All Cases

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6590 OF 2017 M/s. Ashirwad Nice Developers ....Petitioner V/S Mr. Chotelal Chunilal Yadav ....Respondent CORAM : B.P. COLABAWALLA, J DATE : 28th June, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is stand over to 07/07/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6590 OF 2017 M/s. Ashirwad Nice Developers ....Petitioner V/S Mr. Chotelal Chunilal Yadav ....Respondent CORAM : B.P. COLABAWALLA, J DATE : 7th July, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of tim, stand over to 22/08/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: 904.wp.6590.17 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6590 OF 2017 M/s ASHIRWAD NICE Developers ..Petitioner Vs. Mr Chotelal Chunilal Yadav ..Respondent Mr. Ranjit Bhonsale i/b Rakesh Agrawal, for the Petitioner. CORAM :- B. P. COLABAWALLA, J. DATE :- JULY 19, 2017. P. C.: The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this Writ Petition with liberty to canvas all contentions before the Trial Court. Leave is granted. 2 The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed. ( B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1405 OF 2019 Asif Mohd. Mamtule ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 26th July, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time ,stand over to 21/08/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1405 OF 2019 Asif Mohd. Mamtule ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 23rd August, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time ,stand over to 19/09/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1405 OF 2019 Asif Mohd. Mamtule .Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .Respondent Mr. Aniket Vagal, Advocate, for the Applicant Mr. P. H. Gaikwad-Patil, APP, for the Respondent – State CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 19.09.2019 P.C. . Learned counsel for the Applicant seeks time to file an Affidavit of the Applicant. Accordingly, the Superintendent, Taloja Central Jail to permit the Applicant to affirm the Affidavit before him or any other authorized officer, in accordance with the rules. Stand over to 14.10.2019 . All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

Order - Status 13: shailaja IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1405 OF 2019 Asif Mohd. Mamtule ] Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ] Respondent ….. ….. Mr. Aniket Vagal, for the Applicant. Mr. A.A. Patkar, A.P.P for the Respondent - State. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 14th OCTOBER, 2019. P.C. : After arguing for some time, when the Court was not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail, learned Counsel for the Applicant seeks leave to withdraw this application. Accordingly, the application is dismissed as withdrawn. Having regard to the age of of the victim boy i.e 8 years, trial of the Applicant is expedited, lest the victim boy forgets the incident due to passage of time. The learned trial Judge to dispose of the Applicant's case as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within six months from the date of receipt of this order. Application is disposed of. All the concerned to act upon the authenticated copy of this order. [REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.]

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE FIRST APPEAL NO. 1344 OF 2003 Office notes,Office Court's or Judge's order Memoranda of Coram, appearances,Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders ------------------------------------------------------- Mr. V. D. Survey for appellant Mr. S.A. Abhyankar for respondent CORAM:-SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J. DATED:- 11-2-2005 Not on board. Mentioned urgently. The learned counsel for the parties state that the dispute involved in this appeal is settled by the parties and that they wish to file consent terms in the court. Appellant Mrs. Rukhminibai R. Maladkar and the respondents Mr. Shashikumar R. Maladkar and Mrs. Subhangi Sashikumar Maladkar are present in the court. Consent terms duly signed by the parties and their respective advocates are taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Order in terms of consent terms. Undertaking given in the consent terms are accepted by the court. First appeal disposed of in terms of consent terms. Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order. .....

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3494 OF 2005 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1215 OF 2005 Yuraj Deepak Thorat & Anr. .... Applicants $V/s$ Gulabrao Shankarrao Thorat & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. Ratnesh Dubey, i/by Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, for the Applicants. None for the Respondents. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.J. : $6^{TH}$ APRIL, 2015. DATE $P.C.$ : In view of the report of the Bailiff, which is dated 4 th December, 2007 1. stating that the 5 th Respondent is dead, this Civil Application as well as the First Appeal stand abated as against the 5 th Respondent. $mathbf{2}$ On 19 th September, 2005, ad-interim relief was granted by this Court in the present application. Though 1 st to 4 th Respondents are duly served, none appears for them. Hence, limited ad-interim relief granted on 19 th Dixit September, 2005 deserves to be continued. Accordingly, Civil Application is disposed of by directing that the ad-interim relief granted on 19th September, 2005 shall continue to operate as an interim relief. [DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2096 OF 2004 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5204 OF 2004 Subhan Mohamed Yusuf Parkar and another ... Petitioners versus Dastgir Mohamed Sathe and ors. ... Respondents ... Mr. H.A. Solkar, for the Petitioners. Mr. S.S. Pakale, for Respondents Nos. 1 to 5. Mr. M.A. Solkar, for Respondents Nos. 6 and 10. Mr. A.H. Palekar, for Respondents Nos. 25 and 26. ... CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. 3rd September 2004 P.C.: . Preliminary objection is raised on behalf of the Respondents that the main writ petition is finally disposed of. It is contended that if the grievance of the Petitioners is about the correctness of the order passed by the Inspector of the office of the Charity Commissioner, appointed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, the appropriate remedy is to question that decision by substantive proceedings and not by way of civil application in a disposed of writ petition. To over come this objection, Mr. Solkar, for the applicants, contends that the grievance of the applicants is about the inappropriate understanding and misapplication of the directions given by this Court in the disposed of writ petition. Even so, to my mind, there is substance in the preliminary objection taken on behalf of the Respondents about the maintainability of the civil application. The appropriate course is to permit the applicants to withdraw this application with liberty to resort to such other substantive remedy as may be available and permissible by law. That be done within one week from today. In the meantime, the parties shall maintain status quo as of today. Civil Application disposed of accordingly. . Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1830 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 125 OF 2009 Tanvi Dinesh Patel ... Applicant Vs State of Maharashtra & 2 ors. ... Respondents Mr. R.K. Mendadkar for the applicant. Mr. V.P. Malwankar, AGP, for the respondents No.1 to 3. CORAM: S.B. MHASE & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 24TH JULY, 2009. P.C.: Civil Application is allowed to the extent of prayer clause (a) which reads thus: "(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to permit the applicant to amend the Writ Petition No.125 of 2009 as indicated in the Schedule annexed to this Application." Since Rule has already been granted and the matter is required to be considered on merits, prayer clause (b) cannot be considered at this stage as a composite application cannot be entertained. The applicant is at liberty to file a separate application with regard to prayer clause (b) if he so desires. Civil Application, accordingly, stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (R.M. SAVANT) (S.B. MHASE, J.)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2092 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.9059 OF 2005 ------------------------------------:---------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court's or Judge's orders. coram, appearances, Court's orders : or directions and Registrar's : orders. : ------------------------------------:----------------------------------- Ms Bhalekar,i/b Mr U.P.Warunjikar, for the respondent. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATED: 24.08.2006 P.C. : The applicant has prayed for fixed date of hearing of the main writ petition. The writ petition has yet not admitted. It is open for the applicant to seek circulation for admission of the writ petition. The prayer made in the civil application cannot be granted. It is disposed of as such. (D.B.BHOSALE,J.)

Order - Status 6: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 357 OF 2015 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Nitin Sejpal, advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.H. Yadav, APP for State. CORAM :SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J DATE :JULY 8, 2015 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to respondents. Learned APP waives service for respondent No. 5. Notice returnable on 5/8/2015. Private service permitted. ( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J) ..... Talwalkar 1/1

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 357 OF 2015 Srushti Satish Patel ....Applicant V/S Satish Manilal Pateland Ors ....Respondent CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J DATE : 19th December, 2016 P.C. : Due to paucity of time Stand over to 20/01/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: 34.APPLN.357.15.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.357 OF 2015 Srushti Satish Patel … Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents Smt. Pooja Sejpal, i/by Nitin Sejpal for the Applicant. Mr. S.S. Hulke, APP for the Applicant – State. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 15th JANUARY 2018 P.C.: This is an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.1 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Gr.Mumbai in ABA/1077/2015 by its Order dated 21.05.2015. Learned APP on instructions submitted that in the present case after completion of investigation, police have submitted chargesheet on 24.08.2017. In view of the decision of this Court in the case of Priyanka Pakvasa V/s. Sameer Pakvasa and Anr. in Criminal Application No.733/2014 in ABA No.1785/2014 dated 25.01.2016 the present application for cancellation of bail on merits after filing of chargesheet does not survive and is accordingly disposed off. (A.S.GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 4: Chitra Sonawane IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2155 OF 2023 Vijay Kisan Waghmare ] Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ] Respondents. Ms Sahana Manjesh for the petitioner. Ms MH Mhatre,APP for State. CORAM: Nitin W. Sambre & R.N.Laddha, JJ. DATE : 5th July, 2023. Learned APP seeks time so as to enable him to place on record categorization of the petitioner, who is already convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC, and is ordered to undergo life imprisonment. .... Stand over to 18 th August , 2023 . [R.N.Laddha, J.] [Nitin W. Sambre, J.] Page No. 1 of 1 5 July 2023.

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2155 OF 2023 Vijay Kisan Waghmare ... Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. ……. Ms Sahana Manjesh for the Petitioner. Ms MH Mhatre, APP for State. .…... CORAM: Nitin W. Sambre & R.N.Laddha, JJ. DATE : 18 August, 2023. .... P.C.: Leave to amend. Amendment be carried out within 4 weeks. Stand over to 3 rd October, 2023. [R.N.Laddha, J.] [Nitin W.Sambre, J.] 18 Aug 2023.

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2155 OF 2023 Vijay Kisan Waghmare …..Petitioner Vs. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. …..Respondents None for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.H. Mhatre APP, for the Respondent-State. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 3rd OCTOBER, 2023. P.C.:- Learned APP on instructions submitted that, by an Order dated 17th August, 2023 passed by the Competent Authority, the Petitioner has been placed in category 4(b) of 2010 Guidelines. As none appears for the Petitioner, stand over to 25th October, 2023. (SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2155 OF 2023 Vijay Kisan Waghmare .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Ms. Sahana Manjesh, for the Petitioner. Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ. DATE : 25th OCTOBER, 2023. P. C.:- Learned APP seeks time to file reply of Respondent No. 2 to the Petition. At his request, stand over to 14th December, 2023. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK J.) (A. S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 14: MANDIRA MILIND SALGAONKAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2155 OF 2023 … ... Vijay Kisan Waghmare .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Ms.Sahana Manjesh for the Petitioner. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P. for the State/Respondent. CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED : 30 th JULY, 2024 P.C:- The Petitioner, a convict, undergoing life imprisonment on being convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, District Osmanabad, for committing the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC, has been categorised by the State Government under 4(b) of the 2010 guidelines. The counsel for the Petitioner raised a grievance about incorrect categorization, as according to her, the offence committed by the Petitioner would be entitled to be categorised in a category, where murder is committed without premeditation in an individual capacity i.e. 4(a) of the guidelines of premature release of prisoners serving life sentence dated 15/03/2010. At this juncture, we must take a note that category 4(b) reads to the following effect :- "4(b) Murder committed with premeditation or a person having criminal history". Category 4(a) has prescribed the period of imprisonment to be undergone as 20 years, whereas category 4(b) prescribe the punishment to be undergone as 22 years. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Prayagbai wd/o Sakharam Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 1 , but on perusal of the said decision, the fact itself would reveal the background in which the incident had occurred, when some altercation took place between Shobha, Sarubai-her mother-in-law and Prayagbai, sisterin-law and this prompted the petitioner Prayagbai to pour kerosene on Shobha and Sarubai setting her on fire. On alarm being raised by Shobha, neighbours came to her rescue. This offence was categorised as without premeditation and we have no difficulty, as regards the conclusion that has been reached by the Division Bench. However, we must take into account the facts of the present case and from perusal of the judgment by the Sessions Court, which is upheld by the High Court, the case of the prosecution is to the effect that Nandabai Waghmare alongwith her deceased brother was sleeping on a cot and at around 12 midnight, the accused reached there and he gave blows with koyta to her brother Sudam on his forehead, above right eye and also to her and injured both of them. Sudam succumbed to the injuries on 26/01/2007 i.e. 7 days after the incident. We made serious attempt to appreciate the argument of the learned counsel, but we remain unpersuaded. The term 'premeditation' specifically indicate a crime planned 1 1999(3) Mh.L.J. 762 in advance and when we ascertained the facts of the case, it is evident from the prosecution case that the accused, who is brother of husband of Nandabai demanded Rs.80/- to her on 20/01/2007, which she paid and after taking meals, they went to sleep. In the mid-night, the accused reached there being armed with koyta and mounted the assault. The prosecution witnesses deposed to that effect and PW 10, who examined Sudam, had noticed two injuries on him. He was, thereafter, referred to Civil Hospital, Solapur for further treatment and the postmortem report refers to heamatoma present under scalp in right frontal and temporo parital region, multiple fracture of interior and middle cranial forsa on right side. It also record presence of subdural haematoma along the tentorium cerebelli and posterior falx. In the wake of the above, we are not satisfied with the submission advanced on behalf of the Petitioner, that he ought to have been categorised under 4(a) of the guidelines and, according to us, the State Government in the wake of the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge, which is upheld by this Court, that the crime was committed with premeditation, has rightly categorised him in category 4(b). Upholding the said order, the Writ Petition is dismissed. (MANJUSHA DESHPANDE,J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.) M.M.Salgaonkar