All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 17th January, 2020 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 07/02/2020 . In case any ad-interim/interim relief is operating till today, the said order will continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar And Ors ....RESPONDENT for Petitioner for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 30th November, 2022 P.C. : Wrongly on board. Remove from the Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 11: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 439 OF 2022 Parekh Market Premises Co-op Ltd. ....APPLICANT V/S Shree Padmanabh Builders, Ghatkopar And Ors. ...RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh And Ors PETITIONER V/S Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar And Ors RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15545 OF 2022 Mr. Nirmal Madanlal Tater And Anr PETITIONER V/S Shri Padmanabh Builders And Ors RESPONDENT Mr. Amit Shroff a/w Ashna Shah i/by HARISH SHROFF AND CO for Petitioner Kishore D. Shah for Respondent No.1 & 2 Mr. Karl K. Shroff i/by Mr. Kalpesh Nansi Adv. for R. No. in wp No.15545/22 & Petioner in WP 11053/2019 Mr. Sachin Punde, Adv. for R. No. 6 & 7 in CRA & Petitioner in WP CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 23rd January, 2023 P.C. : S. O. to 06/02/2023 ( at 2.30 pm). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 439 OF 2022 Parekh Market Premises Co-op Ltd. ....APPLICANT V/S Shree Padmanabh Builders, Ghatkopar And Ors. ...RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15545 OF 2022 Mr. Nirmal Madanlal Tater And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Shri Padmanabh Builders And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 20th February, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 10/04/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.439 OF 2022 [Parekh Vs. Shree Padmanabh] WITH WRIT PETITION NO.15545 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.11053 OF 2019 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders. Mr. Amit Shroff, Advocate a/w. Ashna Shah i/b Harish Shroff & Co. for Applicant in CRA/439/2022. Mr. Sachin S. Punde, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP/15545/2022. Mr. Karl K. Shroff, Advocate i/b. Kalpesh J. Nansi for the Petitioner in WP/11053/2019. Mr.V.V. Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate a/w. K.D. Shah for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in all matters. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 25th APRIL, 2023 P.C.: Due to paucity of time, both sides agree that the matters can be heard post-vacation. By way of interim arrangement, learned counsel of both sides agree that the affidavit-in-evidence can be filed in the suit, however, the cross-examinations may not be conducted till these matters are heard by this Court on the next occasion. Therefore, this arrangement shall continue till the next date of listing before this Court. Stand over to 25.7.2023. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) Deshmane (PS)

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 439 OF 2022 Parekh Market Premises Co-op Ltd. ...Applicant. Versus Shree Padmanabh Builders, Ghatkopar & Ors. ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15545 OF 2022 Nirmal Madanlal Tater & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus Padmanabh Builders & Ors. ...Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh & Ors. ...Petitioner. Versus Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar & Ors. ...Respondent. Mr. Amit Shroff i/b Harish Shroff and Co. for the applicant in CRA & respondent No.1 in WP 11053/2019. Mr. Kishore D. Shah for the respondent No. 1 & 2 in CRA and respondent no.1 in WP 11053/2019. Mr. Kalpesh Nansi for respondent No 3 & 5. in CRA & WP 15545/2022 & Petitioner in WP 11053/2019. Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : July 25, 2023. P. C. : Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on production board. $Patil_{SR}$ 1 of 2 Application has been moved seeking extension of ad-interim relief granted vide order dated 25th April 2023. List the matter on 31st July 2023 . Interim arrangement recorded in the order dated 25th April 2023 to continue till the next date. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Amit Shroff i/b Mr. Kalpesh Nansi for the Petitioners. Mr. Virendra V. Tulzapurkar i/b Mr. Kishore D. Shah for Respondent No. 1. Ms. Ashna Shah i/b Mr. Harish Shroff & Co. for Respondent No.4. —————— —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : July 31, 2023. P. C. : Heard. The challenge in the Petition is to the order dated 24th April 2019 allowing the Notice of Motion No. 3320 of 2015 preferred by the original Respondent No. 1 seeking recall of the order dated 15th July, 2015. Heard Mr. Amit Shroff, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Dr. Virendra V. Tulzapurkar, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 and Ms. Ashna Shah, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4. Mr. Shroff, Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submit that the Petitioners are one of the unit holders of first floor of the property known as Parekh Market and would submit that in view of termination of the Power of Attorney by Respondent No. 2 on 7th February, 2000 the Respondent No. 1 does not acquire any right to continue with the proceeding. He would further submit that the termination was challenged by the Respondent No. 1 which was taken right up to Apex Court in an application filed by Respondent No. 2 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and has been held to be time barred. He has taken to this Court to the order 24th November, 2006 passed by the Single Judge of this Court holding that the counter claim which was filed on 9th August, 2004 will not be maintainable in terms of the provisions of the Limitation Act. He would further submit that the Power of Attorney was in respect of the tenants who were occupying part of the property admeasuring 2455 sq. ft. and has nothing to do with the Respondent No. 4 society in which the Petitioners are one of the Unit holders. He has invited the attention of this Court to the Power of Attorney dated 8th June, 1990 which is at page No. 204 of the Petition and would submit that the proceedings in question have been instituted on the basis of this Power of Attorney. He would submit that the power which was given under the Power of Attorney was to file against the occupants of the structures which forms part of the portion of land admeasuring 2455 sq. ft. He would further submit that the said Power of Attorney having been terminated which challenge has failed right up to Apex court, Respondent No. 1 does not acquire any right to act on behalf of Respondent No. 2. He would further contend that the agreement which was executed with the unit holders was on 6th February, 1987 which was prior to the execution of the Power of Attorney. He would further urge that the Trial Court while allowing the Notice of Motion has failed to take into consideration the orders of the Single Judge of this Court as well as the Apex Court which upheld that the counter claim filed was barred by limitation. He would urge that as the challenge to the termination of the Power of Attorney has failed, the Power of Attorney cannot be said to be subsisting. He would further assail the finding of the Trial Court on the ground that the Trial Court has erroneously recorded that the affidavits filed by Defendant Nos. 2 to 4, no ground has been taken that the Power of Attorney concerned only the tenants and not the Defendant Nos. 2 to 4. He would further submit that the Trial Court has given specific findings in respect of the Power of Attorney being an irrevocable Power of Attorney was given for consideration coupled with interest. He would urge that by these findings, the challenge if any, to the Power of Attorney has been foreclosed by the Trial Court. Per contra, Dr. Virendra Tuljapurkar, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent-Plaintiff submits that the Notice of Motion was taken out by the Respondent for setting aside the order dated 15th July, 2015 listing the matter for dismissal under Order 39 Rule 11 of the CPC. He would further contend that the entire issue which was for consideration before the Trial Court was the application of provisions of Order 39 Rule 11 of the CPC and it is in that context, that the Trial Court has examined the Power of Attorney and has held that the provisions of Order 39 Rule 11 is not attracted in the present case. He would further submit that the order dated 15th July, 2015 was passed as the Trial Court had directed the original Plaintiff to appear in the Court. He would submit that the original Plaintiff, if required, will appear before the Court and in the present case, the only inquiry is the impugned order permitting recall of order of dismissal. He would further urge that in exercise to the power under Article 227, this Court may not go into the merits of an interlocutory order. Considered the submissions and perused the papers. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has made submissions as regards the validity of the Power of Attorneys which have been executed by the Respondent No. 2 in favour of Respondent No. 1. Perusal of the impugned order dated 24th April, 2019 discloses that the application was moved seeking recall of the order dated 15th July, 2015 keeping the matter for dismissal for non compliance of the order directing presence of the original Plaintiff by invoking the powers under Order 39 Rule 11 of the CPC. The Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion seeking recall of the order contends that there was a development agreement entered into in favour of the Respondent No. 1 and the possession was handed over for valuable consideration on a partly developed property and building was constructed thereon and various tenements were sold. The contention advanced was that Respondent No. 1 was granted irrevocable Power of Attorney as well as other Power of Attorney as required for development of the said properties and as such, considering the provisions of section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 the Power of Attorney is a power coupled with interest and hence, irrevocable. Apart from the prayer of seeking recall of the order an alternate prayer was sought that the Applicant be substituted in place of the Plaintiff under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which was not allowed and only the relief of recall of the order of dismissal was sought. It is in the context of the contentions taken up by the Respondent No. 1 for the purpose of assailing the order of dismissal that the Trial Court has gone into the issue as to whether the Power of Attorney is a power coupled with interest. After observing the provisions of section 2022 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 the Court has held that at this stage the Defendant No. 2 to 4 cannot challenge the validity of the power of Attorney which would otherwise be the matter in issue and can only be decided when both the parties will get an opportunity to lead evidence into that effect. The order of the Trial Court is clear in paragraph No. 10 that the issue which was being considered by the Trial Court was only the order dated 15th July, 2015 listing the matter for dismissal by invoking the provisions under Order 39 Rule 11 which according to the Trial Court was not applicable in the given circumstances. The Trial Court specifically observed that the documents place on record by the parties are subject matter of the evidence and therefore, for continuation of the suit on merits, the order dated 15th July, 2015 needs to be recalled and the suit needs to be proceeded on merits. In my view upon reading of the impugned order 24th April, 2019 it cannot be said that by the said order, the Trial Court has conclusively held that the Power of Attorneys which have been pressed into service by the Respondent No. 1 are irrevocable Power of Attorney given for consideration coupled with interest. On the contrary it appears that the Trial Court has held that the documents which are placed are the subject matter of evidence and only for the purpose of continuation of the suit on merits, at that stage, the order dated 15th July, 2015 was recalled. Considering that the impugned order only recalls the order of dismissal dated 15th July, 2015 no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition being devoid of merits stand dismissed. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2321 OF 2007 Sunil Sukhdev Chandanshive Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.S.B.Pawar with Ms.Hema Sharma for applicant. Ms.M.H.Mhatre, APP for State. CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J. DATE : 18th July 2007 PC : Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. This is an application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail. I was taken through the statements made by one Mahendra Somnath Yadav and Smt.Radha Shrikrishna Wankhede who have graphically described the role of the applicant in the commission of the offence. At this stage, prima facie, it is not in dispute that the prima facie material showing positive role of the applicant in commission of the offence charged is available. The possibility of tampering with evidence and pressuring prosecution witnesses expressed by the learned Sessions Judge in order dated 2nd July 2007 while rejecting the bail application, that the applicant Sunil Chandanshive, if released on bail, cannot be ruled out. It gets strength from the character of the applicant which can be seen from the record. In the above view of the matter I am not inclined to grant bail. However, hearing of the trial is expedited. Criminal Application is accordingly rejected. (V.C.DAGA, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4843 OF 2005 R.K.Vidya Prasar Mandal & Anr. ... Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4844 OF 2005 Gautam Educational Trust & Anr. ... Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4845 OF 2005 Shethkari Shikshak Prasarak Mandal & Ors. ... Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4846 OF 2005 Oriental College of Engineering & Anr. ... Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents ….. ….. None for the Petitioners. Mr.R.S.Pawar, AGP for the Respondent/State. CORAM :- DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & G. S. KULKARNI, J. DATE :- MARCH 8, 2021 PC : 1 These Petitions have been notified as per the list of matters as received from the office of the learned Government Pleader to have become infructuous. As per the office notice dated 2nd March 2021, the Advocates for the petitioners/petitioners were called upon to give a praecipe in advance in case the petitions have not become infructuous. Such praecipe has not been received in regard to these petitions. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of as infructuous; however, with liberty to the petitioners to revive the petitions in case something survives. 2 Disposed of in the above terms. No costs. (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) Raju D. Gaikwad Digitally signed by Raju D. Gaikwad Date: 2021.03.08 21:08:43 +0530

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER (STAMP) NO. 14893 OF 2018 Mr. Subhash Baburao Darekar Appellant Vs. Mr. V. R. Pawar, Chairman Tilak Nagar Sahayog CHS Ltd. & Ors. Respondents Mr. Sagar Batavia for the Appellant. Mr. Mohanish Chaudhari for the Respondents. CORAM : V. L. ACHLIYA, J. (VACATION COURT) DATE : 15th MAY, 2018. P. C. : Learned counsel for the Appellant seeks permission to withdraw the Appeal from Order with liberty to approach the appropriate authority to challenge the action on the part of the respondents. Allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed. Appeal from Order stands disposed of. [V. L. ACHLIYA, J.]

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.198 OF 2003 Dr.Rajkumar V.Tripathi ..Petitioner Vs. Ramdhari Deonarayan Mishra ..Respondent .... None for the petitioner .... CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 24,2005 P.C.: This petition came up for admission on 10-.2.2005 and none was present for the petitioner and hence, it was adjourned for two weeks. When it is taken up for hearing on admission again none is present for the petitioner today. Hence, the contempt petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. [ B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. ]

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.