All Cases

Order - Status 3: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 15224 OF 2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : V. R. Kachare REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : 6/10/2018 Advocate for Appellant present Three weeks time is granted to remove office objections. sd/- REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Sumit Ramesh Karnik Digitally signed by Sumit Ramesh Karnik Date: 2018.10.16 16:58:33 +0530

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 15224 OF 2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : V. R. Kachare REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : 29/10/2018 None present Three weeks time excluding Diwali Vacation is granted as last chance to remove office objections. sd/- REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 15224 OF 2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : V. R. Kachare REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : 04/12/2018 None present Four weeks time excluding Christmas Vacation is granted to remove office objections, failing which S.A. St. shall stand refused for registration along with all the C.A. St.s filed in this S.A. St., without further reference to the Court. sd/- REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 818 OF 2019 Kamlu Rama Gaikwad (decease Thru Lrs) 1/1. Bhagubai Kamlu Gaikwad Alisa Gaikar ....Appellant V/S Sukir Hasha Tambade ....Respondent Adv.Deepa Punde i/by Sachin Suryakant Punde For Appellant Adv.Vaishali Penkar i/by Bhushan Walimbe for Respondnet No. 1, 2 & 6 CORAM : AMIT BHALCHANDRA BORKAR, J DATE : 17th January, 2020 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the Appellant No. , Stand over to 31/01/2020 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 818 OF 2019 Kamlu Rama Gaikwad (decease Thru Lrs) 1/1. Bhagubai Kamlu Gaikwad Alisa Gaikar ....APPELLANT V/S Sukir Hasha Tambade ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA NO. 1647 OF 2019 In Second Appeal 818 OF 2019 Kamlu Rama Gaikwad (decease Thru Lrs) 1/1. Bhagubai Kamlu Gaikwad Alisa Gaikar ....APPLICANT V/S Sukir Hasha Tambade ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GAURI GODSE J DATE : 19th June, 2024 P.C. : Listed for assigning date. Stand over to 16/08/2024 If any ad-interim / interim relief is operating till today, the same shall continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/ interim relief is granted not for a limited period, the same shall remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 818 OF 2019 Kamlu Rama Gaikwad (decease Thru Lrs) 1/1. Bhagubai Kamlu Gaikwad Alisa Gaikar ....APPELLANT V/S Sukir Hasha Tambade ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA NO. 1647 OF 2019 In Second Appeal 818 OF 2019 Kamlu Rama Gaikwad (decease Thru Lrs) 1/1. Bhagubai Kamlu Gaikwad Alisa Gaikar ....APPLICANT V/S Sukir Hasha Tambade ....RESPONDENT Mr. Suraj Jadhav h/f Mr. Sachin Punde for Appellant. Mr. Mayank Tripathi i/b Mr. Bhushan Walimbefor Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 6. CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GAURI GODSE J DATE : 16th August, 2024 P.C. : At the request of learned counsel for the Respondent , stand over to 30/08/2024 as a Last Chance. Under the caption for Urgent Admission. If any ad-interim / interim relief is operating till today, the same shall continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/ interim relief is granted not for a limited period, the same shall remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 818 OF 2019 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1647 OF 2019 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 818 OF 2019 IRESH MASHAL Kamlu Rama Gaikwad .....Appellants (Decd. Thr. LRs) Vs. Sukir Hasha Tambade .....Respondent Mr. Sachin Punde a/w Mr. Suraj Jadhav for the appellants Mr. Bhushan Walimbe a/w Mr. Mayank Tripathi for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 6 CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 30 th AUGUST 2024 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the parties on the admission of the second appeal. Closed for orders. [GAURI GODSE, J.] Iresh Digitally signed by IRESH MASHAL Date: 2024.09.02 11:31:25 +0530

Order - Status 19: 903-sa-818-2019-ca-1647-2019.doc varsha IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 818 OF 2019 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1647 OF 2019 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 818 OF 2019 Kamlu Rama Gaikwad(Decd. Thr. Lrs) … Appellants/Applicants vs. Sukir Hasha Tambade … Respondent Mr. Sachin Punde a/w. Suraj Jadhav for Appellants/Applicants. Mr. Bhushan Walimbe a/w. Mr. Mayank Tripathi for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 6. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. RESERVED ON : 30 th AUGUST 2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 25 th OCTOBER 2024 ORDER: VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Digitally signed by VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Date: 2024.10.25 20:27:19 +0530 This appeal is preferred by heirs and legal representatives of original defendant no.1 to challenge concurrent judgments and decrees declaring that defendants nos. 1 and 2 have unauthorizedly made encroachment on the suit road as shown in the map at Exhibit-131. The impugned decree further grants a declaration that the plaintiffs and all villagers have legal right to use the suit road. The impugned decree further directs defendants nos. 1 and 2 to remove the unauthorised construction from the suit road and restrains them from raising any construction on the suit road or obstructing plaintiffs and all the villagers from using the suit road. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the two maps produced on record at Exhibit-138 and 137 are contrary to each other. Hence, based on the said maps, the decree could not have been passed, holding that the suit road is a public road. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that only based on the map at Exhibit-137, it could not be accepted that the suit road is a public road, as contended by the plaintiffs. He submits that the suit road is an open land therefore, in the absence of the owner of the land made a party to the suit, the suit was not maintainable. He thus submits that if the suit road is not a public road, the suit filed in a representative capacity would not be maintainable. Learned counsel for the appellants thus submits that the grounds raised on behalf of the appellants would require consideration by this court as the same involves substantial questions of law on whether, by relying upon a map, the suit road could have been declared as a public road for granting declaration and injunction in a representative capacity. He submits that the ground of maintainability of the suit also raises substantial question of law. I have perused the impugned judgments. The defendants never challenged the order permitting the plaintiff to file a suit in a representative capacity. In view of the order permitting the plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 to file a suit in a representative capacity as contemplated under Rule 8(1) of Order I of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, public notice was issued, and plaintiff nos. 3 to 7 were impleaded as co-plaintiffs, and defendant nos. 3 to 7 were impleaded as additional defendants. The suit describes the suit road by referring to the description of the adjoining properties belonging to the plaintiffs as well as defendant no.1. The plaintiffs contended that the north-south road, i.e. suit road, is situated on the west side of defendant no.1's property which is the only public road available for plaintiffs and all other villagers. The plaintiffs alleged that defendant no.1 carried out constructions on the suit road and obstructed the plaintiff and other villagers from using the suit road hence, the suit was filed in a representative capacity. Defendant no.1 admitted the description of the properties however, they contended that in view of partition, the area of the constructions carried out by him was given to defendant no.2, i.e defendant no.1's son. Thus, defendant no.1 contended that the alleged encroachment was in use of defendant no.1 for the last seven years and that for last 25 to 35 years, the villagers were not using the suit road, and it was being used as an open land by the villagers. Thus, defendant no.1, contended that there were no unauthorised constructions carried out on the suit road, and the constructions carried out by him were in the property bearing CTS No. 23/262, belonging to defendant no.1. From the reasons recorded by both the courts, it is seen that the existence of the suit road is not disputed by defendant no.1. However, he has contended that the area of the suit road was used as open land by the villagers. Thus, from defendant no.1's pleading, it is clear that the dispute raised on behalf of defendant no.1 is not based on any independent right on the suit road, but defendant no.1 contended that it was not being used as a suit road. Pertinently, defendant no.1 contended that the area described as a suit road by plaintiffs was used as open land by the villagers. Based on the evidence produced on record, both the courts accepted the plaintiffs' case that the suit road described in the plaint was a public road, and the land is situated towards the western side of CTS No. 262 as a Gaothan land. In the surveyor's report produced at Exhibit-128, the land was shown as open land; however, the demarcation indicates that when the City Survey was first effected in the year 1964, there was a public road as described by the plaintiffs. The map produced at Exhibit-131 issued by the Assistant Consolidation Officer also reflected the public road. Thus, by relying upon the said maps, both the courts recorded finding of facts that there was a public road in existence as contended by the plaintiffs. A perusal of the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court indicates that after examining the pleadings and evidence on record, the trial court's findings are confirmed by the First Appellate Court. The reasons recorded by both the courts interpreting map at Exhibits 121, 128, 131 and 137 show that the description of the suit road as pleaded by the plaintiffs is accepted as correct. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellants by referring to maps at Exhibits 137 and 128 would amount to re-appreciating the evidence on record. Both the courts have examined the map at Exhibit 128 in detail, along with the map at Exhibits 126 and 131. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the reasons recorded by both the courts by referring to the maps on record. Thus, there is no substance in the arguments raised on behalf of the appellants that the maps at Exhibits 128 and 137 were contrary to each other. It is not the defendant no.1's case that he had any independent right on the area described as a public road. The defendant no.1 has not disputed that he has carried out constructions on the area described by the plaintiffs as a suit road. However, defendant no.1, claims that the area described as a suit road was not a road and was used as an open land by all the villagers. Thus, once defendant no.1 accepts that it is an open land used by the villagers and defendant no.1, does not have any independent right in respect of the said area, he cannot retain his unauthorised constructions on the area admittedly used by the villagers. In view of defendant no.1's admission that the area described as a suit road is used by the villagers as an open land, the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants in the second appeal that the owner of the open land was a necessary party, is not required to be examined for the first time in the second appeal. In view of the rival pleadings of the parties, both courts also dealt with the issue regarding the non-joinder of Gram Panchayat as a necessary party. It is concurrently held that Gram Panchayat would not be a necessary party in the suit filed in the representative capacity, as the issue involved in the suit filed in the representative capacity was on the villager's right to use the suit road. No relief was claimed against the Gram Panchayat. Thus, the reasons recorded by both the courts for holding that the Gram Panchayat was not the necessary party cannot be faulted. Even otherwise, the appellant has admitted that the area described as the suit road is used by the villagers as an open land. Considering the pleadings of defendant no.1, it is clear that the area described as a suit road was admittedly used by the villagers. Thus, in any event, defendant no.1, is not entitled to claim any independent right by carrying out construction on the area used by the villagers as a public road. Thus, the ground raised on non-joinder of the necessary parties would not require any consideration by this court as the same does not raise any substantial question of law. Thus, both the courts have rightly decreed the suit granting a declaration of the existence of the suit road and directing the appellant to remove unauthorised construction and restrained defendant nos. 1 and 2 from raising any unauthorised construction on the suit road. I do not see any illegality or perversity in the reasons recorded in the impugned judgments. In view of concurrent findings of facts recorded on the existence of the public road, the grounds raised on behalf of the appellant would not require any consideration by this court. The second appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the second appeal, pending application is disposed of as infructuous. (GAURI GODSE, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 15104 OF 2018 Mrs. K.padmaja ....Petitioner V/S General Secretary And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI HARISH DANGRE, JJ DATE : 6th June, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for admission, Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 21/06/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 15104 OF 2018 Mrs. K.padmaja ....Petitioner V/S General Secretary And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI HARISH DANGRE, JJ DATE : 21st June, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for admission, Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to02/08/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K. Padmaja ..Petitioner Versus General Secretary, DAV College Managing Committee, Chitra Gupta Road, New Delhi and others ..Respondents Ms. Deepali Y. Deherkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Irvin D'Souza h/f Joshna A. Patnigeve, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for Respondent No.3. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. DATE: 2nd APRIL, 2019 P.C.: 1] Issue notice to Respondents, returnable on 16/04/2019. 2] Mr. D'Souza, learned Counsel, waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Kalel, AGP, waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent No.3. Respondents may file their reply by the next date. (DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.) (B. R. GAVAI, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K.padmaja ....Petitioner V/S General Secretary And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & R. I. CHAGLA, JJ DATE : 3rd December, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 11/02/2020 . 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 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K.padmaja ....Petitioner V/S General Secretary And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & R. I. CHAGLA, JJ DATE : 11th February, 2020 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 28/04/2020 . 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 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K.padmaja ....PETITIONER V/S General Secretary And Ors ....RESPONDENT DEEPALI YATIN DEHERKAR for Petitioner Shri. Sugandh Deshmukh i/b JOSHUA ABHAY PATNIGERE for Respondent no 1 and 2 Mrs. P. N. Diwan Respondent AGP for state CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.V. GANGAPURWALA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHRIRAM MADHUSUDAN MODAK, JJ DATE : 28th July, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 20/09/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: Y.S.Patil 1 62-WP-12596-2018 (C) .doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K.padmaja ...Petitioner Versus General Secretary And Ors. ...RespondentS Ms. Deepali Y. Deherkar for the Petitioner. Mrs. P.N. Diwan AGP for the State. Mr. Joshua Abhay Patnigere for Respondent Nos 1 and 2. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & R.N. LADDHA, J.J. DATED : 20 th SEPTEMBER 2022 P.C. :- Learned counsel for respondents seeks a weeks accommodation to file sur-rejoinder. Stand over to 4th October 2022 as a last chance. No further time would be granted. (R.N.LADDHA, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 20: 44.12356.18-wp.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12356 OF 2018 BASAVRAJ GURAPPA GURAPPA PATIL Date: 2022.10.06 14:11:47 +0530 Digitally signed by BASAVRAJ PATIL Renu Prakash Mabrukhane ….. Petitioner Vs. General Secretary DAV College Managing Committee ….. Respondents WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 K. Padmaja ….. Petitioner Vs. General Secretary & Ors. ….. Respondents Ms. Deepali Y. Deherkar for the Petitioners Mrs. P. N. Diwan, AGP for the State Mr. Sugandh B. Deshmukh I/b. Mr. Joshna A. Patnigere for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 CORAM: S.V.GANGAPURWALA & R.N. LADDHA, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 4, 2022 P.C. 1 Respondent No.2 school is presently affiliated to the CBSE and governed by its Rules. 2 The learned Counsel for the Respondent relied upon the judgment of the apex court in the case of St. Mary's Education Society & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.5789 of 2022 to submit that the present Writ Petition would not be tenable before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Institution is unaided affiliated to CBSE. 3 The learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks time to go through the said judgment. 4 At the request of learned Counsel for the Petitioner, S.O. to 10th November 2022. (R.N. LADDHA,J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12356 OF 2018 Mrs. Renu Prakash Mabrukhane ….Petitioner Versus General Secretary, DAV College Managing Committee and ors. ….Respondents along with WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K. Padamja ….Petitioner Versus General Secretary, DAV College Managing Committee and ors. ….Respondents Mr. Deepali Deherkar, Advocate for the Petitioner in both the petitions. Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh i/b. Mr. Joshua A. Patnigere, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms. P. N. Diwan, AGP for Respondent No.3 – State. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & S. G. DIGE, JJ. DATE : 10th NOVEMBER, 2022. P.C. : Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks time to verify whether the CBSC has framed any rules covering the transfer of employees. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, stand over to 14th December, 2022. (S. G. DIGE, J.) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 24: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K.padmaja ....PETITIONER V/S General Secretary And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12356 OF 2018 Mrs Renu Prakash Mabrukhane ....PETITIONER V/S General Secretary Dav College Managing Committee ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. PATEL & HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE, JJ DATE : 24th February, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 21/03/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 26: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K.padmaja ....PETITIONER V/S General Secretary And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUNIL B. SHUKRE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE FIRDOSH PHIROZE POONIWALLA, JJ DATE : 18th October, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 13/12/2023 . 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 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12356 OF 2018 Renu Prakash Mabrukhane ...Petitioner Versus General Secretary DAV College Managing Committee and Ors. ...Respondents Digitally signed by YUGANDHARA SHARAD PATIL Date: 2024.01.08 12:57:07 +0530 YUGANDHARA SHARAD PATIL WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 .…... K.Padmaja ...Petitioner Versus General Secretary DAV College Managing Committee And Ors ...Respondents ……. Ms. Deepali Deherkar, for the Petitioner. Mr.Sugandh Deshmukh, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for Respondent No. 3. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & M.M.SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 3 JANUARY 2024 P.C.: . The Petitioners have challenged orders of transfer issued in May 2018. There is no interim order in these Petitions. Learned counsel for the Petitioners states that the Petitioners are already working on the transferal post since last 5 years. Request is made on behalf of the Petitioners for adjournment. Stand over to 14 February 2024. If the Petitions are not argued on the next date, it will be presumed that the Petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the Petition and appropriate orders will be passed. (M.M.SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 30: Digitally signed by TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Date: 2024.04.23 19:13:20 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K. Padmaja … Petitioner vs. General Secretary, DAV College Managing Committee & Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12356 OF 2018 Mrs. Renu Prakash Mabrukhane … Petitioner vs. General Secretary, DAV College Managing Committee & Ors. … Respondents ….. Ms.Deepali Deherkar for the Petitioners in both the Petitions. Mr.Sugandh Deshmukh with Ms.Karishma Shinde i/b. Joushya Patnigare for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Ms.Kavita N. Solunke, AGP for the Respondent -State. …... CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND M.M.SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 19 APRIL 2024 P.C. : The Petitioners are challenging the transfer order dated 4 May 2018. There is no interim order. The Petitioners have joined the transferred post and are working. Before we proceed further with the matter, we are of the opinion that the issue needs to be amicably resolved. It is open to the Petitioners to make a request to Respondent No.1 for simplicitor transfer of the Petitioners back to the original post and for Respondent No.1 to consider the same. Respondent No. 2 will give audience to the Petitioners and decide further course of action. Stand over to 7 May 2024, to be listed under the caption "For Directions". (M.M.SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 32: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K. Padmaja … Petitioner vs. General Secretary, DAV College Managing Committee & Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12356 OF 2018 Ms. Deepali Y. Deherkar for the Petitioners in both the Petitions. Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh i/b. Joshua A. Patnigare for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. S. H. Kankal, AGP for the Respondent -State CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & M. M. SATHAYE, JJ. DATED : 7 MAY 2024 P.C.: Learned Counsel for the parties states that efforts are underway to explore the possibility of settlement. At the joint request, stand over to 21 June 2024 under the caption "for directions" (M. M. SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 34: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 12596 of 2018 Mrs. K. Padmaja … Petitioner. V/s. General Secretary DAV College Managing Committee & Ors. … Respondents. With Writ Petition No.12356 of 2018 Mrs. Renu Prakash Mabrukhane … Petitioner. V/s. General Secretary DAV College Managing Committee & Ors. … Respondents. Ms. Deepali Deherkar for the Petitioner in both petitions. Mr. S.H. Kankal,AGP for the State in W.P. No. 12596/18. Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for the State in W.P. No. 12356/18. Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR, AND M.M. SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 21 June 2024. P.C. : The learned counsel for the parties state that settlement talks have not succeeded. List the Petition on Board on 12 July 2024 for admission. (M.M. SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.) L.S. Panjwani,P.S.

Order - Status 36: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12356 OF 2018 Mrs. Renu Prakash Mabrukhane. … Petitioner V/s. General Secretary, DAV College Managing Committee & Ors. … Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K. Padmaja. … Petitioner V/s. General Secretary, DAV College Managing Committee & Ors. … Respondents. Ms. Deepali Y. Deherkar, Advocate for Petitioner in both Petitions. Mr. Irvin D'Souza i/b. Joshua Abhay Patnigere, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP, for Respondent-State in WP/12356/2018. Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP, for Respondent-State in WP/12596/2018. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & M. M. SATHAYE, JJ. DATED : 12 JULY 2024 P.C.: At the request of the learned Counsel for the Respondent Management, stand over to 19 July 2024. (M. M. SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.) ARUNA SANDEEP TALWALKAR Digitally signed by ARUNA SANDEEP TALWALKAR Date: 2024.07.16 10:50:22 +0530

Order - Status 38: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12356 OF 2018 Mrs Renu Prakash Mabrukhane ...Petitioner Versus General Secretary Dav College Managing Committee and Ors. ...Respondents Ms. Deepali Deherkar for the Petitioners. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 **** SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2024.07.22 11:23:16 +0530 Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh a/w Karishma Shinde, Vaibhav Thorve i/b Joshva Abhay Patnigere for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. S.H. Kanakal, AGP for Respondent No.3/State. **** CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND M.M. SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 19 JULY 2024 P.C. : . The Petitioner is seeking as relief against Respondent/private Educational Institute. There is no relief sought against any State Authority. The learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks time to examine the latest decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject matter. Stand over to 8 August 2024. (M.M. SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 41: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12356 OF 2018 Mrs. Renu Prakash Mabrukhane ...Petitioner Versus General Secretary DAV College Managing Committee, New Delhi, and Ors. ...Respondents HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN NADAF Digitally signed by HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN Date: 2024.08.09 18:27:26 +0530 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12596 OF 2018 Mrs. K. Padmaja ...Petitioner Versus General Secretary DAV College Managing Committee, New Delhi, and Ors. ...Respondents *** Ms. Deepali Deherkar for the Petitioners in both petitions. Mr. Sugandh B. Deshmukh i/b. Mr. Joshva Abahy Patnigere for Respondent No.1 in both petitions. Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for Respondent No.3 State in WP/ 12356/20218 and Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP for Respondent No.3 State in WP/12596/20218. *** CORAM: NITIN JAMDAR & M.M. SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 8 AUGUST 2024 P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Petitioners are working with Respondent No. 2 School which is run by Respondent No. 1 Institute. Respondent No. 2 is a Secondary School and is affiliated with CBSE Board. The petitioners by these petitions challenge the order of transfer dated 4 May 2018. The Petitioners have been transferred from Nerul to Kharghar, Navi Mumbai which is a distance of not more than 20 k.m. The Petitioners have raised several issues such as transfer being mid-term transfer and punitive in nature. As far as aspect of mid-term transfer is concerned, it is now six years since the order of transfer is issued and therefore this issue does not survive any more. As regards other aspects are concerned, considering the passage of time we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate if the Petitioners make representations to Respondent School to reconsider the order which is passed in the year 2018. If such representations are made, it is for the Respondent to consider the same and to pass appropriate orders therein as per law and as per other administrative aspects. If the representations are made within a period of four weeks, the Respondent will make an endeavor to communicate the decision to the Petitioners within a period of four weeks thereafter. We have kept all the issues open while we permit the Petitioners to make representations. Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. ( M.M. SATHAYE, J.) ( NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2395 OF 2018 Nilesh Natvarlal Bhayani : Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra and anr. : Respondents. Mr. Aaditya A Gore for the Petitioner. Mr. K V Saste, Addl. PP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. DATE : 26th JUNE 2018 P.C. 1 The Petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the FIR which has been registered under Sections 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The said FIR has been registered by the Competent Authority i.e. Assistant Supply Officer exercising powers under the Essential Commodities Act. 2 The Petitioner is the partner of the firm M/s. Mahavir Gas Services which is a distributor of LPG Cylinders. The gravamen of the allegations against the said firm is in respect of the alleged malpractices in respect of the cylinders which are meant for commercial purposes. The deficiency as regards the number of cylinders found at site has been recorded in the FIR. The Petitioner's other two brothers one Mahendra N Bhayani and Virendra N Bhayani are also the accused along with the Petitioner. 3 In his endeavour of seeking quashing of the FIR on behalf of the Petitioner, the learned counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the Petitioner in fact as a whistle blower has brought to the notice of the authorities the alleged malpractices being committed in the said M/s. Mahavir Gas Services. It was further the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act would not be attracted as the said M/s. Mahavir Gas Services does not fit the requirements of the said Section 10. 4 We are unable to accept the said contentions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner implicit in the first contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is the fact that there seems to be a dispute between the Petitioner and his brothers as a result of which the Petitioner it seems made a complaint to the authorities. In so far as the second contention is concerned, the same cannot be accepted in view of the Explanation to the said Section, which clarifies that a "Company" would include a "Firm", which the said M/s. Mahavir Gas Services undoubtedly is. Apart from Section 10, the offences alleged against the Petitioner are also under Sections 3, 7, 8 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act. The contentions which were sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner as regards nonactive participation of the Petitioner in running of the business of the said M/s. Mahavir Gas Services, at best can be the defences of the Petitioner which would be available to him for being urged at the appropriate time. We therefore do not deem this a fit case to exercise our writ jurisdiction at this stage. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless to state that the trial would be proceeded with on its own merits and in accordance with law. [PRAKASH D. NAIK, J] [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.78 OF 2012 Om Prakash Dharampal Agarwal .. Applicant Vs. Niranjan Dharmadas Chawla and Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Rafeeq Peermohideen i/b. Mr.Jeetendra Sachdev, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Sanjay Kshirsagar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : MARCH 31, 2012 P.C.: I have heard the learned advocates on both sides. Applicant is the original defendant No.1 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in Special Civil Suit No.643 of 2008. The present applicant is an auction purchaser in regard to the property which was put up for sale by Respondent No.2 Central Bank of India to the extent of 5500 sq. ft. The total area according to the plaintiffs/Respondent No.1 is 6854.2 sq. ft. The Respondent No.1 wants a declaration from the learned Trial Judge in Civil Court that he continues to be the owner in respect of the property admeasuring 1354.2 sq. ft. of the description in the prayer clause (f). pmw 1 Learned advocate for the applicant wanted to contend that Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal will be the competent authority to resolve the dispute raised in the present plaint and, therefore, this court will have no jurisdiction. This contention of the learned Advocate for the applicant cannot sustain because the point raised by the present Respondent No.1 in the aforesaid suit is not concerning the sale of property of a particular description but he wants a declaration that he is the owner and continues to be so in respect of the property described in the plaint and prayer clause (f). Surely, such declaration can be granted by Civil Court and by no other court. In view of the above, the application is dismissed as no interference is required in the impugned order. There shall be no orders as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, J.)

Order - Status 7: 1/2 CAA : 829/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 829 OF 2012 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.119 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2401 OF 2006 IN B.C.C.C. L.C. SUIT NO. 2798 OF 2006 Bala Dhaklya Pawar & Ors. …. Intervenors/ Applicants Mazgaon Tadwadi B.I.T. Chawl Niwasi Vasahat Bachav Kruti Samiti, Mumbai & Ors. .... Appellants (Ori. plaintiffs) Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. .... Respondents (Ori. defendants) Mr. D.D. Madon, Senior Counsel i/by Mr. Anil Mishra, Advocate for applicants. Mr. Vishal Kanade, i/by Mr. Prashant Kulkarni, Advocate for applicants No. 3,4,7 and 8. Mr. J. Reis, Senior Counsel alongwith Mr. S.K. SonawanePatil, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Counsel i/by RMG Law Associates alongwith Sharan Jagtiani, Advocate for respondent no.2. Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Counsel i/by Mr. A.G. Purohit, Advocate for respondents no. 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8. Mr. Naushad Engineer i/by Mr. Sanjay Dubey, Advocate for respondent no.5. Mr. Chirag Balsara i/by Mr. Omar Khaiyam Shaikh, Advocate for applicants (Intervenors) Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 30th November 2012 PC : This application is for intervention in the appeal from an interim order passed by the Bombay City Civil Court. The applicants are not parties to the suit. Therefore, the application is dismissed. It is open for the applicants to file an application before the trial Court to get themselves impleaded to the suit. ( Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.5167 OF 2005 Om-Satnam Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Anr. : Petitioners V/s. ... The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society & Ors. : Respondents Mr.Bharat Joshi with Mr.Rajesh Singh for the petitioners. Mr.A.H.Palekar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader, for the respondent nos.1 to 4. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. August 25, 2005. P.C.: Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr.Palekar, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, appears and waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 4. Head by consent. The only grievance made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and, in my view, rightly is that the Divisional Joint Registrar took cognizance of the petitioners' application for stay, but has not passed any order on the said application. The learned Divisional Joint Registrar has not even assigned any reason for not passing any order. In the circumstances, the learned Divisional Joint Registrar is directed to decide the petitioners' application for stay on merits within a period of four weeks from the date the parties appear before the learned Divisional Joint Registrar. The parties are directed to appear before the Divisional Joint REgistrar on 31.8.2005. All contentions of both the parties are kept open. Status quo shall continue till the learned Divisional joint Registrar decides the petitioners' stay application. Thereafter, the order passed by the learned Divisional Joint Registrar shall be in force. The rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Sd/- S.A. BOBDE, J. 2

Order - Status 5: CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2526 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2527 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL (stamp) NO. 16905 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. Arjun H. Patil for the Applicant. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18th February, 2011. P.C. 1 Rule, returnable on 21st April, 2011. 2 There will be adinterim relief of stay of execution and operation of the impugned judgment and order subject to condition of the Applicant depositing in this Court the entire compensation amount within a period of six weeks from today. If compliance is not made by depositing the compensation amount within the stipulated time, adinterim relief of stay will stand vacated without further reference to the Court. [ A.S.OKA, J ]

Order - Status 10: ndm FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2526 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL (stamp) NO. 16905 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. Arjun H. Patil for the Applicant. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 08th July, 2011. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant. None appears for the Respondent though the notice is duly served. There is no reply filed to the application. 2 Sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). [ A.S.OKA, J ]

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO.17244 OF 2014 Chintaman R Abhyankar and anr. : Petitioners. Versus Veda Co­op. Housing Society Ltd. : Respondent. Mr. Y K Tiwari i/by Mr. Rajesh M Yadav for the Petitioners. Mr. N G Gupta i/by Mr. C M Lokesh for the Respondent. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 21st July 2014. P.C. 1 There is a concurrent finding recorded against the Petitioners and in favour of the RespondentSociety as regards the Petitioners entitlement to the stilt parking place purportedly sold to them by the builder by virtue of the agreement that was entered into between the Petitioners and the builder. The Cooperative Court rejected the application for interim reliefs filed by the Petitioners. The Cooperative Appellate Court has confirmed the order passed by the Cooperative Court. 2 The Apex court in the judgment reported in 2010 CTJ 98 (SC) in the matter of Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Panchali Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. has held that under the provisions of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act a builder is not entitled to sell the parking place in the stilt portion. It appears that in the instant case, the Society has already regulated the parking and has allotted the Petitioners a parking place in the property of the Society. The learned counsel for the Petitioners sought to contend that the judgment of the Apex court cannot have retrospective effect so as to affect the rights of the parties which have been created anterior in point of time. The judgment of the Apex Court lays down a proposition of law in the context of the obligations of a developer/promoter under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, and therefore there is no question of any retrospective or prospective application. Both the Courts below have therefore rightly relied upon the said judgment. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J]