All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BEFORE THE NATIONAL LOK ADALAT WRIT PETITION NO. 8623 OF 2021 Ankush Bapurao Thakur $V/s.$ The Deputy Collector & Ors. ...Petitioner ....Respondent Mr. Nitin Padmakar Deshpande – Adv. for the Petitioner. Mr. B. V. Samant, AGP for State. Uttam R. Patil – DRO Pune. CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. D. S. DESHMUKH, REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL-II) V. A. SATHE, DY. REGISTRAR, OSD AT CPC DATE : $11^{text{th}}$ DECEMBER, 2021 $overline{P}C$ .: Remove from board. $1.$ Place the matter before Regular Court. $2.$ (V. A. SATHE) (D. S. DESHMUKH) (S. M. MODAK, J.) O.S.D. at CPC Registrar (Judl.-II) (Judge)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8623 OF 2021 Ankush Bapurao Thakur ...Petitioner V/s. The Deputy Collector Resettlement Pune District Pune and Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande, for the Petitioner. Mr. R. S. Pawar, A.G.P. for the Respondent / State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ. DATE : 09 JUNE 2022 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Issue notice to the Respondents returnable on 30 June 2022. Learned A.G.P. waives notice for all the Respondents. (SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8623 OF 2021 Ankush Bapurao Thakur PETITIONER V/S The Deputy Collector And Ors RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ DATE : 30th June, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 12/08/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: UMESH SHRINIWAS MALANI Digitally signed by UMESH SHRINIWAS MALANI Date: 2022.08.20 13:31:24 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8623 OF 2021 *** *** Ankush Bapurao Thakur ...Petitioner Versus The Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) Pune & Ors. ...Respondents None for the petitioner. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & KISHORE C. SANT, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 12, 2022. P. C. : Matter is moved before this Court by way of a praceipe. In view of urgency, order is passed on praceipe itself. None for the petitioner. List the petition as per its own turn. (KISHORE C. SANT, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

Order - Status 12: SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI Digitally signed by SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI Date: 2022.08.26 16:53:33 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8623 OF 2021 Ankush Bapurao Thakur ...Petitioner Versus The Deputy Collector (Resettlement) Pune, & Ors. ...Respondents *** Ms. Rachana Harpale i/by Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V. S. Gokhale, B Panel Counsel (AGP), for the Respondent State. *** CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & KISHORE C. SANT, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 25, 2022. P. C. : Matter is moved before this Court by way of a praceipe. In view of urgency, order is passed on praceipe itself. Heard learned Counsel for Petitioner. Issue notice to the Respondents, making the same returnable on 06th October, 2022. Learned AGP waives notice for Respondent – State. Learned Counsel for Petitioner is permitted to serve the private Respondents, by way of any legally permissible mode of service, apart from Court service and to place on record service affidavit before next date. (KISHORE C. SANT, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8623 OF 2021 Ankush Bapurao Thakur ...Petitioner Versus The Deputy Collector Resettlement Pune District Pune And Ors. ...Respondents Ms. Kanchan Phatak i/b Mr. Nitin Deshpande, for Petitioner. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, 'B' Panel Counsel for the Respondents-State. ---- CORAM : R.D.DHANUKA, AND M.M.SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 18th JANUARY 2023 P.C. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service for the Respondent/State. Taken up for final disposal by consent. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the Respondents-State to delete the entries of 'reservation for project affected persons' from the other rights column of 7/12 extracts of the Petitioner's land admeasuring 2 Hectares and 72 Ares from Gat No. 112, situated at Village Takali Bhima, Taluka Daund, District – Pune. It is the case of the Petitioner that the subject matter land is falling in the benefited zone and as such it is kept under reservation SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2023.01.19 12:19:47 +0530 vide M. E. No. 505, for the allotment of project affected persons of Bhama-Askhed Irrigation project. It is further case of the Petitioner that because of such endorsement, he cannot deal with his land and Government has also not taken steps in last 24 years for acquisition and allotment of this land to the project affected persons. As a result, there is indefinite fetter/restriction on the Petitioner's right to enjoy subject matter land. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has invited our attention to various earlier orders passed by this Court viz. Order dated 17.09.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 5207 of 2013, Order dt. 17.10.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 2821 of 2018, Order dt. 14.08.2019 passed in batch of Writ Petitions with leading Writ Petition No. 5763 of 2017, Order dt. 17.02.2020 passed in Writ Petition No. 1578/2020 1567, 1474, 1475 and 1476 all of 2020, Order dt.27.10.2020 passed in group of Writ Petitions with leading Writ Petition No. 5077 of 2020, Order dt. 05.08.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.2508 of 2021, Order dt. 11.08.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 8629 of 2018, Order dt. 07.10.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 1601 of 2021 and Writ Petition No. 716 of 2021, Order dt. 15.11.2021 passed in group of Writ Petitions with leading Writ Petition No. 1332 of 2021 and latest Order dt. 02.03.2022 passed in group of Writ Petitions with leading Writ Petition No. 5507 of 2021. Perusal of all these orders show that this Court has taken consistent view that private lands of the citizens like Petitioner cannot be kept under continuous and indefinite fetter, without initiating any action for allotment to project affected persons. If the Respondent-State wants to allot any of these lands to project affected persons, necessary steps must be taken and completed in time bound manner, otherwise the subject matter land must be released from such endorsements on 7/12 extract. Learned AGP for the Respondent-State could not distinguish facts of the present matter from the facts of the above said cases. We are therefore, of the view that this matter is covered by aforesaid Judgments and Orders taking consistent view. In that view of the matter, we pass the following order : (i) The State Government is directed to complete the process of allotting the Petitioner's land which is declared as part of the benefited zone, for allotment to the project affected persons, if required, and the said process shall be completed within six months from today, without fail. (ii) It is further directed that if the Petitioner's land is not allotted as stated above, the mutation entries effected in its 7/12 extracts about reservation for project affected persons, be deleted without further reference to the Court within two weeks from the date of expiry of six months. It is directed that no further extension of time would be granted for the same. (iii) It is further directed that if the entire process of allotment of Petitioner's land is not over within a period of six months from today as stated above, the Petitioner whose land has been placed under the benefited zone, would be at liberty to deal with his said land in the manner he desires and the State Government shall not initiate any acquisition proceedings in respect of the Petitioner's land which is subject matter of this petition, after expiry of six months. (iv) It is further made clear that the Government Resolution dated 18th January, 2022 and 11th February, 2022 shall be read with this order, so far as its application to the Petitioner's land is concerned. (v) The Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. (vi) All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. [M.M.SATHAYE, J.] [R.D.DHANUKA, J.]

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1621 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1622 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1623 OF 2011 Global Trade Finance Limited ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. ... Respondents Mr. Yashpal Thakur i/by M/s. Paras Kuhad & Associates, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Pednekar, A.P.P. for State in Cri.W.P. No. 1621 of 2011. Mr. A.S. Shitole, A.P.P. for State in Cri.W.P. No. 1622 of 2011. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, A.P.P. for State in Cri.W.P. No. 1623 of 2011. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 P.C. Heard. Issue notice to respondents returnable on 17.11.2011. The learned A.P.P. waives service on behalf of State. To be heard finally at admission stage along with W.P. No. 1620 of 2011. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)

Order - Status 12: WP 1620-G OF 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1620 OF 2011. WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1622 OF 2011. WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1623 OF 2011. Global Trade Finance Limited .. Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra and anr .. Respondents. Mr. Yashpal Thakur i/by M/s Paras Kuhad & Associates, for the petitioners in all the petitions. . Mrs. U. V. Kejariwal, APP for the Respondent – State Ms. K. R. Davierwala i/by M/s Mulla & Mulla C.B.C. for Respondent No.2. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 22nd November, 2012 P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has instructions from his client to withdraw the petitions. Petitions are disposed of as withdrawn. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20874 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. andrakant : Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Surendra Dhanji Shah & Ors. Dhanji S Shah & 01 rs. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20878 OF 2004 Vimal Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. & Ors. Applicants V/s. Hansa Hansa Jayendra Shah & Ors. )rs. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21020 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Bindu Bindu Kiran Sampat & Ors. t & Ors. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20891 OF 2004 Vimal Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Shah & Ors. Applicants Prami V/s. Pramila Dhirajlal Parekh & Ors. Parekh 6 Ors Respondents I Lamit Tarenn Q 015. ···Respondences WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20881 OF 2004 Vimal Cha Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Surendra Surendra Dhanji Shah & Ors. hah & Or rs. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21002 OF 2004 Vimal Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. t Shah & ( Ors. Applicants V/s. Tersi Tersih Keshavji Raigoga & Ors. Raigoga ι & Ors. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21007 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Bindu Kiran Sampat & Ors. ...Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21013 OF 2004 Vimal Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Kumud Kumud Tersih Raigoga & Ors. oga & O: rs. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21016 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Sangeet Vinay Raigoga & Ors. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20869 OF 2004 Vim Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Shah & Or Applicants V/s. Jay Jayendra Dhanji Shah & Ors. hah & Ors. Respondents Mr.Vimal Chandrakant Shah, Applicant, present in person. Mr.Ramesh Jain, Advocate, for the Respondents. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 21ST JANUARY, 2008. P.C.: Admit. Printing is dispensed with. Time of twelve weeks is granted to remove all office objections. If all the office objections are not removed within the stipulated time, the Appeal will stand dismissed for want of prosecution without further reference to the Court. Requisite number of copies of private paper-book alongwith Decree Form shall be filed by the appellant within a period of one year from today. If compliance is not made within stipulated time, the Appeal shall stand dismissed for want of prosecution without further reference to the Court. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1170 OF 2017 Khalil Ahmad Salmani @ Chand ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 5th June, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned, 27/06/2017 Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1170 OF 2017 Khalil Ahmad Salmani @ Chand ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 13th July, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 31/07/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1170 OF 2017 Khalil Ahmad Salmani @ Chand ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SMT. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 14th September, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time stand over to 29/09/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1170 OF 2017 Khalil Ahmad Salmani @ Chand ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SMT. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 14th September, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time stand over to 29/09/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1170 OF 2017 Khalil Ahmad Salmani @Chand Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.S.R.Gaud i/b Mr.M.R.Gowd, for the Applicant. Ms.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent-State. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 26th SEPTEMBER, 2017 P.C. : Not on board. Taken on board. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant, on instructions of the instructing Advocate, seeks leave to withdraw this application. The Application is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. It is made clear, that this application has not been heard on merits. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 4379 of 2005 M/s. Raymond Ltd. .. Petitioners V/s. Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. V. Shreedharan with Mr. Prakash Shah with Mr. Bharat Raichandani i/b. Mr. Prakash D. Shah for the Petitioners Mr. R.V. Desai, Sr. Counsel with Mr. V.H. Kantharia for the Respondents CORAM : DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 20.07.2005. P.C.:- Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned counsel for the Respondents. Rule. The learned counsel for the Respondents waives service. It is made clear that this Petition is admitted only on the issue of "Res Judicata and Consequential Penalty" and it is also made clear that this Petition is not admitted on the main issue of "Valuation". Hearing expedited. (DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (J.H. BHATIA, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4379 OF 2005 AND WRIT PETITION NO.4516 OF 2005 M/s. Raymond Limited … Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others … Respondents Ms. Ginita Bodani i/b. Economic Laws Practice for Petitioner. Mr. J. B. Mishra for Respondents. CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 27, 2021 P.C. : Heard Ms. Bodani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. It is seen that against the order-in-original bearing No.26/2001- Commissioner M-VI dated 09.10.2001, petitioner had filed appeal bearing No.E/3850/2001 before the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Western Zonal Bench, Mumbai ('CESTAT' hereinafter). Again, assailing the order-in-original bearing No.27/2001- Commissioner M-VI dated 09.10.2001, petitioner had filed appeal bearing No.E/43/02 before the CESTAT. Against the order-in-original No.21/CEX/Commissioner/99 dated 19.05.2019, petitioner had filed yet another appeal before the CESTAT being E/2449/99. First two appeals pertained to the factories of the petitioner situated at Thane whereas the last mentioned appeal pertained to the factory situated at Chhindwara in the state of Madhya Pradesh. All the three appeals were heard together by the CESTAT and were disposed of by the common order dated 08.04.2005. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 08.04.2005, petitioner has preferred Writ Petition No.4379 of 2005 (A.S.) before this Court which is pending. In the meanwhile, CESTAT modified its order dated 08.04.2005 by subsequent order dated 20.06.2005. This subsequent order has been put to challenge by the petitioner before this Court in Writ Petition No.4516 of 2005 (A.S.). Both the matters are listed today on praecipe filed by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that Government of India has introduced the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (briefly 'the scheme' hereinafter) for settlement of central excise and service tax disputes which have since been subsumed under the goods and services tax (GST). Petitioner had submitted declaration in respect of the two orders-in-original dated 09.10.2001 pertaining to the factories at Thane. Additionally, petitioner filed declaration under the scheme in respect of the factory at Chhindwara before the designated committee at Chhindwara. In so far the declarations pertaining to Thane factories are concerned, it is submitted that designated committee, Thane has accepted the tax dues declared by the petitioner pursuant to which petitioner has paid the amount determined by the designed committee. However, in so far the declaration pertaining to Chhindwara factory is concerned, the tax dues determined by the designated committee is much in excess of the dues declared by the petitioner and, therefore, the same has been put to challenge by the petitioner before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur Bench in Writ Petition No.7087 of 2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in so far the disputes pertaining to the orders-in-original both dated 09.10.2001 relatable to the factories at Thane are concerned, the matter has been settled and, therefore, in terms of the scheme, petitioner is required to withdraw the two writ petitions. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the prayer made for withdrawal of the writ petitions. In view of the above, we allow withdrawal of the two writ petitions pertaining to the orders-in-original dated 09.10.2001 relating to the factories at Thane. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of on withdrawal. Refund as per Rules. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.) Minal Parab

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.4379 of 2005 WITH WRIT PETITION No.4516 OF 2007 M/s. Raymond Limited ...Petitioner Vs. Union of India and Ors. ...Respondents Ms. Gihita Bodani i/b. Economic Laws Practice for Petition in WP No.4379 of 2005 and WP 4516 of 2007 CORAM:- G. S.KULKARNI, J. RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE :- JUNE 9, 2023. P. C.: . Both the Petitions have already been disposed of by this Court, by an order dated 27th January, 2021. Hence removed form the board. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) ( G.S. KULKARNI, J. )

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.552 OF 2013 M/s.Neha Enterprises .. Appellants Versus Smt.Marubai Narayan Thakur and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.V.A.Thorat, Senior Advocate i/b. R.A.Thorat, Senior Advocate with Mr.Himanshu Kode i/b. Mr.S.A.Sawant for the appellants Mr.P.S.Dani i/b. Mr.Amol Patil for respondent Nos. 10A and 10B CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. 13rd June 2013. P.C.: 1] When this appeal from order was listed for admission pursuant to the order of the learned Vacation Judge on private notice the contesting respondents 10A and 10B have appeared and Mr.Dani, learned Counsel states that Mr.Amol Patil, Advocate has instructions to appear for them and a caveat has also been filed on their behalf. He further states that he would file vakalatnama on their behalf within a week. 2] At the request of the caveators' Advocate and in order to enable him to file vakalatnama and take instructions, S.O. 26th June 2013. Ad-interim order to continue till 1st July 2013. (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J)

Order - Status 9: mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APEAL FROM ORDER NO. 552 OF 2013 M/s. Neha Enterprises Appellants Vs. Mrs. Marubai Narayan Thakur & Ors. Respondents Mr. V.A. Thorat, Sr. Advocate a/w. R.A. Thorat and S.A. Sawant for Appellants Mr. Ajay Patil for Respondent No.6 Mr. Rohit Sachdeo for Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 Mr. P.S. Dani i/b. A.B. Patil and D.D. Ausarkar for Respondent Nos. 10A and 10B CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 1ST JULY, 2013 P.C. : The impugned order of the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Panvel dated 14th May, 2013 shows the setting out of the facts and arguments of the Advocates of the parties with regard to the main issue No. 1 in paragraphs 1 to 36 of the order. The issue which has been answered in paragraph 37 does not show the reasons for acceptance of the arguments of one party or rejection of arguments of the other. Both Counsel agree that the order cannot be sustained for want of reasons. Based upon the same facts and arguments the learned Judge would require to give his reasons for coming to the conclusion that he does. However both parties would be entitled to reargue the application under Exhibit42 on a single specified date of hearing upon which the learned Judge shall pass an order with reasons. The learned Judge shall fix a clear date in the month of July, 2013 for the aforesaid purpose. Consequently the impugned order is set aside. The interim order passed in this Appeal from Order shall continue until the disposal of Exhibit42 application by the learned Judge and two weeks thereafter. The Appeal from Order is disposed of accordingly. The civil application is also disposed of accordingly. (MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

Order - Status 4: Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2636 OF 2021 Rajshekhar Ambedkar ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & anr. …Respondents Mr. Samir A. Vaidya, for the Petitioner. Mrs. A. S. Pai, PP for the State/Respondent no.1. CORAM: S. S. SHINDE & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATED: 29th JULY, 2021 (Through V.C.) PC:- Heard Mr. Vaidya, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vaidya submits that after fling of this petition the petitioner has been served with an externment order. Mr. Vaidya seeks leave to amend the petition so as to challenge the externment order as well. Leave to amend. Necessary amendment be carried out within a period of one week and amended copy of the petition be served on the respondents. List on 17th August, 2021. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] [S. S. SHINDE, J.]

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2636 OF 2021 Rajshekhar Ambedkar ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.S. SHINDE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATE : 17th August, 2021 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 24/08/2021 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2636 OF 2021 Rajshekhar Ambedkar ...Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Deep Samant i/b. Mr. Samir Vaidya, for the Petitioner Smt. A.S. Pai, PP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 24, 2021 P.C.: . At the request of Mr. Samant holding for Mr. Samir Vaidya, learned counsel for the petitioner, list on 3rd September, 2021 through video conference. (N. J. JAMADAR, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.) VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Digitally signed by VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Date: 2021.08.24 18:55:34 +0530

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2636 OF 2021 Rajshekhar Ambedkar ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.S. SHINDE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATE : 3rd September, 2021 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 06/09/2021 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2636 OF 2021 Rajshekhar Ambedkar. … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others. … Respondents. Mr.Samir Vaidya for the Petitioner. Ms.A.S.Pai, GP for Respondent No.1. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : 6 October 2021. P.C. : The learned counsel for the Petitioner has challenged the externment order dated 28 June 2021. At the outset, the learned Public Prosecutor raised an objection that the Petitioner has an alternate remedy of statutory appeal. The learned counsel for the Petitioner sought to contend that two externment orders back to back have been issued and there is serious violation of fundamental rights of the Petitioner of free movement. There is the sequetor of every externment order. A statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order is provided. However, considering the arguments made by the Petitioner, in the facts of this case, we are inclined to accept the prayer of the Petitioner for early disposal of his appeal. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of by directing that if the Petitioner files an appeal within a period of three working days from today, the appeal will be decided by the Appellate Authority within a period of two weeks thereafter on is own merits. We make it clear that since we have disposed of the writ petition on the ground of alternate remedy, we have not gone into the merits of the matter. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)