitutional requirements." 12.In view of the above observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we have to see the percentage of reservation for the post of Head under the M.E.P.S. Act and Rules. Rule 9(10) deals with reservation of the post in the cadres of Head and Assistant Heads in private schools. As per this rule, Management shall reserve 24% of total number of posts of Heads and Assistant Heads for the members of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Caste converts to Buddhism, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes and Nomadic Tribes. As per this rule, only 24% posts can be reserved in the cadre of Heads and Assistant Heads. Undisputedly there are only three posts of Head in the respondent institute, therefore, if one post is given to the candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste then it would exceed the limit of 24% prescribed under the law. If one post out of three posts goes to reserved category candidate, then reservation would amount to 33% which is not permissible under law. 13.The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a circular dated 5th May, 2009 wherein it is stated that reservation of 24% is increased to 33%. On perusal of the said circular, it is seen that it is to take effect on 8.10.2008, whereas the promotion of the petitioner took place on 20.6.2007. In such case, the said circular would be of no help to the petitioner. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that in the pleading before the lower Court, no such ground has been taken by the petitioner that reservation of 33% would apply and in such case as there are three posts the petitioner can be appointed in a reserved post. 14.The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is senior to respondent No.1 as the petitioner was appointed in 1981 and respondent No.1 was appointed in 1984. According to him, the Tribunal erroneously held that respondent No.1 is senior to the petitioner on the basis of the date on which the petitioner and respondent No.1 became qualified to be appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Shri Vaijanath s/o. Tatyarao Shinde Vs. The Secretary, Marathwada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Aurangabad & Ors. reported in 2006(6) ALL MR 823. He submitted that the decision would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as the said decision covers cases relating to Rule 3(1)(a), whereas the case of the petitioner would fall under Rule 3(1)(b). To my mind the fact that the appointment under Rule 3(1)(a) relates to appointment in primary school and the fact that the appointments under Rule 3(1)(b) relates to appointment in Secondary School would not make any difference because the same ratio would apply. If this ratio is taken into consideration, it is seen that the respondent was appointed in 1984 as Assistant Teacher at that time, she was fully qualified to hold the post as she had the qualification of B.Ed and M.A. on the date of her appointment, whereas the petitioner though appointed in 1981 at that time she did not hold B.A. or B.Ed. qualification. She acquired the qualification of B.A. in 1990 and B.Ed. in the year, 1991. In such case, her seniority can only be counted from the date that she became eligible for the post. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the seniority cannot be counted from the date of initial appointment, but, it would be counted from the date that a person acquires the requisite qualification. Moreover, it is seen that the seniority list in which respondent No.1 was shown at Sr.No.2 and petitioner at Sr.No.22 was not challenged by the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner was at Sr.No.22, the said seniority list was not challenged by him because the candidates at Sr.No.1 to 21 were from Open Category and the petitioner who is at Sr.No.22 was the first candidate in S.C. Category and the petitioner was eligible for promotion as the petitioner was from SC category. 16.The learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Single Judge of this Court in the case of Vinayak Krishnaji Joshi (dead) by L.Rs. Nalini wd/0. Vinayak Joshi and others. Vs. Akola Education Society and others reported in 2006(2) Mh.L.J. 68 wherein while considering the provisions of the said Act and the Government Resolutions dated 17.9.1980 and 29.3.1997, it was held that where the education – society is running two schools, one at Akola and the other at Murtizapur, having two posts of Head masters, the vacancies occurring in these two posts will be required to be filled in as per roster point in use at the time of occurrence of such vacancy and by rotation. Thus, the post of Head Master in either school may be reserved as per the roster point when vacancy arises, the cut-off date being 3.6.1977. It was further observed that the Apex Court in Prabhash Chan Jain vs. State of Haryana and others, 1996(8) SCC 105 , had rejected the contention that whenever there are two posts, same cannot be filled by applying the reservation policy and had held that it is possible to implement the roster even in such circumstances. Reliance was placed on para 8 of the said decision. While arriving at the said finding, and more particularly to the observation by the Apex Court in the said para to the effect that "However, while filling the posts, it is the vacancies which are to be taken into consideration and these vacancies have to be filled in, according to roster points". However, it is seen that this issue has been considered by the Full Bench of this Court and the decision of the learned Single Judge in Vinayak Joshi has been considered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of New English High School Association, Nagpur and another Vs. Baldev s/o. Fakira Ade and another reported in 2006(6) Mh.L.J. 882 . After considering the decision, the Full Bench observed that "in Prabhash Chan Jain's case (supra) the Apex Court had not dealt with the issue about the applicability of roster on consideration of the percentage of reservation.". Thereafter the Full Bench held that "26. If out of two posts, one post is reserved by applying the roster, it would obviously exceed 24%. Besides, the reservation is not 24% in favour of any one particular category. The maximum reservation is in favour of the Scheduled Castes which is to the extent of 13%, whereas the minimum is 4% in case of the Denotified and the Nomadic Tribes. As rightly submitted by the learned Advocate Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, if the reservation in the categories of Denotified and Nomadic Tribes is considered as one unit, it would consist of 4% i.e. 8 out of 100. If there are only two posts, and one of them is specified for reservation in favour of the Denotified Tribes or the Nomadic Tribes, who are entitled for reservation to the extent of only 8 out of 100, it would virtually amount to granting reservation by 42% in excess of the statutory entitlement in favour of the said category, which is not permissible and it would be in excess of the reservation under the statutory provision. Similar is the case in relation to the Scheduled Castes which is entitled for 13% reservation. In other words, 26 out of 100 and even reservation of one post would be in excess of total reservation of 24%. Undoubtedly, the Constitution mandates implementation of reservation policy. However, at the same time, it assures opportunities to all the open class category candidates. The implementation of the reservation policy should not lead to absurd result. The application of reservation percentage has to be with reference to the number of posts. It is always to be remembered that the reservation percentage is to be applied and the 50 point roster is to be followed taking into consideration the total number of posts in a cadre and at the same time care has to be taken that other category candidates are not prejudiced in the sense that the statutorily recognized reservation percentage does not exceed while implementing the reservation policy. Undisputedly, the relevant rule requires 24% of reservation out of which 13% for the S.C., 7% for the S.T. and 4% for the D.T./N.T. Considering the 24% reservation, if one applies the 50 point roster, it would result in reservation in excess of the statutorily specified percentage. In a cadre comprising of three posts with 24% reservation rule, if one applies the 50 point roster, then the reservation even in respect of one post would exceed 24% reservation. One-third cannot be equated to 24%. It is settled law that the reservation cannot be allowed to exceed the percentage prescribed for reservation as it would result in injustice to the candidates falling outside the reservation category. Considering the same, we are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench in Somsing's case that 24% reservation can be applicable only in cases where there are minimum of four posts in a cadre and not otherwise." 18.In view of the above facts and in view of this decision, as the cadre consists of three posts of Head Master and total percentage of reservation at that time was only 24%, in such case, there could not have been any reservation and only in case if there were four posts then one post could have been filled in by a candidate from reserved category. Such is not the case in the present matter. 19.In view of the above facts , the decision of the School Tribunal, Mumbai dated 30.6.2009 is just, legal and proper. No interference is called for. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. At this stage, the learned Advocate for the petitioner made oral request for stay of this order. Request is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.215 OF 2011 IN REVIEW PETITION ST. NO. 16537 OF 2011 ARISIN FROM CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 383 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 216 OF 2011 IN REVIEW PETITION ST. NO. 16539 OF 2011 ARISING FROM CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 382 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or orders or directions & Judge's orders. Registrar's orders. Shri D. Khambata, Sr. Counsel along with Shri Minoo Siodia along with Shri Agrawal Nikhil and Shri Kaushik N. Singh i/by Rustomji and Ginwala for the Applicant. Shri Vijay Thorat, Sr. Counsel along with Shri Ranjit Shetty and Shri Luckyraj Indorkar i/by Hariani & Co. for the Respondents. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE :28TH JUNE, 2011 P.C.: . Not on board. Taken on board. Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the Applicant and the learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent. Sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. Delay is condoned. The Applications are accordingly allowed. ( A.S.OKA, J )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1771 OF 2010 Amit Anant Thite and Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Venkatesh A.Shastry for Petitioners Mrs. M.R. Tidake -APP for State. Mr.U.P. Warunjikar for Respondent No.2 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 18TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners seeks leave to withdraw this writ petition. Writ petition is allowed to be withdrawn. If an application for exemption is filed by the petitioners in the Trial Court, the same may be considered favourably and the presence may not be insisted unless it is absolutely necessary. petition is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CAUSE TITLES AND APPEARANCES AS NOTIFIED ...... CORAM : N.M. Jamdar, J. 15 July 2016. P.C. :- On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on daily board dated 15 July 2016, stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS as under :- For condonation of delay A/N Matter at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 64 05.08.2016 65 25.08.2016 For Orders (Restoration) Matter at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 66 to 71 72 to 74 75 to 80 81 to 84 25.08.2016 26.08.2016 29.08.2016 30.08.2016 For restoration (admitted) Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 85 to 86 30.08.2016 87 to 89 31.08.2016 For Orders (Early Hearing Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 90 & 91 31.08.2016 92 to 94 01.09.2016 For Orders Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 98 01.09.2016 99 05.08.2016 100,101 01.09.2016 102 22.03.2017 103 01.09.2016 104 & 105 05.08.2016 106 to 109 02.09.2016 110 06.09.2016 A.O. for Admission Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 111 19.09.2016 M.C.A. fresh Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 112 18.10.2016 112 10.10.2010 M.C.A. Admission After Notice Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date For Admission Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date For Admission Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date For Admission fresh Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 117 to 122 23.03.2017 123 to 127 24.03.2017 For Admission After Notice Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 128 to 131 02.08.2016 132 to 135 03.08.2016 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 ad-interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (N.M. Jamdar, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1033 OF 2016 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 806 OF 2011 Sandeep Manohar Chavan ....Applicant V/s. 1. Smt. Suvarna Sudhakar Pawaskar and Ors. ....Respondents Mr. Devendra Pawar i/by. R.D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant. None for the Respondents. Coram :- N.M. Jamdar, J. Date :- 21 April 2017. P.C. :- The Second Appeal was dismissed in view of the order passed on 13th October, 2015 directing the Applicant to pay costs of Rs.5,000/-. Till date, the costs are not paid and restoration of the Second Appeal is sought. The restoration, will have to be on the payment of additional costs. Accordingly, the Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to the Applicant paying costs of Rs.10,000/- within a period of 4 weeks from today failing which the Appeal to stand dismissed for non-prosecution without reference to the Court. (N.M. Jamdar, J)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.544 OF 2006 IN S.C.SUIT NO.2483 OF 2004 Malik Mohd.Qasim Noor Mohammed ...Appellant Versus Ammar Hussain Taqdir Shaikh & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.A.S.Uraizee with Mr.M.V.Singh for Appellant. Mr.A.H.Fernandes for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JULY 26, 2006. P.C. As the question raised in this Appeal is pure question of law and Counsel for the Respondents fairly accepts that there is no direct Judgment of this Court, issue notice for final disposal. Mr.Fernandes waives notice for Respondents. List on 18th October 2006. Interim protection granted earlier to continue till the next date of hearing. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 544 of 2006 Malik Mohd.Qasim Noor Mohammed .. Appellant versus Ammar Hussan Taqdir Shaikh .. Respondent ... Mr.A.S. Uraizee for the appellant. Mr. A.H. Fernandes for respondent nos.1 and 2. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 18th October 2006 P.C.: Mr.Uraizee learned counsel for the appellant reports no instructions and states that the appellant has taken away the papers from him. In order to give one more opportunity to the appellant, S.O. to 7th November 2006 for hearing on admission. (D.G. KARNIK, J)

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 544 OF 2006 Shri Malik Mohd.Qasim Noor Mohammed. .. Appellant Versus Shri Ammar Hussain Taqdir Shaikh & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. A.H. Fernandes for respondent nos.1 & 2. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 17th November 2006 P.C.: ... None present for the Appellant when called. Appeal is dismissed under order 41 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (D.G. KARNIK, J) 1

Order - Status 16: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 544 OF 2006 ======================================================= Office Notes, Office Court's or Judges Orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances,Court's Orders or directions and Registry's orders. ======================================================= Mr. A.K.Kar for appellant. Mr.A.H.Fernandes for the Respondent 1 & 2. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATE : 22nd February 2007. P.C. : As the Appeal is restored by separate order passed today, the same is taken on board by consent of the parties. Counsel appearing for the parties point out that parties have amicably settled the dispute on the terms reduced into writing in the form of Consent Terms. Consent Terms duly signed by the parties and their Advocates tendered and taken on record. Both Counsel submit that the Appeal be disposed of on the basis of the Consent Terms. Order accordingly. Counsel for the Respondents points out that Respondent has deposited certain amount in the lower Court. The appellant has no objectiion if the Respondent were to withdraw that amount. That liberty is given to the respondent in view of the consent given by the appellant. The respondent to apply to the trial Court for withdrawal of the amount/suit which application will be disposed of expeditiously. -- [A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.]

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.300 OF 2017 Devila K. Shah … Applicant V/s. Faaiz Anwar Qureshi & Anr. … Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.303 OF 2017 Manashi K. Shah … Applicant V/s. Faaiz Anwar Qureshi & Anr. … Respondents Mr. P.V. Dubey a/w. Bindu Gupta for the Applicant. Mr. A.R. Kapadnis, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 28th MARCH 2018 P.C.: Issue notice to Respondent No.1, returnable after four weeks. In addition to Court notice, the applicant is permitted to serve Respondent No.1 by way of private notice and to file an affidavit of service after Respondent No.1 is duly served. Stand over to 25.04.2018. (A.S.GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 9: Dond IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 303 OF 2017 Mansi K.Shah ..Applicant Vs Faaiz Anwar Qureshi & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Princekumar Dubey for applicant. Mr. Devang Lakhotia i/b Juris Consillis for respondent No.1. Mr. V.V. Gangurde, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 25th APRIL 2018. P.C.: 1] This is an application for condonation of delay of 69 days in filing the application for leave to file appeal. 2] Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1. 3] The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 vehemently opposed the application. However, for the reasons stated in the application and in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned and the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). (A.S.GADKARI, J.) 1/1

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6492 OF 2016 Mr. Sameer Sikander Nadaf …...Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner & Special Registrar C.S., Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors. …...Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6493 OF 2016 Mr. Jayhind Yadavrao Phadtare …...Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner & Special Registrar C.S., Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors. …...Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6494 OF 2016 Mr. Kailash Ashok Bhore …...Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner & Special Registrar C.S., Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors. …...Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6495 OF 2016 Mr. Shrikant Vithal Mhamane …...Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner & Special Registrar C.S., Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors. …...Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6497 OF 2016 Mrs. Jayshree Mohanrao Gudge …...Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner & Special Registrar C.S., Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors. …...Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6498 OF 2016 Mr. Shivaji Tukaram Ghadge …...Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner & Special Registrar C.S., Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors. …...Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6499 OF 2016 Mr. Subhash Ramchandra Gonjari …...Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner & Special Registrar C.S., Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors. …...Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6500 OF 2016 Mr. Nitin Mahadev Veer …...Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner & Special Registrar C.S., Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors. …...Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6501 OF 2016 Mr. Bhimrao Baburao Ghodke …...Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner & Special Registrar C.S., Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors. …...Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6502 OF 2016 Mr. Bhimrao Maruti Dham V/s. …Petitioner Additional Commissioner & Special Registrar C.S., Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors. …Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6503 OF 2016 Mr. Abhiraj Dilip Nagmal V/s. …Petitioner Additional Commissioner & Special Registrar C.S., Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors. …Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6504 OF 2016 Mr. Ashok Dattaraya Bhore V/s. …Petitioner Additional Commissioner & Special Registrar C.S., Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors. …Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6505 OF 2016 Mr. Sachin Mohanrao Gudge V/s. …Petitioner Additional Commissioner & Special Registrar C.S., Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors. …Respondents * * * * * Mr. P.N. Joshi i/by. Mr. S.M. Sabrad, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for respondent no.1. Mr. Dilip Bodake, Advocate for respondent no.3. Mr. Y.S. Jahgirdar, Senior Advocate i/by. Mr. Sarang S. Aradhye and Mr. Milind Prabhune, Advocate for respondents no.4, 8, 9, 10 and 14 to 27. CORAM :- SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED :- 15TH JUNE, 2016. P.C. :- 1). Admit. The petitions are being admitted only for the academic purposes of deciding the scope of By-Law 40 of respondent no.3, Bank. It is made clear that, there are no interim reliefs granted in the petitions and the petitions are admitted only for consideration of scope of By Law No.40 of the by-laws of respondent no.3, bank. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6492 OF 2016 Mr.Sameer Sikander Nadaf ..Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner and Special Registrar, Co. Op. Soc. & Ors. ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6493 OF 2016 Mr.Jayhind Yadavrao Phadtare Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner and Special Registrar, Co. Op. Soc. & Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6494 OF 2016 Mr.Kailash Ashok Bhore Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner and Special Registrar, Co. Op. Soc. & Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6495 OF 2016 Mr.Shrikaant Vithal Mhamane Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner and Special Registrar, Co. Op. Soc. & Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6497 OF 2016 Smt.Jayshree Mohanrao Gudge Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner and Special Registrar, Co. Op. Soc. & Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6498 OF 2016 Petitioner Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6499 OF 2016 Mr.Subhash Ramchandra Gonjari Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner and Special Registrar, Co. Op. Soc. & Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6500 OF 2016 Mr.Nitin Mahadev Veer Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner and Special Registrar, Co. Op. Soc. & Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6501 OF 2016 Mr.Bhimrao Baburao Ghodke Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner and Special Registrar, Co. Op. Soc. & Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6502 OF 2016 Mr.Bhimrao Maruti Dham Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner and Special Registrar, Co. Op. Soc. & Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6503 OF 2016 Mr.Abhiraj Dilip Nagmal Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner and Special Registrar, Co. Op. Soc. & Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6504 OF 2016 Mr.Ashok Dattatraya Bhore Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner and Special Registrar, Co. Op. Soc. & Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6505 OF 2016 Mr.Sachin Mohanrao Gudge Petitioner V/s. Additional Commissioner and Special Registrar, Co. Op. Soc. & Ors. Respondents Mr.Amey Sawant i/b Mr.S.M. Sabrad for the Petitioners. Ms.Shraddha Pawar i/b Mr.Dilip Bodke for Respondent No.3. Mr.S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for the Respondent-State in Writ Petition No.6492 of 2016. Mr.A.P. Vanarse for the Respondent-State in Writ Petition No.6493 of 2016. Mr.M.C. Walimbe for the Respondent-State in Writ Petition No.6495 of 2016. Mr.P.P. Pujari for the Respondent-State in Writ Petition No.6497 of 2016. CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J. DATE : 06th FEBRUARY 2020 P.C. The challenge of these petitions is to the rejection of the nomination papers of the petitioners by an order passed way back on 31st May 2016, which order has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 10th June 2016. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that this Court in a batch of connected petitions being Writ Petition No.6494 of 2016 and others had granted Rule on 15th June 2016. However perusal of the said order shows that the said petitions were admitted, only for the academic purpose of deciding scope of byelaw No.40 of respondent No.3-Bank. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 on the contrary points out that one of the connected petitions being Writ Petition No.8060 of 2010 has been dismissed by this Court on 18th January 2017, in view of the fact that the election had already taken place. He further points out that based on the said order this Court has dismissed two other petitions being Writ Petition Nos.4511 of 2017 and 4513 of 2017 on 30th January 2020. Considering the circumstances and particularly having regard to the fact that the challenge is to the rejection of the nomination in May 2016 and the elections are long over and further having regard to the fact that the three connected petitions involving a similar issue have already been dismissed, I decline to entertain the petitions. The petitions are accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs. Nilam Kamble Digitally signed by Nilam Kamble Date: 2020.02.07 15:49:05 +0530 The issue of the scope of the bye-law No.40 of the Bank, is left open. C.V. BHADANG, J.