All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4558 OF 2005. IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1315 OF 2006. The State of Maharashtra. Applicant. Versus. Madhu Dhondiba Gadade. Respondent. Shri K.K.Tated for the Applicant. CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED : 15th June, 2006. P.C.: 2.Rule returnable on 14th February 2007. 3.In addition to service through Court, the Applicant is directed to serve private notice to the Respondent by Registered Post A.D. and/or Speed Post A.D. and/or by hand delivery. Hamdast allowed. 4.There will be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b), subject to condition that the Applicant shall deposit the entire amount due and payable as per the impugned Judgment and Award with the Reference court within a period of 12 weeks from today. If the amount is not deposited within the stipulated time, the ad-interim relief granted will stand vacated without further reference to the Court. 5.If the amount is deposited, the Claimant will be permitted to withdraw the said amount on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Reference Court.

Order - Status 9: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATESIDE C.A. No. 4558/05 in FA No.1315/06 with C.A.No.4561/05 in FA No.1318/06 with C.A. No.4562/05 in FA No.1319/06 with C.A. No.4563/05 in FA No.1320/06 with C.A.No.4564/05 in FA No.1321/06 with C.A.No.4565/05 in FA No.1322/06 with C.A. No.4566/05 in FA No.1323/06 with C.A. No.4567/05 in FA No.1324/06 with C.A. No.4568/05 in FA No.1325/06 with C.A. No.4569/05 in FA No.1327/06 with C.A. No.4571/05 in FA No.1329/06 with C.A. No.4572/05 in FA No.1330/06 with C.A. No.4573/05 in FA No.1331/06 with C.A. No.4575/05 in FA No.1333/06 with C.A. No.4576/05 in FA No.1334/06 with C.A. No.4577/05 in FA No.1335/06 with C.A. No.4578/05 in FA No.1336/06 with C.A. No.4579/05 in FA No.1337/06 with C.A. No.4580/05 in FA No.1338/06 with C.A. No.4583/05 in FA No.1326/06. Office Notes, Office Memorandum Court's or Judge's orders. of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrars orders. Mr. Y.M. Nakhwa, AGPfor the State. Mr. P.H. Potnis for Respondent. CORAM: A. S. OKA, J. DATE : 15th February, 2007 P.C: Heard the learned advocate for the parties. Adinterim relief granted earlier will continue to operate as an interim relief. Application is disposed of. (A.S. OKA, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.502 OF 2013 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Ms.Poonam Mital Advocate for Appellant. None for the Respondent. CORAM: A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 23rd September 2013. P.C. : Stand over to 30.9.2013. ( A.P. BHANGALE, J. )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE FIRST APPEAL NO. 502 OF 2013 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4634 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 502 OF 2013 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .. APPELLANT VERSUS SANJAY GANPATI LOHAR & ANR... RESPONDENTS Ms. Poonam Mital, Advocate for the appellant CORAM:-A. P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 30/9/2013 P.C. Heard. 2 According to learned advocate for the appellant, main insurance policy is not operative as cheque issued towards payment of premium was dishonoured and insurance policy could not come in operation. The insurer would not be liable to pay compensation to the claimant. However, it is FA502.13 submitted that the amount of award is already deposited with the tribunal. That being so, considering the impugned judgment and award, the tribunal can execute the award provided that, if amount is allowed to be withdrawn by the claimants along with interest as ordered, the security to the satisfaction of the tribunal be insisted upon until insurer (appellant) can move the tribunal with the application to disown the liability to pay compensation, on the ground that policy was not subsisting on the date of the award or at the time of the accident. 3 Liberty, accordingly for the appellant to move the tribunal. However, in my opinion, when third party is a victim of motor vehicle accident, the contention that insurance policy was cancelled prior to the date of accident as a result of dishonour of cheque issued towards premium, would not be an excuse for not to pay the award amount. Of course considering the fact that insurance policy is a contract between the insurer 2/4 2 and the insured (policy holder) and third party is not concerned with the fact of payment of premium but concerned with compensation awarded, the victim of the accident (third party) is entitled to receive the amount awarded as compensation and insurer is surely liable to pay. The insurer is entitled to move the tribunal as against the owner of the offending vehicle to recover the amount, if according to it the amount was wrongly paid as compensation to the third party. 4 Ruling in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Reshmi & Ors., 2012 ACJ 920 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Seema Malhotra & Ors., (2001) 3 SCC 151 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekha Devi & Ors., 2013 ACJ 1686 are brought to my notice. In view of the observations made, in my opinion, since the amount of award is already deposited with the tribunal, the victim of the accident, which is third party, is entitled to receive the same while the insurer can recover the amount, if compensation was paid wrongly to the 3 claimants and was recoverable from the owner of the offending motor vehicle. According to ruling, the insurer or owner of the motor vehicle is liable either jointly or severally to pay compensation to the third party i.e. the claimants (dependents of the victim of the accident). The order accordingly must be passed with liberty to the insurer to move the Tribunal in case it wants to recover compensation paid from owner of the offending Motor vehicle in the same proceedings of the execution of award and need not adopt any independent suit or proceedings to recover the run paid from owner of the offending Motor vehicle. 4 5 The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (A.P. BHANGALE, J.) md.saleem

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 509 OF 2005 Rajaram Shankar More Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents. Dr. V. K. Chaudhary for the Petitioner. Mrs. J. S. Pawar, Addl.G.P. for the State. CORAM : DALVEER BHANDARI, C. J. & S. A. BOBDE, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 17, 2005. P.C. : Learned Counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh petition. This petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed. Sd/ CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/ S. A. BOBDE, J.

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.754 OF 2010 Madhukar Narayan Sali .. Petitioner versus Arjundas Sattaramdas Banga & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Pankaj J. Das for the petitioner. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 4th February 2010. P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The learned counsel is not disputing that the clause (h-a) of clause (iv) of section 6 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 is applicable. He, however, pointed out that the two sale deeds which are under challenge relate to the same suit property. He submitted that assuming that market value of the suit property is Rs. 11,00,000/-, the petitioner is ready and willing to pay Court fees on the said amount. His submission is that under clause (h-a) Court fee is leviable on the value of the property and therefore, merely because there is a challenge to the two sale deeds, the petitioner is not liable to pay Court fees on the market value mentioned in both the sale deeds in respect of the same property. He invited my attention to paragraph 3 of the impugned order which requires the petitioner to pay Court fees on a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- which according to the petitioner is much more than the value of the property contemplated by clause (h-a). Issue notice to the respondents for final disposal at admission stage returnable on 5th March 2010. Hamdast allowed. Till the next date, the plaint shall not be rejected on the ground of non-compliance with the impugned order. Private service is also permitted. (A.S.OKA,J)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.754 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Pankaj J. Das for petitioner. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 5th March 2010 PC :- 1. Await service till 12th April 2010. If affidavit of service of private notice is not filed on or before 8th April 2010, the petition will stand dismissed for non prosecution without further reference to the Court. Ad-interim relief granted earlier is extended till next date. (A.S.OKA, J.) mst

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET WRIT PETITION NO.754 OF 2010 1 ............................................................. Office Notes,Office memorandum of Coram, appearances,Court's Court's or orders or directions Judge's orders & Registrar's orders. ............................................................. Mr.Pankaj Das for the petitioner None for the respondents CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. DATE : APRIL 8,2010 P.C.: . Not on board. Taken on board. 1 Petition to come up on board on 12th April 2010 which is the scheduled date. 2 Till next date, the conditional order will not operate. JUDGE ssp

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 754 of 2010 Madhukar Narayan Sali ...Petitioner v/s. Arjundas Sattaramdas Banga & ors. ..Respondents Mr. Pankaj J. Das for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Chandnani for respondents 5-8. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- FEBRUARY 25, 2011. P.C. The Petitioner to take steps to serve the unserved Respondents 2 and 3 within a period of four weeks from today, failing which petition to stand dismissed for non-prosecution, without further reference to the Court. If steps are taken in time, place the matter on 25th March, 2011. (B.R. GAVAI, J)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 SECOND APPEAL NO. 170 OF 2010 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 380 OF 2010 Smt.Sunanda Vijay Vartha & ors. ... Appellants v/s Shri Ganesh Purshottam Bhatta & ors. ... Respondents Ms.Kalpana K. Shah for the appellants. Mr.R.S.Patil for respondent Nos.1 to 5. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 13TH APRIL, 2010 P.C.: The second appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the Civil Judge, Jr.Divn., Dahanu in R.C. Suit No. 24 of 2004 which has been confirmed by the District Judge at Palghar in Civil Appeal No.33 of 2006. Admittedly, the appellants were the tenants of the respondents in respect of a hut. A suit was filed by the landlord – the respondents herein, for evicting the tenants on Bsb the ground of illegal additions and alterations to the suit premises. The present suit was filed with respect to encroachment on the open place surrounding the hut. Both the Courts below have held that the appellants have encroached on the open space surrounding the premises occupied by them, and that, the encroachment would have to be removed. As regards the occupation or the tenancy in respect of the hut admeasuring 30 ft. x 12 ½ ft., both the Courts below have not passed any orders adverse to the appellants' interest. The learned advocate for the appellants submits that both the Courts below have erred in not considering the question of jurisdiction. She submits that since the appellants were the tenants of the respondents, the suit ought not to have been tried before the Civil Court but before the appropriate forum i.e. the Small Causes Court. On consideration of the impugned judgment, in my view, no substantial question of law arises in the present case. The question of jurisdiction would have arisen had the Civil Court decided the question whether the appellants were to be evicted from the hut. The suit and the relief granted by the Trial Court is restricted to the area outside the hut and, therefore, in my view, the question of jurisdiction does not arise. Second appeal stands dismissed along with the civil application. .....

Order - Status 5: 17 wp 444-20=.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 444 OF 2020 Mukhtar @ Raj Zakir Khan … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent None for the Petitioner. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI,& N.R.BORKAR, JJ. DATE : 28th JANUARY 2020 P.C. Issue notice to Respondent, returnable on 06.03.2020. Learned APP waives notice for State. High Court Legal Aid Committee to appoint panel Advocate for the Petitioner. (N.R.BORKAR,J.) (B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Order - Status 9: 23-cr-wp-444-20.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 444 OF 2020 Mukhtar @ Raj Zakir Khan … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent ---------------- Mr. Sagar S. Bhandare (appointed) for the Petitioner. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for the Respondent – State. ---------------- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE & N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : MARCH 6, 2020. P.C. 1] For the reasons recorded in the order passed today in Criminal Writ Petition No. 4256 of 2018, which we have allowed, this petition can be conveniently disposed of with following directions: "We fnd both orders are unsustainable and the same are quashed and set aside. We direct the frst authority to pass fresh orders, in accordance with law, within four weeks from the date of communication of this order to it." 2] Here, the prisoner was under trial from 19th April 2016 to 2 nd July 2018 and thereafter, as a convict from 3rd July 2018 onwards. Dinesh Sherla 1/2 3] Thus, he has never been released either on bail or on any other leave and hence, the adverse police report against him is not justifed. 4] Hence, with similar liberty and directions as mentioned in our earlier order supra, we partly allow this petition and dispose of it. 5] This order be communicated to the prisoner in Jail. (N.R. BORKAR, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

Order - Status 6: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 924 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's Orders Orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar Sr.Adv i/by. Ajay Patil for the petitioners. Mr.J.A.Shah for the respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 11TH FEBRUARY,2008. P.C. : 1.This petition is by the original defendant in Short Cause Suit No. 987 of 2006. She applied for staying of hearing of this suit until her suit being RAD Suit No. 829 of 2006 is decided by the court of Small Causes. That application is rejected by the impugned order. 2.After the matter was argued for some time, Mr.Dhakephalkar learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner does not press the matter, insofar as , the relief of stay of suit is concerned. Even otherwise the suit in the Civil court and the Court of exclusive jurisdiction containing distinct reliefs, so also, the powers in law being not identical that relief has been rightly refused. However, insofar as , the issue of jurisdiction is concerned, the Trial court to frame the issue of jurisdiction in Suit No. 987 of 2006 and decide the same alongwith other issues on its own merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by the order passed on the application of stay made under Section 10 of CPC. All contentions of both sides are kept open. Petition dismissed, subject to above directions. No order as to costs. sd/- (JUDGE)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 67 OF 2012 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1352 OF 2006 Hanmant Shankar Jivane ... Petitioner. vs. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. --- Mrs. Sonia Miskeen, Appointed Advocate, Legal Aid Committee, for the Petitioner. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for the Respondent. CORAM: V.M.KANADE & P.D.KODE, JJ. DATED: 10th APRIL,2012 P.C.:- 1. The Applicant has filed this application through Jail. The Applicant is seeking bail. The Applicant was convicted by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 489-B and 489-C and sentence to suffer R.I. for life. 2. We have perused the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the Trial Court. There is sufficient material on record to indicate the involvement of the present applicant. The prosecution case is that the applicant was found to be in possession of counterfeit currency notes valued at Rs. 12 lacs. 3. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to consider the application. His application for bail is rejected. Criminal Appeal, however is directed to be placed on Final Hearing Board on the week commencing from 23rd April, 2012. 4. Application is accordingly disposed of. (P.D.KODE,J) (V.M.KANADE,J)