All Cases

Order - Status 5: srk FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET APPELLATE SIDE First Appeal No.573 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders ------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Mr.Sudhir Prabhu for appellants. Mrs.A.A.Mane, AGP for resp.nos.1 and 2. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE &. S.J.VAZIFDAR,JJ. April 28, 2009. P.C. learned u, the Heard Mr.Prabhu, the learned Heard the were who appellants the for counsel of No.193 ence Reference Land in claimants Judge, Civil ned learned the before 1997 The Oros. at Sindhudurg Sindl Division, Senior application : an submitted had Å‚ appellants Acquisition Land the of 18 Section under the referred to refe it was and 1894 Act, to pleased was which W Court Reference of the enhancement enhai for claim the dismiss that ground the on solely n compensation the 18 of Section er Sect under application the of the 42 days Act was filed beyond 42 days of the et was f prescribed limit. .We are, therefore, prima facie, of the view that this appeal could be decided at the admission stage itself after perusing the R. & P. .Hence Call for R. & P. in Land Reference No.193 of 1997 so as to reach the Registry before 31st May 2009. .Stand over to 9th June 2009. (S.J.VAZIFDAR,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.573 OF 2009 Parvati Shankar Pokhare ..Appellant. Versus The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Konkan Railway Project & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Sudhir Prabhu for the Appellant. Mrs.A.A. Mane, AGP for Respondent nos.1 and 2. Mrs.Kiran Bhagalia for Respondent no.3. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE AND S.J. VAZIFDAR, JJ. DATED : 11TH JUNE, 2009 P.C. :- Heard Mr.Prabhu, the learned counsel for the Appellant. Admit. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, the Appeal is finally heard. This Appeal filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short the "Act") arises from the award dated 29.1.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sindhudurg at Oros, thereby dismissing Land Reference No.193 of 1997. The Applicants owned agricultural land as per the following details and the same came to be acquired for the Konkan Railway Project :- Survey No. Area 238 1.47 241 44 hares 236 27.7 27.7 hares The Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on 14.11.1994 and awarded compensation at Rs.14,37,851/. As per the Claimants, they ought to have been granted the compensation of Rs.14,37,851/ at the rate of Rs.5000/- per guntha and, in addition, compensation for 35 alphonso mango trees, 391 naram trees, 60 kinjal trees, 76 cashew trees and four savar trees. Hence, they submitted an application for enhancement of compensation under section 18 of the Act, which application came to be referred to the Court and it was registered as Land Reference No.193 of 1997. The land was acquired for the Indian Railways and, therefore, in the reference application, Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. Was impleaded as Respondent no.3. Respondent nos.1 and 2 filed written statement at Exhibit 11 and opposed the reference. Respondent no.3 filed written statement at Exhibit 42 and resisted the claim for higher compensation. It was specifically contended in the reply at Exhibit 11 that the application filed under section 18 of the Act was hit by limitation and based on this preliminary ground itself, the reference ought to be dismissed. The reference court framed the following two issues :- (1) Does the claimant/applicant prove that, compensation awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate, improver and unreasonable ? (2) It the claimant/applicant entitled to any additional compensation ? If so, what amount ? and answered the same in the negative and to the effect that none of the issues survived. It is pertinent to note that the reference court did not frame the issue of limitation but, surprisingly, the reference stands dismissed on the ground that the application filed under section 18 was beyond limitation. As per the reference court, the notice under section 12(2) was served on the claimants as per the report submitted by the Village Talathi on 25.3.1995, and the application under section 18 was filed on 3.7.1996. As per the scheme of section 18(2) of the Act, the application for enhancement was required to be filed within 42 days from the receipt of notice issued under section 12(2) of the Act i.e. from 25.3.1995 in the instant case and on these grounds, the reference court held that the application was hit by limitation. We have verified the record and, admittedly, the original copy of the report of the Talathi, alongwith the service proof of the notice under section 12(2) of the Act, is not traceable. The Talathi was not examined before the reference court. The claim application filed by the Claimants stated that the notice under section 12(2) was not received on 25.3.1995 but, it did not specify whether the notice was received and, if so, on what date. Even either of the Claimants do not indicate as to whether the Applicants were aware or they had implied knowledge about the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 14/15.11.1994. We are therefore satisfied that none of the parties had placed on record any reliable evidence in support of the plea of limitation, within the meaning of section 18(2) of the Act and the finding recorded by the reference curt in dismissing the application is solely on the ground of the Talathi's report. It would be therefore necessary that the issue of limitation is decided de-novo and all the parties could be provided an opportunity to adduce evidence on the point of limitation. In any case, dismissal of the enhancement application on the ground of limitation is unsustainable as the reasoning set out therein is not supported from the record. The reference court was required to frame a specific issue regarding limitation so that the parties were put on notice and they would have opportunity to adduce evidence on the very specific issue of limitation. This has not been done and this is more apparent on the face of the record, inasmuch as a finding has been recorded without framing an issue. Hence, this Appeal succeeds and the same is hereby allowed partly. The impugned award passed in Land Reference No.193 of 1997 is hereby quashed and set aside and the said reference is hereby restored to the file of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sindhudurg at Oros for a de-novo trial, including the issue of limitation. All the parties are at liberty to adduce additional evidence both oral as well as documentary. The parties to appear before the reference court on 6.7.2009 and, we direct, that on remand, the enhancement application is decided as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, before 31.10.2009. R & P be returned to the reference court forthwith. Parties to bear their own costs. (S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.573 OF 2009 Parvati Shankar Pokhare .. Appellant versus The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Konkan Railway Project & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Sudhir Prabhu for the Appellant. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & S.J. KATHAWALLA,JJ. DATED : NOVEMBER 23, 2009. P.C. : Perused the letter dated 31st October, 2009 received from the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sindhudurg-Oros. In view of the reasons stated in the letter, time for disposal of the matter is extended by a period of two months from today. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) ( S. J. KATHAWALLA, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1356 OF 2021 Shri. Ramchandra Shankar Sutar … Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1354 OF 2021 Shri. Uttam Tukaram Sutar … Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1343 OF 2021 Shri. Bhagwan Babaji Dhawale … Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1352 OF 2021 Sou. Anusaya Dhondiba Maragage … Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1362 OF 2021 Shri. Dilip Gaurihar Dhawale (Dhangar) … Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1359 OF 2021 Munni Adesh Deshmukh … Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1361 OF 2021 Sou. Anusaya Dhondiba Maragage … Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1344 OF 2021 2021 L Shri. Govind Krishna Jadhav … Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1357 OF 2021 2021 L Sou. Anusaya Dhondiba Maragage … Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1588 OF 2021 2021 L Shri. Maruti Ramaji Rodat (Jadhav) … Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents Mr. Dhananjay Chavan a/w Mr. Vijay Garad i/b. Mr. Rajendra A. Choudhary, Advocate for the Petitioners. i∕b. Mr. Rajendra A. Mr. S.B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent - State. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. A S. TWA JADHAV & L, JJ. 25th AUGUST 2021. DATED : P.C. : In all these petitions, a common order is passed today because it involves the same question; only the factual aspect differs for each petitioner. The petitioners are Project Affected Persons whose lands were acquired for Koyna Dam Project way back in the year 1961. All these petitioners are still waiting for allotment of lands in lieu of the lands which were acquired. The petitioners have made applications before the authorities as follows :- Sr. No. Name Date of application 1. Shri. Ramchandra Shankar Sutar (WP/1356/2021) 24.07.2020 2. Shri. Uttam Tukaram Sutar (WP/1354/2021) 29.07.2020 3. Shri. Bhagwan Babaji Dhawale (WP/1343/2021) 20.05.2020 4. Shri. Dilip Gaurihar Dhawale (Dhangar) (WP/1362/2021) 29.05.2020 5. Sou. Munni Adesh Deshmukh (WP/1359/2021) 29.06.2020 6. Sou. Anusaya Dhondiba Maragage (WP/1357/2021) 29.05.2020 7. Shri. Govind Krishna Jadhav (WP/1344/2021) 24.07.2020 8. Sou. Anusaya Dhondiba Maragage (WP/1361/2021) 29.05.2020 9. Shri. Maruti Ramaji Rodat (Jadhav) (WP/1588/2021) 24.06.2020 10. Sou. Anusaya Dhondiba Maragage (WP/1352/2021) 29.05.2020 The Petitioners have mentioned in their applications that lands in different survey numbers situated in village Kundevahal, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad be allotted to them. The said applications are still not decided. The petitioners have prayed for allotment of lands. Applications are pending for quite sometime. The petitioners have not been given alternate lands for many years. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are directing the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to decide the applications of the petitioners for allotment of alternate lands of their choice within 8 weeks from today. With these directions, the petitions are disposed of. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J) (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1008 OF 2019 Shri. Narayan Punja @ Punjaji Nagare ....Appellant V/S The Divisional Manager, Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd., ....Respondent Sachin Gite For Appellant CORAM : K.K. TATED, J DATE : 30th July, 2019 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the Appellant, Stand over to 6/8/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: 45.1008.19-fa.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION First Appeal No.1008/2019 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders. Mr. Sachin Gite for the Appellant CORAM: K.K.TATED, J. DATED : AUGUST 6, 2019 P.C. 1 Heard. By this appeal, the Appellant claimant challenges the judgment and award dated 12.02.2019 passed by the MACT, Niphad in MACP No.45/2015 dismissing their claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2 Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Appellant and the reasons recorded by the Tribunal in para 13 of the impugned judgment and award, following order is passed: a. Admit. b. The Appellant is directed to file private paper book within one year from today with copy to other side, failing which the First Appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the court. c. Printing dispensed with. d. Call R & P. e. Hearing expedited. f. Liberty granted to the Appellant to move for early hearing once the paper book is filed and R & P is received. (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLICATION NO.303 OF 2009 IN APPLICATION NO.4486 OF 2008 Ashutosh Dnyaneshwar Agashe Vs. State of Mah) Office Notes, Office Court's Court's or Judge's orders. s orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Nr 01 0 0 1 Mr. Shirish Gupte, Sr. Counsel, with Mr S.V.Kotwal Advocate, for the applicant. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP, for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 07/07/2009 PC: Heard Mr. Shirish Gupte, learned senior counsel for the applicant and Mrs Shinde, learned APP, for the respondent. By this application, the applicant is seeking relaxation of the condition imposed by this court vide order dated 30.1.2009 in Criminal Application No. 4486 of 2008. By this order, the applicant was directed not to leave the city of Pune without seeking permission of the court. Mr Gupte, learned senior counsel for the applicant, submits that such condition was imposed because his presence for interrogation was required at that stage and some other accused were to be arrested. He submits that his presence for interrogation is not required since the investigation, insofar as the present applicant is concerned, is almost over. The learned APP does not dispute this submission and submits that she has no objection for allowing the applicant to leave the city of Pune once in a week with prior intimation to the police. In the circumstances, I pass the following order. The applicant is allowed to leave the city of Pune once in a week with prior intimation to the police. Rest of the order dated 30.1.2009 remains unaltered. The application is disposed of. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) 2

Order - Status 8: Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3097 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20874 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Surendra Dhanji Shah & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3099 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20878 OF 2004 Vima Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Hansa Hansa Jayendra Shah & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3101 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21020 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Bindu Kiran Sampat & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3103 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20891 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Pramila Dhirajlal Parekh & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3105 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20881 OF 2004 V Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ant Shah & C Applicants 3 V/s. Sı Surendra Dhanji Shah & Ors. i Shah & Ors Respondents ΞS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3109 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21002 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Tersih Keshavji Raigoga & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3116 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21007 OF 2004 Vima Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Bind Bindu Kiran Sampat & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3118 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21013 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Kumud Tersih Raigoga & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3120 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21016 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Sangeet Vinay Raigoga & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3122 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20869 OF 2004 V imal Cha Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. . Shah & Or s. Applicants V/s. J ayendra Jayendra Dhanji Shah & Ors. hah & Ors. Respondents Mr.Vimal Chandrakant Shah, Applicant, present in person. . Mr.Ramesh Jain, Advocate, for the Respondents. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 21ST JANUARY, 2008. P.C.: Heard applicant appearing in person and Advocate for the original plaintiff. The impugned decree is a money decree passed in a Summary Suit. Hence, execution of the said decree cannot be stayed unless the entire decretal amount is deposited by the applicant. Hence, Application is disposed of by passing following order:- "O R D E R" (a). There will be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to condition of applicant depositing the entire decretal amount with the Trial Court within a period of six weeks from today. (b). If the entire decretal amount is not deposited with the Trial Court within stipulated time, the interim stay will stand vacated without further reference to the Court. (c). If decretal amount is deposited within stipulated time, the Trial Court will permit the original plaintiff to withdraw the said amount on furnishing adequate security. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.730 OF 2009 IN CIVIL SUIT NO.10 OF 2002 A N D APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.731 OF 2009 IN CIVIL SUIT NO.1 OF 2006 Gold's Gym. Licensing LLC & Ors. ..Appellants V/s M/s.Gold Gym, through its sole proprietor Mr.K.K.Ashar ..Respondents Mr.Ravi Kadam ASG, Mr.V Dhond & Ms.Nisha Wallani, Mr.Manav Shah & Mr.Kamlesh Patel i/by Deven Dwarkadas & partners for the appellants. Mr.Himanshu Kane with Kailas S. Dewal for the respondents. C oram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 7th September, 2009. PC 1 Parties agree that both the appeals may be disposed off in terms of the Minutes of Order. The Minutes of Order duly signed by the Advocates are tendered. The same are taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Both the appeals are disposed off in terms of the Minutes of Order. (R.S.MOHITE,J)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5645 OF 2009 Mahesh Vasant Borse ..Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & anr. ..Respondents None for the petitioner Mr.S.N.Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1 & 2 CORAM : S.B.MHASE & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 2ND SEPTEMBER,2009 P.C. . The matter pertains to the recruitment of the Police Constable. The petitioner has undergone the Selection Process and was not selected. Thereafter, he has filed this Writ Petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that he belongs to Other Backward Class Category and also possesses Non Creamylayer Certificate. His case should have been considered by the respondents in Other Backward Class Category. The respondents have filed an Affidavit in this respect and it is stated that at the time of the scrutiny of the document, the petitioner had not possessed Non Creamylayer Certificate and therefore, the petitioner had agreed to the inclusion of his name in the Open Category. Accordingly, he has given a statement to that effect. Therefore, he was considered in the Open Category. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the above Writ Petition. The above Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. ( R.M.SAVANT, J.) ( S.B.MHASE, J. )