All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 746 OF 2018 Harichandra Narayan Thakare ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra, Through The Secretary And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 747 OF 2018 Kachan Ramesh Dhukate And Anr. ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra, Through The Secretary And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 748 OF 2018 Mrs. Ranjeeta Praful Patil And Anr. ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 761 OF 2018 Miss Patil Smita Sarjerao And Anr. ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra, Through Secretary And Anr. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 758 OF 2018 Hitaishi Hitendra Patil And Anr. Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra, Through The Respondent Secretary And Anr. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 760 OF 2018 Ms. Churi Deepali Bhalchandra And Anr. Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through The Respondent Secretary And Ors. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 757 OF 2018 Shri. Dineash Kamlakar Naik And Anr Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through The Respondent Secretary, And Ors. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ DATE : 31st January, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, the matters are adjourned. Ad-interim relief, if any, to continue till then. Stand over to 28/03/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 746 OF 2018 Harichandra Narayan Thakare ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra, Through The Secretary And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 747 OF 2018 Kachan Ramesh Dhukate And Anr. ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra, Through The Secretary And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 748 OF 2018 Mrs. Ranjeeta Praful Patil And Anr. ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 761 OF 2018 Miss Patil Smita Sarjerao And Anr. ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra, Through Secretary And Anr. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 758 OF 2018 Hitaishi Hitendra Patil And Anr. Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra, Through The Respondent Secretary And Anr. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 760 OF 2018 Ms. Churi Deepali Bhalchandra And Anr. Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through The Respondent Secretary And Ors. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 757 OF 2018 Shri. Dineash Kamlakar Naik And Anr Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through The Respondent Secretary, And Ors. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & SMT. BHARATI HARISH DANGRE, JJ DATE : 28th February, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Stand over to 25/04/2018. Ad-interim relief, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11551 OF 2012 Dr. Ansari @ Abdulla Mohammad } Petitioners versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. } Respondents WITH CONNECTED MATTERS AT SR. NOS. 927 TO 1205 ON TODAY'S BOARD AND WRIT PETITION NOS. 13134/2017, 112/2018, 113/2018, 4771/2018, 4772/2018, 4773/2018, 746/2018, 747/2018, 748/2018, 758/2018, 760/2018, 757/2018, 2069/2018, 13322/2017, 13323/2017, 12801/2017, 13325/2017, 14071/2017, 14070/2017, 14066/2017 Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar for the petitioners. Ms. S. D. Vyas-'B' Panel Counsel with Mr.B. V. Samant-AGP, Mr. V. M. Mali-AGP and Mr. S. B. Kalel-AGP for State. CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ. DATE :- AUGUST 1, 2018 P.C. :- It is stated by the counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned AGP that out of the matters listed today, a common list of cases referred by the clause (a), namely, "applications seeking approval forwarded by the Management are pending or unattended without any orders" and under the category (d), namely, "the proposals forwarded by the Managements have not been accepted simply because of the ban imposed by GR dated 2nd Jayant Vishwanath Salunke Digitally signed by Jayant Vishwanath Salunke Date: 2018.08.09 16:06:56 +0530 May, 2012", would be provided and the following writ petitions, some of which are not on board are taken on board, can be treated as disposed of in terms of the order passed on 19th July, 2018 in Civil Writ Petition No.10518 of 2016:- WRIT PETITION NOS. 13134/2017, 112/2018, 113/2018, 4771/2018, 4772/2018, 4773/2018746/2018, 747/2018, 748/2018, 758/2018, 760/2018, 757/2018, 2069/2018, 13322/2017, 13323/2017, 12801/2017, 13325/2017, 14071/2017, 14070/2017, 14066/2017 On submission of such common list and signed by both, the petitioners' advocate and the learned AGP, each of these writ petitions as enlisted would stand disposed of. In addition, the following correction shall be made in the order passed on 19th July, 2018 in Writ Petition No. 10518 of 2016:- "In para 4, the date "10th June, 2017 is erroneously mentioned. It shall be read as 10th July, 2017." The time of three months for taking a decision in terms of order passed on 19th July, 2018 in Writ Petition No. 10518 of 2016 shall commence from today. We would expect the competent authority, namely, the Education Officer not to act on the basis that the posts held by the petitioners are vacant and therefore, surplus teachers can be absorbed and should be absorbed by the Management. All such actions initiated shall not be given effect to for a period of four months from today. This direction is issued on the basis of the apprehension expressed by the petitioners' counsel appearing in Writ Petition Nos. 1771 of 2018 and 1779 of 2018 appearing at serial number 1142 on today's board. Let the matters covered by the other category [clause (b)] of para 1 of the order dated 19th July, 2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 10518 of 2016 be listed, at the requested of the counsel, on 30th August, 2018. (SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 500 OF 2015 Jyotsana Kiran kale. ..Applicant. Versus Shravani Santosh Ambekar and Another. ..Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 501 OF 2015 Santosh R. Ambekar & Ors. ..Applicants. Versus Shravani Santosh Ambekar and Another. ..Respondents. Ms. Shivangi J. Rajak for the Applicants. Mr. Mayur D. Sapkale for Respondent No.1. Mr. J. P. Yagnik, learned APP for the State. Coram : RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. Date : June 15, 2015 . P. C. : The Applicants are seeking to quash FIR against them bearing CR No.72 of 2015 registered with Vikroli Police Station at the instance of Respondent No.1 for the offence punishable under sections 498A and 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Applicants are the accused in the said CR, who have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the said FIR by consent of the original complainant Respondent No.1 herein. Applicant No.1 in APL No. 501 is the husband of Respondent No.1 and rest of the Applicants are his family members. The Applicant in APL is the sister-in-law of Respondent No. 1. Matrimonial disputes between the parties gave rise to the filing of above FIR. The learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties submitted that during the pendency of investigation into above FIR, with the help and intervention of family members, friends and well-wishers, the parties amicably settled their differences by way of mutual settlement. Pursuant to the same, present applications are filed for quashing the above FIR, by consent of Respondent No.1 In the present applications filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Respondent No.1 has filed separate affidavits dated 27th May 2015 wherein she has stated that she is not interested in continuing with the said FIR. She has solemnly affirmed that she is withdrawing all the allegations made against the Petitioner in the said FIR and that she has no objection for quashing the proceedings of FIR bearing No. 72 of 2015 registered by her with Vikhroli Police Station against the Applicants. Respondent No.1 is personally present before the Court. On specific query made by us, she submitted that she has made the said affidavits on her own free will, without there being any pressure or undue influence. She has further confirmed that she has no objection for quashing the FIR in question lodged by her against the Applicants for the offence punishable under sections 498A and 406 read with of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Apex Court in B. S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana reported [AIR 2003 SC 1386] has held that in the event of settlement of matrimonial dispute, the FIR under Section 498A can be quashed, even though the said offence is not compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. The relevant observations of the Apex Court are contained in Paras 14 and 15 which are reproduced herein below: "14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code." Similar view has been taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Abasaheb Yadav Honmane vs. State of Maharashtra [2008(5) LJ.Soft 46]. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of complaint, it transpires that the allegations are totally personal in nature. There is no element of public law involved in the crime. The offence alleged cannot be said to have any impact on the society. In these circumstances, and especially, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, [(2008) 4 SCC 582], we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision as well as in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014 AIR SCW 2065] we are of the considered view that there is no impediment in quashing the FIR in question. In the circumstances, applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 sought directions to the police to return the jewellery recovered or attached by the police during the course of investigation into above FIR. The learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants in both the applications, after taking instructions from her clients, states that the Applicants have no objection for return of the said jewellery to Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 shall make a proper application to the police for return of jewellery. Upon such application, police will take appropriate decision within a week of its filing. [SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2057 OF 2014 Shrikant Hanmant Bijargi … Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra … Respondent Through post. None for petitioner. Ms. M. H. Mhatre, APP for Respondent-State. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : JUNE 09, 2022 P.C. : . We appoint Advocate Mr. Pranot P. Pawar to represent the petitioner in the petition. Issue notice to the respondent. Ms. Mhatre, learned APP waives service of notice for the respondent and prays for three weeks' time to procure the instructions. At her request, stand over to 06.07.2022. Registry shall handover the complete set of papers to the appointed Advocate Mr. Pranot P. Pawar on or before 27.06.2022. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.) Minal Parab

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2057 OF 2014 Shrikant Hanmant Bijargi … Petitioner V/s. The State Of Maharashtra. … Respondent None for Petitioner. Mr. H. J. Dedhia APP, for Respondent-State. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI AND MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 28 th SEPTEMBER, 2022. P.C. : At the request of learned APP, stand over to 30th September, 2022. [MILIND N. JADHAV, J.] [A.S. GADKARI, J.]

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2057 OF 2014 Shrikant Hanmant Bijargi ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT None for the Petitioner. Mr. H.J.Dedhia, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.S. GADKARI & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ DATE : 30th September, 2022 P.C. : At the request of the learned APP for the Respondent - State, S.O. to 07/10/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2057 OF 2014 Shrikant Hanmant Bijargi … Petitioner V/s. The State Of Maharashtra … Respondent Mr. Shashikant P. Chaudhari a/w Mr. Pranot P. Pawar Appointed Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Ajay Patil APP, for Respondent-State. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI AND MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 7 th OCTOBER, 2022. P.C. : Learned APP on instructions from Jailor (Grade-I), Yerwada Central Prison, Pune submitted that, Petitioner expired on 6th May, 2017 while undergoing treatment at J. J. Hospital, Mumbai. In view thereof, present Petition is abated and accordingly disposed off. [MILIND N. JADHAV, J.] [A.S. GADKARI, J.]

Order - Status 2: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL ST. NO.14685 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders None Present. CORAM : A.N. MARE REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 08th August, 2016 3 weeks time granted for removing office objections. sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 08.08.16

Order - Status 3: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL ST. NO.14685 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders None Present. CORAM : AJIT N. MARE, REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 29th August, 2016 3 weeks time granted for removing office objections. ­ sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 29.08.16

Order - Status 4: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL ST. NO.14685 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders None Present. CORAM : AJIT N. MARE, REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 19th September, 2016 S.O. 3 weeks as a last chance for removing office objections. ­ sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 19.09.16

Order - Status 10: (FCA 7 of 2017) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL No. 7 OF 2017 Sarika Badal Shinde ….Appellant Vs. Shri Badal Vijay Shinde ….Respondent *********** None for the Appellant Abhijit Patil i/b. Sushant Prabhure for Respondent *********** CORAM : V.M. KANADE & P.R. BORA, JJ DATE : FEBRUARY 07, 2017 P.C. : None for the Appellant. Heard the learned counsel for the Respondent. Perused the appeal memo and the impugned order. Admit. The learned counsel for the Respondent waives service of the notice on behalf of the Respondent. The impugned order is stayed. [ P.R. BORA, J.] [ V.M. KANADE, J.] Vaishali Tikam 1/1 vat

Order - Status 14: 1/9 903-FCA-7-17.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.7 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.271 OF 2019 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.7 OF 2017 . . . . . . . Sarika Badal Shinde versus Badal Vijay Shinde .... Appellant .... Respondent • Mr.Sugandh B. Deshmukh, Advocate for Applicant. • Mr.Sushant Sudhakar Prabhune, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : K. K. TATED & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : 09 th JANUARY, 2020. P.C. : Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By this Family Court Appeal, Appellant/Wife is challenging the judgment and decree dated 08/12/2015 passed by the Family Court, Kolhapur in Petition No.A 33 of 2015 allowing Respondent husband's Petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The main contention of the Appellant is that the said order was passed by the Family Court as ex-arte because no one appeared on behalf of her when the matter was called out for hearing. Both the counsel submit that for last several years, Appellant as well as Respondent are staying separately. Therefore, now it is not possible for them to reconcile the dispute and start living together. Hence, both of them have decided to take divorce by consent before the Family Court at Kolhapur. They further submit that the impugned order passed by Family Court dated 08/12/2015 be set aside. Both the Counsel submit that the matter is settled out of Court. They have tendered Consent Terms dated 09/01/2020 duly signed by the Appellant as well as Respondent along with their parents who are present before this Court. The Appellant as well as the Respondent entered into the witness box. They admitted the contents of Consent Terms as well as the execution thereof. Hence same is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification, which reads thus; "IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2017. DISTRICT – KOLHAPUR IN THE MATTER BETWEEN SARIKA BADAL SHINDE, Age – 30 years, Occu. Service, C/o. Shri. VishwasDattatrayDeshmukh 203,2nd Floor,Atmaram Complex, Near Deshmukh Petrol Pump, At & Post:Asthami, Tal. Roha, Dist. Raigad. …APPELLANT .......(ORG. RESPONDENT) VERSUS BADAL VIJAY SHINDE, Age – 31 years, Occu. Service, 217/7, A Ward, Atharv Apartment, Flat No.8 & 9, Dudhali, Tal. Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur. … RESPONDENT (ORG. PETITIONER) CONSENT TERMS Whereas the Respondent and the Appellant are husband and wife, their marriage having been solemnised at Kolhapur, on 17th of February, 2014 according to the Hindu religion, vaidic rites and ceremonies. Whereas the Respondent and the Appellant have, therefore, without carrying any ill feeling about each other in the future decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent on amicable terms and conditions. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED THAT the Appellant and the Respondent have decided amicably with free consent to dissolve their marriage by virtue of fling a Divorce Petition by mutual Consent. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED THAT the Respondent shall pay to the Appellant an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh only) towards one time lump sum full and fnal settlement of their matrimonial dispute, and on the basis of the aforementioned settlement amount, the parties have agreed to dissolve their Marriage dated 17.2.2014 by Mutual Consent. Out of the settlement amount of Rs.20, 00,000/-, the Respondent shall deposit Rs 5 lakh in the Learned Family Court, Kolhapur on the date of fling of the divorce petition by mutual consent in the Learned Family Court, Kolhapur on 31/1/2020. Both the parties shall appear before the Learned Family Court, Kolhapur on 31/1/2020 and shall fle the divorce petition by mutual consent in the said Court. The remaining amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- (rupees seven lakh ffty thousand only) shall be deposited by the Respondent before the Learned Family Court, Kolhapur on or before 2/3/2020 and the last remaining amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- (rupees seven lakh ffty thousand only) shall be deposited by the Respondent before the Learned Family Court, Kolhapur on or before 10/4/2020 towards the full and fnal settlement for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent and the Appellant shall not claim any amount in future . The Appellant agrees to withdraw the said amount unconditionally from the Learned Family Court, Kolhapur after the grant of decree of divorce in the Divorce Petition by mutual consent. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED THAT the parties have not initiated any other complaint or legal proceedings against each other in any Court and shall end and settle all the disputes without flling any further complaints or legal proceedings against each other. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED THAT the parties will / shall not demand, claim anything cash, Jwellery or in kind or any other claim of whatsoever nature from each other and/or from our family members/relatives apart from the settlement amount mentioned herein above. It is agreed that Appellant will not claim any share in the moveable or immoveable property of Respondent and his parents. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED THAT whereas Respondent is not liable to give anything to the Appellant or to her family at present and in future apart from the settlement amount. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED THAT the parties after divorce will be at liberty to remarry with our any new life partner as per their sweet will and both parties have no any objection for the same against each other. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED THAT the parties after seeking the divorce shall not lodge/fle any 7 / 9 903-FCA-7-17.odt complaint in any police station and not fle any case in any court against each other to harass, fortune, blackmail and for recovery of any claim of whatsoever nature. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED THAT after the divorce, the Appellant will be known by her maiden name i.e. Sarika Deshmukh and she will not use, raise, call or address the name and surname of the Respondent in future. Similarly, the Respondent will not raise call or address the name of the Appellant as his wife in future. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED by the parties that they will abide by all terms and conditions of this Consent Terms and in case if anyone of the parties breaches any terms or conditions, then the other party will have full right to initiate legal actions against the other party. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED by the parties that all the above terms and conditions this Consent Terms are prepared with full understanding and willingly and without any undue infuence or pressure. Dated the 9th day of January, 2020 Appellant: Sarika Badal Shinde Advocate for the Appellant Respondent: Badal Vijay Shinde Advocate for the Respondent Witnesses: 2." Both the Counsel submit that they are filing their consent Petition before the Family Court at Kolhapur for divorce by mutual consent. Both the Counsel and Family Court may be directed to entertain the same immediately without waiting for cooling period i.e. six months as the parties are residing separately for last six years. If the Petition for divorce by consent is filed before the Family Court at Kolhapur, Family Court to decide the same without waiting for cooling period i.e. six months as both the parties are residing separately for last more than six years. Undertaking given by both the parties in Consent Terms is accepted. Hence following order: (a) Family Court Appeal No.7/2017 is disposed of in terms of Consent Terms by setting aside the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 08/12/2015 passed by learned Family Court, Kolhapur in Petition No.A 33 of 2015. (b) Registry is directed to draw the decree accordingly. (c) No order as to costs. (d) In view of the disposal of Family Court Appeal in terms of Consent Terms, nothing survives in Civil Application. Hence the Civil Application stands dismissed as infructous. (e) Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 8: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.210 OF 2005 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, office : Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram, : appearances, Court's : orders or directions : and Registrar's orders : ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Rajesh More, APP, for the State. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 5th June, 2007. P.C. :- . Await service. S.O. for six weeks. In the meantime, the learned Advocate for the petitioner to serve respondent Nos.7 & 8 by Advocate's notice either personally or through Courier/Speed Post/E-mail/Fax and file an affidavit of service before the returnable date, failing which the Revision shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)

Order - Status 12: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 210 OF 2005 ------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes,Office : Memoranda of Coram, : Court's or Judge's orders appearances,Court 's : orders or directions : and Registrar's orders. : ------------------------------------------------------------ A.G.Toraskar for the applicant. Ms.M.M.Deshmukh, APP for the State. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 17th July 2007. P.C.: ---- . By way of last chance, one week time is granted to comply with the order dated 5th June, 2007, failing which, revision shall stand automatically dismissed without further reference to the Court. JUDGE

Order - Status 7: ingale IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6447 OF 2013 Smt.Ashwini Ravindra Pingle .. Petitioner Vs. Shri Sanjay Ramchandra Kamthe and another .. Respondents Mr.Avinash B.Avhad, for Petitioner. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 01st August, 2013 P.C. : . The application for amendment in the written statement is rejected. Mr.Avhad, the learned Counsel for petitioner states that simply because, the matter is at the stage of final argument, that could not have been reason for rejecting the application for amendment. It was only at that point of time, the petitioner got the knowledge of the other properties owned by the plaintiff and given for redevelopment. The defendant had given details in the application, only because the defendant could not get the relevant documents, that could not have been the ground of denying the amendment application. According to the learned Counsel, the ground for eviction agitated by plaintiff is bonafide requirement. The said amendment would be relevant and material for effective adjudication of the dispute. The plaintiff had filed say to the application denying the said fact. The Court has observed that not a single document is produced along with the application substantiating the factum of the plaintiff possessing the survey No. 87 and given it for redevelopment. The parties have concluded the evidence. The plaintiff has even advanced his final argument. The matter was adjourned thrice for the argument of the defendant and thereafter, present application has been filed. The Court has considered the said aspect of the matter. I do not see any error committed by the Court while passing impugned order. The petitioner may assail the said order in case is required to file the appeal, if in law as it is permissible, relying on section 105 of C.P.C. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) 909.wp.6447.13