All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 877 OF 2008 Chandrakant Baburao @ Bhaurao Patil. .. Petitioner. vs. Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Agglormeratin, Thane & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. S.G. Karandikar for Petitioner. Mr. V.S. Masurkar, Govt.Pleader for Respondent no.1 to 3. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: 11TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C. . Notice before admission returnable within four weeks. Govt. Pleader waives service for respondent nos. 1 to 3. In the meantime there will be an ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (e). (J.N. Patel, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.)

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 877 OF 2008 Chandrakant Baburao @ Bhaurao Patil ..Petitioner versus The Addl. Collector & Competent Authority Urban Agglomeration, Thane & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S. G. Karandikar for Petitioner. Ms. M. P. Thakur – AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 - State. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : JANUARY 04, 2010. P.C. : Heard Mr. Karandikar for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the possession of the land in question which was subject matter of proceeding under the Urban Land Ceiling Act is still with the petitioner. It is further contended that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in case of Voltas Limited vs. Addl. Collector and Competent Authority & Ors. reported in 2008(5) Bom. C.R. 746. In that view of the matter, the proceedings which are pending under the Act after the said decision stands vitiated if the possession of the land in question is with the petitioner. The learned AGP seeks time till 12th January, 2010 to verify whether the possession of the land is still with the petitioner. In the circumstances, time granted. Place the matter on 12th January, 2010 for admission. (D. D. SINHA, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 877 OF 2008 Chandrakant Baburao @ Bhaurao Patil ..Petitioner versus The Addl. Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Agglomeration, Thane & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S. G. Karandikar for Petitioner. Mr. V. S. Gokhale – AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 – State. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : MARCH 04, 2010. P.C. : The learned Assistant Government Pleader seeks further time of two weeks by way of last chance to seek instructions whether the possession of the land in question is still with the petitioner. Time granted by way of last chance. Place the matter on 19th March, 2010. (D. D. SINHA, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.877 OF 2008 Chandrakant Baburao @ Bhaurao Patil .... Petitioner V/s. The Addl. Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Agglomeration, Thane and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.S.G.Karandikar, for the petitioner. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP, for the respondents. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 19th MARCH, 2010 P.C. Rule. Learned AGP for the State waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of both the sides, petition is taken up for hearing today. The land of the petitioner was declared surplus under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Petitioner had submitted a scheme under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, which was initially approved. However, subsequently, it was cancelled and the land was treated as excess. A notification under section 10(3) of the act, was published in the official Gazette on 01022007 and thereafter, notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 18062007. This aspect has been highlighted by the Government in Para No.1 of the affidavitinreply. However, in para No.1 it is stated that possession of excess land admeasuring 3260 sq.mtrs., has not been taken. During the course of hearing, learned AGP submitted that there is nothing to show that any physical possession was taken, nor any panchanama was made. It is therefore, an indubitable fact that the aforesaid area remained in the possession of the petitioner all through out till today. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the provisions of Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, which provides that "the repeal of the principal Act shall not affect, (a) the vesting of any vacant land under subSection (3) of Section 10, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf or the competent authority". Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not received any compensation in any manner and therefore, there is no question of any amount which is required to be paid back to the State Government as per subSection 2 of Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. It is required to be noted that in the case of Voltas Ltd. & Anr., V/s. Additional Collector & Competent Authority and Ors., 2008(5) 2 Bom.C.R. 746 , the Division Bench of this Court has held that : Now so far as those lands which are owned by the petitioners in relation to which a notification under subsection 3 of Section 10 of the Principal Act was issued and the order under subsection (5) of Section 10 of the Principal Act was made are concerned, it is the provisions of Section 3 of the Repeal Act which are relevant. Reading of Section 3 of the Repeal Act shows that it is a saving clause and subsection 1(a) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act saves vesting of any vacant land under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government. In other words, vesting of vacant lands under sub section (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act in the State Government, possession of which has not been taken over, is not saved. In the present case, it is an admitted position that though declaration under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act was made, the possession of the land was not taken over by the Government or by the competent authority. Therefore, on bare reading of the provisions, it can be said that by virtue of repeal, vesting of the land of the first petitioner in the State by virtue of declaration made under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act, is not saved. A submission on behalf of the State Government was made that by virtue of declaration made subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act in relation to the petitioners' land, the land has vested in the Government, but there is no provision in the Repeal Act which divest the State Government of the ownership of the land. In our opinion, this submission has no substance. Firstly, because the purpose of enacting section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act is to save or protect vesting of vacant lands in the State Government and out of the vacant lands that might have vested in the State Government by virtue of declarations made under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act, only vesting of those lands in the State Government of which possession has been taken has been saved. Therefore, by necessary implication it follows that vesting of those lands in the State Government under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act of which possession has not been taken has been repealed or made ineffective. Vesting of the lands in the State Government had occurred because of the Principal Act which has been repealed. The Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of "India Tobacco Co.Ltd. Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Bhavanipore & others, (1975)3 Supreme Court Cases 512" has observed that "Repeal" connotes abrogation or obliteration of one statute by another, from the statute book as completely "as if it had never been passed". Therefore, the effect of the repeal is to wipe out the statute from existence. Therefore, the normal effect of repeal is to wipe out everything done under the repealed statute except that which is saved either expressly or by necessary implication. In the same judgment i.e. "India Tobacco Co.Ltd." the Supreme Court has observed that the repeal is not a matter of mere form but one of substance, depending upon the intention of the Legislature. If the intention of the legislature in repealing the enactment was to abrogate or wipe off the former enactment, wholly or in part, then that enactment will cease and would be deemed to have never exist at all, in so far as the part which the Legislature wants to wipe out totally is concerned. The principal submission of the State Government is that as the land of the petitioners has vested in the State Government because of the declaration made sub section 3 of Section 10 of the Principal Act and as there is no express provision made in the Repeal Act wiping out vesting of the land in the State Government, the State Government will continue to be the owner of the land. In our opinion, the submission has no substance. As indicated above, if it is assumed that there was no saving clause contained in the Repeal Act or had there been no section 6 of the General Clauses Act in existence then mere repeal of the enactment will wipe out the enactment out of existence and everything done under the enactment will also go away, and in this situation, therefore, to avoid that effect, the legislature enacts saving clause and the Parliamen t has also enacted section 6 of the General Clauses Act to save certain things from the effect of repeal. Therefore, it follows that except for that which is saved by the legislature by making specific provision or in the absence of specific provision by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, everything else under the Repeal Act is wiped out. In the present case by the saving clause contained in Section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act what is saved is vesting of the land in the State Government under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act possession of which was already taken over by the Government. In other words, therefore, vesting of land in the State Government in relation to those lands of which possession was not taken is wiped out. This position also becomes clear from the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. Subsection 2 of Section 3 of the Repeal Act is in the nature of a proviso or exception to section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act. If subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act had not been enacted, vesting of even those lands in the State Government in relation to which the amount has been paid by the State Government to the land owner but possession has not been taken, will also stand wiped out. Because of subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, now the land continues to be vested in the State Government though the possession of the land was not taken till the owner pays back the amount received by him. Had subsection (2) not been enacted because of the operation of section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act, the vesting of the land in the State Government would have been wiped out because the possession is not taken and the land owner would be entitled to retain the amount received by him from the State Government as also the land. Subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act was enacted by the legislature to ensure that the Government gets back the amount which is paid by it before the land reverts to the land owner. In other words the effect of the provision of Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act is to postpone cancellation of vesting of the land in the State Government till the land owner pays back the amount received by him. In the case covered by Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act, the land owner gets back title of the land only on payment of the amount that he had received under the Act from the government. In our opinion, what is contained in Section 4 of the Repeal Act also indicate that vesting of those lands possession of which has not been taken over by the State Government will revert back to the land owner. It is to be seen that the land is, by operation of the provisions of sub section (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act, vested in the State Government, so that the State Government can deal with that land under the Principal Act. Perusal of Section (4) of the Repeal Act shows that only the provisions of Section 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Principal Act continue to operate even after the repeal in relation to the land of which possession has been taken. In other words, after 29.11.2007 the provisions of Section 11,12,13 and 14 of the Principal Act are not available to the State Government in relation to the land of which possession has not been taken. Thus, if it is held that even after the Repeal Act, the State Government continues to have title of the land of which it has not taken possession, then it will mean that the Government has become title holder of the land without paying any amount to the land owner and with no possibility of amount being determined and paid under Section 11 of the Principal Act because those provisions do not continue to apply after the repeal in relation to the lands possession of which has not been taken. At this juncture, it becomes necessary to refer to the scheme of Section 10 of the Principal Act. Section 10 of the Principal Act reads as under: "10. Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit: (1) As soon as may be after the service of the statement under section 9 on the person concerned, the competent authority shall cause a notification giving the particulars of the vacant land held by such person in excess of the ceiling limit and stating that (i) such vacant land is to be acquired by the concerned State Government; and (ii) the claims of all person interested in such vacant land may be made by them personally or by their agents giving particulars of the nature of their interests in such land, to be published for the information of the general public in the Official Gazette of the State concerned and in such other manner as may be prescribed. (2) After considering the claims of the persons interested in the vacant land, made to the competent authority in pursuance of the notification published under subsection (1), the competent authority shall determine the nature and extent of such claims and pass such others as it deems fit. (3) At any time after the publication of the notification under subsection (1) the competent authority may, by notification published in the Official Gazette of the State concerned, declare that the excess vacant land referred to in the notification published under subsection (1) shall, with effect from such date as may be specified in the declaration, be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and upon the publication of such declaration, such land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so specified. (4) During the period commencing on the date of publication of the notification under subsection (1) and ending with the date specified in the declaration made under subsection (3) (i) no person shall transfer by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any excess vacant land (including any part thereof) specified in the notification aforesaid and any such transfer made in contravention of this provision shall be deemed to be null and void; and (ii) no person shall alter or cause to be altered the use of such excess vacant land. (5) where any vacant land is vested in the State Government under subsection (3), the competent authority may by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of it to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or to any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice. (6) If any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made under subsection (5), the competent authority may take possession of the vacant land or cause it to be given to the concerned State Government or to any person duly authorised by such State Government in this behalf and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary. Explanation: In this section, in sub section (1) of Sec. 11 and in sections 14 and 23, "State Government", in relation to (a) any vacant land owned by the Central Government, means the Central Government; (b) any vacant land owned by any State Government and situated in the Union Territory or within the local limits of a cantonment declared as such under section 3 of the Cantonments Act,1924, means that State Government." Perusal of the above provisions shows that vesting of the land in the State Government occurs on publication of notification in the official Gazette under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act. Thereafter, the competent authority gets power to make order directing the person who is in possession of the land to surrender or deliver the possession of the land to the State Government, and if that person does not deliver the possession then the Competent authority becomes competent to take possession under subsection (6) of Section 10 of the Principal Act. Thus, after 29.11.2007, the provisions of subsection (5) and subsection (6) of Section 10 of the Principal Act are not available to the State Government, therefore, in relation to that land with respect to which declaration under sub section (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act has been made but possession has not been taken, the Competent authority will not be entitled to make an order directing the person in possession of the land to deliver the possession to the Government nor the Competent authority would be entitled to take possession under subsection (6) of Section 10 of the Principal Act on failure of the person in possession to deliver the possession. Thus, the State Government will not be in a position to take possession of the land under the provisions of the Principal Act, it will also not be in a position to to determine the compensation of the land under Section 11 of the Principal Act and make payment to that compensation to the interested persons under Section 14 of the Principal Act. Section 4 of the Repeal Act keeps the provisions of Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 relating to determination of amount and payment of amount alive only in relation to the land possession of which has been taken by the Government. In our opinion, therefore, it is clear from the provisions of the Repeal Act that as a result of the Repeal Act neither any proceedings can continue nor the State Government can claim that the land continued to vest in it if possession of the land in relation to which declaration under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act has been made, has not been taken before 29.11.2007. In other words to claim that vesting of the land in the State Government is saved, it will have to be shown by the State Government that the possession of the land in accordance with the provisions of the Principal Act has been taken by the Government before 29.11.2007. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and the fact that physical possession all through out remained with the petitioner, especially when the Government has not taken paper possession, nor any panchanama was made in view of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, the proceedings abate and now the petitioner cannot be ask for recovering possession and now there is no question of taking possession. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute. ( R.G.KETKAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)

Order - Status 4: Pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 30 OF 2021 Sharad Ragho Raul .. Petitioner Vs. Director of Civil Defence, Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2859 OF 2022 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 30 OF 2021 The State of Maharashtra Applicant/Org. Respt. No.3 In the matter between: - Sharad Ragho Raul Vs. Petitioner Director of Civil Defence, Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents Mr. Rakesh R. Bhatkar for petitioner. Mr. B. V. Samant, AGP for respondent nos.1, 3, 4, 5/State & for applicant in IA/2859/2022. C0RAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & V. G. BISHT, J. DATE: MAY 2, 2022 PC : 1. We are informed by Mr. Samant, learned AGP appearing for the State, that an item in respect of the matter under consideration is expected to be placed before the Cabinet shortly for decision. 2. In such view of the matter, we defer hearing of the PIL petition till 6th June 2022 . The decision taken by the appropriate department of the Government after deliberations by the Cabinet shall be placed before us on that date. 3. In view of the aforesaid order, nothing survives for decision in Interim Application No. 2859 of 2022. The same stands disposed of. (V. G. BISHT, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) PRAVIN DASHARATH PANDIT Digitally signed by PRAVIN DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2022.05.04 11:53:19 +0530

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.113 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.388 OF 2007 Uday Kumar Abhevardhan .. Petitioner -versus The Union of India and anr .. Respondent Mr. Anil Lalla i/b Lalla and Lalla for the Petitioner Mrs. Revati Mohite Dere for the union of India CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATED: 23rd March, 2010 P.C. vks This is the second Application for bail. The first bail application rejected by this Court (Coram: A.M. Khanwilkar, J.). Therefore it is appropriate that this application be placed before the same Court. The Office to take steps. ( V.M. KANADE, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.113 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.388 OF 2007 ...... ...... Uday Kumar Abhevardhan ...Applicant Versus Union of India & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Shankar Dhoble i/b M/s.Lalla & Lalla for Applicant. Ms.Revati Mohite Dere for Respondent No.1. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATED :- APRIL 16, 2010. P.C. I am informed that Mr.Anil Lala is in personal difficulty. Request for adjournment is made. Stand over to 30th April 2010 at 3.00 p.m. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 113 of 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 388 of 2007 Uday Kumar Abhev Ardhan ....Petitioner Vs. Union of India & anr. ....Respondents Mr. Sunil Gadre i/b. Anil Lalla i/b. M/s. Lalla & Lalla for the applicant. Ms. S.V.Gajare-APP for the State. Smt. Revati Mohite Dere, advocate for respondent no.1. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED:- MAY 07, 2010 P.C. Request for adjournment is made on the ground that Mr. Lalla, advocate for the applicant is unavailable. Stand over to 11th June, 2010 at 3.00 p.m. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.113 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.388 OF 2007 Uday Kumar Abhev Ardhan. ....Applicant. Vs. Union of India & Anr. ....Respondents. Mr.Anil Lalla i/b. M/s. Lalla & Lalla for the applicant. Smt. Revati Mohite Dere for Respondent No.1. Mr.S.V.Gajare, APP for the State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED:- JUNE 11, 2010 P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. S Present application is filed on the sole ground that the applicant has already undergone more than 6 years and 11 months of imprisonment when the application was filed. The fact that the applicant's prayer for bail was considered on merits and rejected by this Court on 7th April, 2008 while deciding Criminal Application No.950 of 2008 is not disputed. The applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 21(c) r/w sec.8(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10(ten) years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) in default to suSffer further R.I. for one year. The fact that the applicant as of now has undergone 7 years of imprisonment is not in dispute. The question is whether inspite of mandate of section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the Court can show indulgence to the applicant on the ground that he has undergone substantive part of sentence. In this case, the sentence undergone is over 7 years out of 10 years of Rigorous Imprisonment. To buttress the contention, the learned Counsel for the applicant has essentially relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mansingh V/s. Union of India (2006) 1 SCC (Cri.) 279, which was decided by the Apex Court on September 27, 2004. Indeed, in that case the appellant was held guilty of the offence punishable under sections 8/18 and 8/15 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh on each count. The Apex Court considering the fact that the Appellant before it had undergone more than 7 years of imprisonment, released the appellant on bail. It is noticed that the said order has been passed by the Apex Court in the pending appeal filed by the Accused to question the order of conviction and sentence before the High Court. The question is: whether this order can be treated as a binding precedent. The learned APP has rightly invited my attention to the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in the cases of Union of India V/s Rattan Malik alias Habul (2009) 2 SCC 624, Ratan Kumar Vishwas V/s. State of U.P. & Anr. 2008 AIR SCW 7719 and Union of India v/s. Shiv Shanker Kesari(2009) 3 SCC(Cri) 505 . These decisions have expounded the sweep of section 37 of the Act. The mandate of section 37 of the Act applies on all fours to the situation where the person is in custody as under trial prisoner or for that matter at the stage of appeal before the High Court. Going by the said mandate, it is not possible to countenance the stand of the applicant that since he has undergone substantial part of the sentence should be released on bail only on that consideration. My attention has already been invited to the said decisions of our High Court in the case of Pritam Namdeo v/s. Union of India and Anr. decided on 23rd March, 2010 in Criminal Application No.1 of 2010 in Criminal Appeal No.394 of 2007 as well as in the case of Aniruddh Chavan vs. The Union of India & Anr . in Criminal Application No.433 of 2009 in Criminal Appeal No.618 of 2008 decided on January 21, 2010. Similar argument has been considered and rejected. I am in agreement with the opinion expressed in the said decisions. The Counsel for the applicant however, placed reliance on recent decision of another Single Judge of our High Court in Criminal Bail Application No. 854 of 2009 in Criminal Appeal No.1253 of 2008 decided on March 9, 2010. With utmost respect, it is not possible to place reliance on this decision to uphold the contention of the applicant. For, the said view is only on the basis of Mansingh's case (supra) . This Court would be bound by the subsequent decisions of the Apex Court which have restated the settled legal position about the sweep of section 37 of the Act. Further, the order in the case of Mansingh(supra) pressed into service may be ascribable to the inherent powers of the Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Suffice it to note that the said decision has not decided the case with reference to the sweep of section 37 of the Act, which aspect has been considered in the subsequent decisions of the Apex Court. Keeping in mind the mandate of section 37, it is not open for this Court to carve out further exception to section 37 of the Act, which would inevitably result in rewriting of the said section. In other words, merely because the applicant has already undergone substantial part of the sentence, by itself cannot be the basis to release him on bail. In the circumstances, taking over all view of the matter, this application should fail. The same is rejected. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2021 Tabassum Begum Wife Of Mohammed Wasi Sayed (zaidi) ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT None for Applicant Mr. A.R. Kapadnis, APP/Strate CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH D. NAIK J DATE : 14th June, 2021 P.C. : None appears for (Applicant / Respondent No. / APP). Stand over to 28/06/2021. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.110 OF 2021 Mrs. Tabassum Begum .. Applicant Vs. The State Of Maharashtra .. Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Hamminder Anand i/b H. S. Anand, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. A. R. Kapadnis, A.P.P. for the State-Respondent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 28th JUNE, 2021 PC. Issue notice to the respondent returnable in four weeks. In addition to Court notice, the applicant is permitted to serve the respondent by way of private notice. Stand over to 26.07.2021. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2021 Tabassum Begum Wife Of Mohammed Wasi Sayed (zaidi) ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL J DATE : 26th July, 2021 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Stand over to 26/08/2021 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2021 Tabassum Begum Wife Of Mohammed Wasi Sayed (zaidi) ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP KASHINATH SHINDE J DATE : 26th August, 2021 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 29/09/2021. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Application No. 110 / 2021 Tabassum Begum Wife of Mohammed Wasi Sayed (Zaidi) .. Applicant Versus. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent **** Mr. H.S. Anand, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Y.M. Nakhawa, APP for State. **** CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J. DATE : 11th OCTOBER,2021. P.C. : - Issue notice to the Respondent No.2 returnable on 7th December, 2021. Hamdast is permitted. In addition to the Court service, Applicant is permitted to serve the Respondent No.2 by private service and file affidavit of service. (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.) **Najeeb..**1/1 MOHAMMAD NAJEEB MOHAMMAD QAYYUM Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD NAJEEB MOHAMMAD QAYYUM Date: 2021.10.12 16:44:05 +0530

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2021 TABASSUM BEGUM WIFE OF MOHAMMED WAS SAYED (ZAIDI) ) APPLICANT V/S. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. ) RESPONDENTS * * * * Mr. Kaustubh Thipsay i/by. Mr. Harminder Aanand, Advocate for the applicant. Smt. S.V. Sonawane, APP for State-respondent no.1. Ms. Jameela Damani, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J. Tuesday, 7th December, 2021. P.C. : Applicant is seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent no.2. Offce to verify the prayers and place it before the appropriate Court as per the Roaster. NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2021.12.07 16:33:00 +0530 (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2021 Tabassum Begum Wife Of Mohammed Wasi Sayed (zaidi) ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL J DATE : 14th February, 2022 P.C. : Matter did not reach till the court time was over. Hence adjourned. Stand over to 10/03/2022. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2021 Tabassum Begum Wife Of Mohammed Wasi Sayed (zaidi) ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Mr.H S ANAND for Applicant Adv.Jameela Damani for Respondent No.1 Mohd Wasi Sayzed. Ms. Anamika Malhotra, APP for State CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR J DATE : 22nd April, 2022 P.C. : The Registry to verify and place the matter before the appropriate Court. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2021 Tabassum Begum Wife Of Mohammed Wasi Sayed (zaidi) ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE BHARATI DANGRE J DATE : 14th July, 2022 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 28/07/2022. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2021 Tabassum Begum Wife Of Mohammed Wasi Sayed (zaidi) ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE BHARATI DANGRE J DATE : 28th July, 2022 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 13/09/2022. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 24: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2021 Tabassum Begum Wife Of Mohammed Wasi Sayed (zaidi) ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 30th November, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 22/12/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 26: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2021 Tabassum Begum Wife Of Mohammed Wasi Sayed (zaidi) ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 22nd December, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 30/01/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 28: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2021 Tabassum Begum Wife Of Mohammed Wasi Sayed (zaidi) ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 30th January, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 24/02/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 30: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2021 Tabassum Begum Wife Of Mohammed Wasi Sayed (zaidi) ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 24th February, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 03/03/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 32: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2021 Tabassum Begum Wife Of Mohammed Wasi Sayed (zaidi) ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 3rd March, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 10/03/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 34: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2021 Tabassum Begum Wife Of Mohammed Wasi Sayed (zaidi) ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI J DATE : 10th March, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 27/03/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 37: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Application No. 110 of 2021 Tabassum Begum W/o. Mohammed Wasi Sayed (Zaidi) ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. H. S. Anand, for the Applicant. None for the Respondent No.2. Mr. Amit A. Palkar, APP for the Respondent – State. Coram : R. N. Laddha, J. Date : 15 July 2024 P.C. . The learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant and his wife have resolved their disputes and they are staying together. The learned counsel for the applicant, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw this application. Leave granted as prayed for. The application stands dismissed as withdrawn. R. N. Laddha, J.

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.15926 OF 2023 Bhaskar Pratap Mahadik .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Department of Education and Ors. .. Respondents Ms. Mrunmayi Khambete, i/by Mr. Ajay A. Joshi, for the Petitioner. Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ DATE : 20TH DECEMBER, 2023. P.C. : On the motion made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is permitted to be withdrawn. Writ Petition is disposed of as withdrawn. [ FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.322 OF 2016 Mr.Jaydeep Mane for the Applicant Dr.F.R.Shaikh, APP for the Respondent No.1 CORAM :A.S.OKA AND P.D.NAIK,JJ. DATE : APRIL 4, 2016 P.C. 1 We direct the Advocate for the applicant to annex typed copy of the document on page 9. Amendment to be carried out within a period of two weeks from today. Place the application on 3rd May 2016. The Investigating Officer shall remain present in this Court on the next date along with file. (P.D.NAIK,J) (A.S.OKA,J.)

Order - Status 7: 16-apl-322-2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.322 OF 2016 Dada @ Dadasaheb Bhagwan Havaldar & Anr. .. Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.Vishal L. Kolekar i/by Mr.Jaydeep D. Mane for the Applicant. Dr.F.R.Shaikh, APP for Respondent No.1 CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA & P.D. NAIK, JJ. DATE : 03rd MAY 2016. P.C. Applicants have not complied with the order dated 04th April 2016. Only by way of indulgence that we extend the time granted to the applicant to comply with the said order by a period of three weeks from today. If compliance is not made, the application shall stand dismissed for nonprosecution without further reference to the Court. If the compliance is made, application shall be listed on 11th July 2016. [P.D. NAIK, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION AND ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 18TH AUGUST 2016 P.C. On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on Daily and Supplementary Board stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 48, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 and 63 (Cri) th July 2016 5 34, 35, 42 and 43 (Cri) 16th December 2016 38 (OS) 22nd August 2016 39, 73 and 74 (Civil) 21st December 2016 40 and 67 (Cri) 10th October 2016 41, 47 and 65 (OS) th October 2016 5 44, 45, 46, 49, 50 and 51 (Cri) 19th December 2016 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56 (Cri) 20th December 2016 66, 70 (Cri), 71 (OS) and 72 (Cri) 29th August 2016 68 and 69 (Civil) th September 2016 7 If in any of the above matters, adinterim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If adinterim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (A.A. SAYED, J ) (A.S. OKA, J )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 322 OF 2016 Dada @ Dadasaheb Bhagwan Havaldar And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : V.M. KANADE & MS. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ DATE : 16th December, 2016 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for 16/02/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 16/02/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 322 OF 2016 Dada @ Dadasaheb Bhagwan Havaldar And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Mr. Nitesh J. Mohite i/by Mr.Jaydeep D Mane For Applicant Dr. F.R.Shaikh, A.P.P. for Respdt./State. CORAM : A.S. OKA & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ DATE : 16th February, 2017 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the applicant, Stand over to 22/03/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 322 OF 2016 Dada @ Dadasaheb Bhagwan Havaldar And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Mr Nitesh J Mohite i/by Jaydeep D Mane For Applicant Dr F.R.Shaikh APP for state CORAM : A.S. OKA & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ DATE : 22nd March, 2017 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the applicant , Stand over to 19/04/2017 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 322 OF 2016 Dada @ Dadasaheb Bhagwan Havaldar And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ DATE : 19th April, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time Stand Over to 14/06/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 322 OF 2016 Dada @ Dadasaheb Bhagwan Havaldar And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent None for the Applicant. Mrs.M.H.Mhatre - APP for the State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE. & SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, JJ DATE : 14th June, 2017 P.C. : None for the Petitioner/Applicant. S.O. to 12/07/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 322 OF 2016 Dada @ Dadasaheb Bhagwan Havaldar And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent None for the Applicant. Mr.S.S.Pednekar - APP for the State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE. & SMT. DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ DATE : 2nd November, 2017 P.C. : None for the Petitioner/Applicant. Stand Over to 30/11/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 26: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 322 OF 2016 Dada @ Dadasaheb B. Havaldar and Another. ..Petitioners. Versus State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. Mr. Nilesh Mohite i/b J. D. Mane for the Petitioner. Mr. F. R. Shaikh, APP for the State. Coram : Ranjit More & Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, JJ. Date : November 30, 2017 . P. C. : Learned counsel for the Applicant seeks leave to withdraw the instant application. Leave granted. Application is allowed to be withdrawn and is disposed of as such. [Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

Order - Status 4: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 6: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 8: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

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

Order - Status 13: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 1/1 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2273 OF 2021 … Mr.Ashok Rajaram Yadav ...Petitioner v/s. Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Siddharth Samantaray i/b Dimple Tejani for the Petitioner. Mr.Ashutosh Mishra for Respondent No.1. Mr.Zariv Bharucha a/w Rishi Thakur and Mr.Umang Thakur for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. … CORAM : A.A. SAYED & MADHAV JAMDAR, JJ. DATED : 29 JUNE 2021 (THROUGH V.C.) P.C.: Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 states that secured asset which is the subject matter of the present Writ Petition has been sold in a subsequent auction sale, which was conducted on 28-06- 2021. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the Petition, which is filed by the highest bidder in an earlier auction sale and seeking time to deposit the balance amount of consideration in respect of the earlier auction sale. The Petition is dismissed with liberty to the Petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. All contentions are kept open. (MADHAV JAMDAR,J.) (A.A.SAYED, J.)

Order - Status 3: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 223 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2087 OF 2021 … Appellant … Respondent Smt.Pramila S. Thakur, Appellant present in person. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 31st August, 2021. P.C. : Issue notice to the Respondent, returnable on 27th September, 2021. Appellant is directed to supply spare copy of compilation of present Appeal in the Registry of this Court on or before 7th September, 2021. Stand over to 27th September, 2021. Till the next date, ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) of Interim Application No.2087 of 2021. [A.S. GADKARI, J.]

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 223 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2087 OF 2021 Pramila Sumansingh Thakur, Thr. Constituted Attorney Subhash V. Rajurkar … Appellant V/s. New India Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Through Chairman New India Bhavan … Respondent Mrs. Pramila S. Thakur, Appellant in person. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 26th October, 2021. P.C. : Note put up by the Registry mentions that, the sole Respondent has been served in the matter. Despite service, none appears for the Respondent. In order to grant an opportunity to the Respondent, stand over to 23rd November, 2021. Ad-interim relief, granted earlier, to continue till the next date. [A.S. GADKARI, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5538 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr.Sagar Kasar, for the petitioners. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 18/08/2009 PC: When the petition was called out, the learned counsel for the petitioners was not in a position to argue the petition. Stand over to 29.9.09. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5538 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. Sagar Kasar, for the petitioners. Mr Prakash M. for the respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 10/11/2009 PC: Mr.Kasar, learned Advocate, submits that he has instructions to appear for the sole respondent. Hence, service is complete. The petition to come up for admission on 1.12.09. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)

Order - Status 15: MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.5538 OF 2009 Shashikant B. Kamble & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. The Bharat Cooperative Bank Ltd. ...Respondents Mr.S.K.Shinde i/b. Mr. Sagar Kasar, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr.Prakash Mulky i/b. Gopal C. Poojary & Co. Advocate for the Respondents CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 20TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C. : Heard both sides. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The impugned orders relate to refusal of condonation of delay in filing an application for setting aside the Exparte Award passed by the Cooperative Court on 29th February 2008. The application has been filed since 10th October 2008. The delay was of 193 days. The case for condonation of delay was that in view of the Writ Petition filed concerning the Bank's powers under Multi State Cooperative Bank, the dispute was adjourned sine die. After the decision was rendered the Dispute was taken on board for hearing. At that time no notice was issued upon the Petitioners. They did not know of the Award passed. Hence, the application. Their case is that the case has been adjourned sine die and is reflected in the noting dated 24th October 2002 of the learned Cooperative Court, Mumbai. Though a date is mentioned against the noting it shows that the case was adjourned sine die. The fact remains that the substance of the noting shows that it was indeed adjourned sine die. It would have been prudent for the Bank to issue notice upon the Petitioners when the dispute reached hearing. The Petitioners were not represented by Advocates. Hence no Advocate could appear or be informed. Consequently, the duty of the Court as well as the Disputant would be doubled. The fact remains that an Exparte decree was passed which is open to challenge. The challenge is not seen to be completely devoid of merits. The Petitioners would be required to be heard on merits. The cause shown is justifiable. Hence both the orders of the Cooperative Court and the Cooperative Appellate Court which refused to condone the delay are required to be interfered with. Both the orders are set aside. The dispute shall be heard on merits. The Petitioners shall forthwith file their written statement, give inspection of the documents, produce copies of their documents and get themselves ready for trial. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)