All Cases

Order - Status 4: NITIN DINKAR JAGTAP Digitally signed by NITIN DINKAR JAGTAP Date: 2021.10.09 12:06:01 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel … Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents Mr.S.G.Kudle for the Petitioner. Mr.S.B.Kalel, AGP for the State. Mr.Saurabh Oka for Respondent No. 8. CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 8TH OCTOBER, 2021 P.C. : The Respondents shall file their respective Affidavits-in-Reply within a period of one week from today. Stand over to 18th October, 2021. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ) ( S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. )

Order - Status 6: 69.6555-21-wp.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel ….. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….. Respondents Mr. S.G.Kudale for the petitioner Mr.Prashant Suryawansh i/b Mr.G.M.Savagave for the respondents Smt.A.A.Purav, A.G.P. for the State Mr.Saurabh Oak for the respondent no.1 CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA & VINAY JOSHI, JJ. DATED : APRIL 12, 2022 P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner was apprised of the fact that the order that is sought to be challenged is passed in Second Appeal. The proper procedure is to move the second appellate court if the petitioner feels that fraud is being played by the respondents. The order passed in Second Appeal i.e. Civil Court cannot be challenged by way of Writ Petition. The Second Appeal is under the Civil Jurisdiction. The order is passed below Exhibit 1 in Regular TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Digitally signed by TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2022.04.18 15:14:04 +0530 Darkhast also. If the petitioner contends that the fraud has been played by the respondents then the proper procedure is to challenge the said order obtained by fraud before the appropriate forum and not in Writ Petition. Provisions of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure would come into play. The learned counsel for the petitioner may consider this aspect. Stand over to 07.06.2022. (VINAY JOSHI, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel Thr Her Att Nasir Nuruddin Patel ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....RESPONDENT Mr. Shikur Gafur Kudle for Petitioner Mr. N.K.Rajpurohit, AGP for Respondent-State Mr. Prashant R. Suryawanshi i/b Mr. G.M.Savagave, Advocate for R.No.6 & 7 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ DATE : 7th June, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 28/06/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel Thr Her Att Nasir Nuruddin Patel ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ DATE : 28th June, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 03/08/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel Thr Her Att Nasir Nuruddin Patel ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. M. SATHAYE, JJ DATE : 13th February, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 27/03/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 6555 OF 2021 VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Shankerabanu Afsar Patel ….Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ….Respondents Digitally signed by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date: 2023.03.10 14:32:26 +0530 Mr. S.K. Kudle, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. N.K. Rajpurohit, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 Mr. P.r. Suryawanshi i/by Mr. G.M. Savagave for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 Mr. Ketan Dhavle i/by Mr. Saurabh Oka, Advocate for Respondent No.8 Mr. T.J. Pandian, Advocate for Respondent No.5 Mr. S.S. Aradhye, Advocate for Respondent No.6 CORAM:- R.D. DHANUKA & GAURI GODSE, JJ. DATE :- 6TH MARCH, 2023. P. C.: The Petitioner has impugned the order passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 690 of 2014 in this Writ Petition, on the ground that fraud is committed by some of the Respondents in obtaining the order in Second Appeal No. 690/2014. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 raises an issue regarding maintainability of this Writ Petition. Our attention is invited to the order dated 12th April, 2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. By the said order, dated 12th April, 2022, this Court has already observed; if the Petitioner contends that the fraud has been played by the Respondents then the proper procedure is to be challenge the said order obtained by fraud before the appropriate forum and not in Writ Petition. Provisions of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure would come into play. This Court after making these observations, directed the learned counsel for the Petitioner to consider this aspect. Mr. Kudale, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that since the fraud is committed in obtaining the order in Second Appeal, this Court can set aside the order passed in Second Appeal, in Writ Petition. We are afraid, we cannot accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner . Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the correctness of the order passed in Second Appeal for want of jurisdiction. If any appropriate proceedings are filed by the Petitioner, the same shall be decided on its own merits. All contentions of the parties are kept open. (GAURI GODSE, J.) ( R.D.DHANUKA, J. )

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2295 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5763 OF 2004 Janabai w/o R.J.Bhandari & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Dr.Ramesh Dattatreya Pandit & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Jose George for Applicants. Mr.D'Souza for Respondent No.4. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JANUARY 27, 2009. P.C. Office objection be removed within two weeks from today, failing which, Application to stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court. If steps are taken in time, Application be listed on 11th February 2009. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2295 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5763 OF 2004 Janabai w/o.R.J.Bhandari & Ors. ..Applicants. V/s. Dr.Ramesh Dattatreya Pandit & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Jose George for applicants. Mr.D'Souza for Respondent No.4. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : FEBRUARY 11, 2009. P.C. : Counsel for the parties fairly submits that this application will have to proceed before Justice Mhase having regard to the nature of relief claimed. Accordingly, Office is directed to place the application before Justice Mhase subject to convenience of His Lordship. Liberty to apply. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)

Order - Status 11: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Application No. 2295 of 2006 IN Writ Petition No. 5763 of 2004 Janabai w/o R. J. Bhandari & Ors. Applicants. Versus Dr. Ramesh D. Pandit & Others. Respondents. Mr. Jose George for the Applicants. Mr. D'souza a/w Mr. A. S. Rai for the Respondent no.4. Coram : S. B. Mhase, JJ. Date : August 27, 2009. P. C. : Heard. This civil application is moved for removing the observations made by this Court in the order dated 27th April 2006. They want to delete following sentence from the said order : "Thus, this Court finds that so far as the identification of the property of S. C. Suit No. 4374 of 1978 is concerned there is no dispute between the parties." What is important to be noted is that the property was in possession of the Receiver. The Receiver identified the property of the plaintiff and prepared the measurement plan. As per the said plan the Receiver has placed the plaintiff in possession of the property and that was admitted by the original plaintiff before this Court. The defendants were also party in that proceeding before this Court. At that time they have not objected to the said plan. Therefore, on admitted facts the property has been identified by the Receiver and possession has been handed over to the plaintiff. It is also important to note that though the present civil application is filed in the year 2006, till date it was not pressed and circulated at any point of time. Probably, with a view that by the time matter comes before the Court, the Court will forget everything what had happened in 2006. However, fortunately everything has been correctly recorded by the Court and on that basis the order has been passed. There is no substance in the application and the same is hereby rejected. (S.B.MHASE, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1525 OF 2022 Kiran Sunder Anchan .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.Niranjan Mundargi i/b Mr.Vaibhav G. Bagade for the Applicant. ... … Mr.S.V.Gavand, A.P.P. for the State/Respondent. CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 10th JUNE, 2022 P.C:- At the request of the learned A.P.P., re-notify to 13/06/2022. ( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1525 OF 2022 Kiran Sunder Anchan ] ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ] ... Respondent Mr. Niranjan Mundargi i/b Mr. Vaibhav G. Bagade for the applicant. … Mr. S.V. Gavand, A.P.P. for the State. Mr. Rajiv Sakpal, PI attached to Andheri Police Station is present in the court. … CORAM : SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 13TH JUNE, 2022. P.C.:- C.R. No.372 of 2022 came to be registered with Andheri Police Station on 23/04/2022, pursuant to a raid conducted in Samit Punjab Restaurant & Bar, Bengali Chawl, Koldongri, Sahara Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai. The incident resulted in invoking Sections 308, 294, 114 and Section 34 of the IPC read with Sections 3, 8(1), (2), (4) and 33 (R) of the Maharashtra Act, 2016. The said C.R. arraign 22 persons as accused and the applicant came to be arraigned as accused No.19. Relying upon the remand report, learned counsel would submit that the Manager as well as the cashier of the concerned Bar, in which the raid was conducted, are arrested. One Shridhar Shetty (accused No.23) is the owner of the Bar, who has been released on bail in an anticipatory bail application. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant advanced an argument that the applicant is the Manager in one Hotel Mansa Bar & Restaurant, Andheri and he has been arraigned as an accused, without any connection with the raid conducted in Samit Punjab Restaurant & Bar. Learned A.P.P. was, therefore, asked to ascertain the factual position. Learned A.P.P. states that the FIR makes a reference to Kiran Pujari and the applicant is Kiran Sunder Anchan and learned A.P.P. is unable to point out any positive material to demonstrate that the person named in the FIR is the applicant. In any case, when specifically asked as to what is the connection with the owner/Manager of the other Bars, operating within the jurisdiction of Andheri Police Station and why all of them are arraigned as accused, no response is coming forward from the side of the prosecution. In the absence of any involvement of the applicant in the raid, which was conducted in Samit Punjab Restaurant & Bar and since the applicant was neither the owner nor employed in the said Bar and, in fact, the owner of the Samit Punjab Restaurant & Bar is informed to have been granted protection, there is no reason why the same protection cannot be extended to the present applicant. Hence, the following order: ORDER (a) In the event of arrest, the applicant Kiran Sunder Anchan shall be temporarily released on bail in C.R. No.372 of 2022 registered with Andheri Police Station, District Mumbai, on executing P.R. bond to the extent of Rs.25,000**/** and furnishing one or two sureties of the like amount. (b) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of case and shall not tamper with prosecution evidence. (c) The applicant shall report to the Andheri Police Station from 20/06/2022 to 22/06/2022 between 3.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. and, thereafter, as and when directed. List the application along with Anticipatory Bail Application No.1484 of 2022 on 11/07/2022. All parties are directed to act on the downloaded copy of the order supplied by the Advocate under his seal and signature. [SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.]

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1525 OF 2022 Kiran Sunder Anchan ] ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ] ... Respondent Mr. Niranjan Mundargi i/b Mr. Vaibhav G. Bagade for the applicant. … Mr. S.V. Gavand, A.P.P. for the State. Mr. Rajiv Sakpal, PI attached to Andheri Police Station is present in the court. … CORAM : SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 13TH JUNE, 2022. P.C.:- C.R. No.372 of 2022 came to be registered with Andheri Police Station on 23/04/2022, pursuant to a raid conducted in Samit Punjab Restaurant & Bar, Bengali Chawl, Koldongri, Sahara Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai. The incident resulted in invoking Sections 308, 294, 114 and Section 34 of the IPC read with Sections 3, 8(1), (2), (4) and 33 (R) of the Maharashtra AJN This order stands corrected as per speaking to the minutes order dated 17.06.2022 . Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working therein) Act, 2016. The said C.R. arraign 22 persons as accused and the applicant came to be arraigned as accused No.19. Relying upon the remand report, learned counsel would submit that the Manager as well as the cashier of the concerned Bar, in which the raid was conducted, are arrested. One Shridhar Shetty (accused No.23) is the owner of the Bar, who has been released on bail in an anticipatory bail application. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant advanced an argument that the applicant is the Manager in one Hotel Mansa Bar & Restaurant, Andheri and he has been arraigned as an accused, without any connection with the raid conducted in Samit Punjab Restaurant & Bar. Learned A.P.P. was, therefore, asked to ascertain the factual position. Learned A.P.P. states that the FIR makes a reference to Kiran Pujari and the applicant is Kiran Sunder Anchan and learned A.P.P. is unable to point out any positive material to demonstrate that the person named in the FIR is the applicant. In any case, when specifically asked as to what is the connection with the owner/Manager of the other Bars, operating within the jurisdiction of Andheri Police Station and why all of them are arraigned as accused, no response is coming forward from the side of the prosecution. In the absence of any involvement of the applicant in the raid, which was conducted in Samit Punjab Restaurant & Bar and since the applicant was neither the owner nor employed in the said Bar and, in fact, the owner of the Samit Punjab Restaurant & Bar is informed to have been granted protection, there is no reason why the same protection cannot be extended to the present applicant. Hence, the following order: ORDER (a) In the event of arrest, the applicant Kiran Sunder Anchan shall be released on bail in C.R. No.372 of 2022 registered with Andheri Police Station, District Mumbai, on executing P.R. bond to the extent of Rs.25,000**/**- and furnishing one or two sureties of the like amount. (b) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of case and shall not tamper with prosecution evidence. (c) The applicant shall report to the Andheri Police AJN This order stands corrected as per speaking to the minutes order dated 17.06.2022 . Station from 20/06/2022 to 22/06/2022 between 3.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. and, thereafter, as and when directed. The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed off in the above terms. All parties are directed to act on the downloaded copy of the order supplied by the Advocate under his seal and signature. [SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.]

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1525 OF 2022 Kiran Sunder Anchan ] ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ] ... Respondent … … Ms. Keral Mehta for the applicant. Mr. S.V. Gavand, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 17TH JUNE, 2022. P.C.:- Not on board. On mentioning, taken on board. It is pointed out that there are certain errors in the operative part of the order dated 13/06/2022 inasmuch as, the word 'temporarily' appearing in clause (a) of the operative part, is an inadvertent error and the same needs to be deleted. Similarly, paragraph No.6 is an inadvertent error and the same be replaced as follows: "6. The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed off in the above terms." The Order dated 13/06/2022 be corrected accordingly. [SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.] AJN

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPLICATION NO.654 OF 2015 IN APPEAL ST.NO.599 OF 2015 Vinod Ramesh Pimple Applicant -Versus State of Maharashtra Respondent Mrs. Savita Prabhune for applicant Mrs. P.P.Bhosale, APP for State CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATE : 24th August 2015 P.C. 1] Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant on this application for condonation of delay of 30 days, in filing the appeal challenging the conviction for the offences under section 304 part II of IPC and also under section 323 and 325 of IPC. 2] Reportedly, the applicant is in jail. As such, the delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. Application is allowed. 3] Appeal is admitted. 4] Hearing of the application for bail/ suspension of sentence is S.O. for two weeks. ( A.R.JOSHI, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1104 OF 2015 Rajesh Bharatbhai Rathod ... Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Tejas Hilage, Advocate appointed ,for the applicant. Ms. R.M.Gadhavi, APP, for the State CORAM: SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV,J. DATE : 18th June, 2015. P.C . An application is received through jail. The applicant is praying for bail in Case No.370 of 2011. This Court had requested the learned counsel Shri Tejas Hilage to espouse the cause of the applicant. He has graciously accepted to do the same. Office to furnish copy of the application to the Advocate so appointed. The learned APP to take specific instructions in respect of the stage of trial. S.O. to 25.6.2015. (SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1104 OF 2015 Rajesh Bharatbhai Rathod. ... Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. None for Applicant. Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for State. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV,J DATE : JULY 13, 2015 P.C.: 1 Learned APP upon instructions submits that the applicant herein was taken to J.J. Hospital, Mumbai on 26/6/2015. It is reported that the applicant has been tested positive for HIV. 2 It is further submitted that the trial has commenced. The next scheduled date for recording of evidence is 27/7/2015. In view of this, the applicant does not deserve grant of bail. In the eventuality that the applicant files an application seeking bail on medical ground, Talwalkar 1/2 the learned Judge shall consider the same on its own merits. The application is accordingly disposed of. 3 Office to communicate this order to the applicant who is in jail. ( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J) Talwalkar 2/2

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2931 OF 2021 SONALI ASHOK TANDLE )...PETITIONER V/s. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER F/S. DIVISION ) AND OTHERS )...RESPONDENTS Mr.Shantanu Raktate i/b. Mr.Amar Parsekar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Prakash Lad a/w. Ms.Priyanka Naik & Ms.Prerna Dhoke, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Ms.Ashwini A. Purav, AGP for the Respondent No.6-State. CORAM : A. A. SAYED & S. G. DIGE, JJ DATED : 9 th SEPTEMBER, 2021 P.C.: 1 We record the statement of the learned Counsel for MHADA that the name of the Petitioner shall be included in the certified tenants' list. The same shall be done before the next date. 2 Issue notice to Respondent Nos.4 and 5, returnable on 30th September 2021. Private notice is permitted. (S. G. DIGE, J.) (A. A. SAYED, J.)

Order - Status 6: spb/ due to paucity.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. / CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER FOR THE BALANCE BOARD CORAM : A.A.SAYED & S.G.DIGE,JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 30, 2021. P.C. : Due to paucity of time, rest of the matters are adjourned as follows : Sr. No. APPELLATE SIDE Adjourned to : 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 : 07.10.2021. 57, 58, 60, 61, 62 : 08.10.2021. 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 68, 69, 70, 71, 72 : : 11.10.2021. 11.10.2021. 80, 81, 82, 83 : 12.10.2021. ORIGINAL SIDE DE 51, 59, 73, 74, 75, 76 : 21.10.2021 79 & 84 : 21.10.2021. 2 If in any of the above matters, ad-interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (S.G.DIGE, J.) (A.A. SAYED, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2931 OF 2021 Smt Sonali Ashok Tandle ....PETITIONER V/S The Executive Engineer F/s Division And Ors....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.A. SAYED & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. G. DIGE, JJ DATE : 8th October, 2021 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 16/11/2021. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: 42.WP.2931.2021 .doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION 1/1 WRIT PETITION NO. 2931 OF 2021 Smt Sonali Ashok Tandle ..PETITIONER V/S The Executive Engineer F/S Division & Ors. ...RESPONDENTS Adv. Ashish Vernekar for the Petitioner Ms. A. A. Purav, AGP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : A. A. SAYED & S. G. DIGE, JJ DATED : 16th NOVEMBER, 2021 P.C.: Await service. Stand over to 7th December, 2021. (S. G. DIGE, J.) (A. A. SAYED, J.)

Order - Status 12: HEMANT CHANDERSEN SHIV Digitally signed by HEMANT CHANDERSEN SHIV Date: 2022.02.25 16:09:47 +0530 Shiv IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2931 OF 2021 Smt Sonali Ashok Tandle …Petitioner Versus The Executive Engineer F/S Division & Ors …Respondents An Advocate*, i/b Ajinkya J Jaibhave for the Petitioner.* Mr P G Lad *, with Ms Sayli Apte for the MHADA/Respondent.* CORAM G.S. Patel & Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ. DATED: 24th February 2022 PC:- 1. The Respondents to file an Affidavit in Reply by 4th March 2022. 2. List the Petition on 11th March, 2022. 3. Previous interim order to continue. 4. All concerned will act on production of a digitally signed copy of this order. (Madhav J. Jamdar, J) (G. S. Patel, J)

Order - Status 14: Ashwini IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2931 OF 2021 Sonali Ashok Tandle …Petitioner Versus The Executive Engineer F/S Division & Ors …Respondents Mr Ajinkya Jaibhave *, for the Petitioner.* Mr PG Lad *, with Sayli Apte, for the Respondent-MHADA.* Mr KS Thorat, AGP *, for Respondent No. 6-State.* CORAM G.S. Patel & Vinay Joshi, JJ. DATED: 11th March 2022 PC:- Digitally signed by ASHWINI HULGOJI GAJAKOSH Date: 2022.03.11 18:06:58 +0530 1. Mr Lad states that there is a compliance of 9th September 2020. This is noted. All Affidavits in Reply are to be filed and served on or before 21st March 2022. 2. No Rejoinder is permitted at this stage. 3. List the matter on 23rd March 2022. (Vinay Joshi, J) (G. S. Patel, J) Page 1 of 1 11th March 2022

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2931 OF 2021 Smt Sonali Ashok Tandle ....PETITIONER V/S The Executive Engineer F/s Division And Ors....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. PATEL & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ DATE : 23rd March, 2022 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 28/04/2022. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 17: Ashwini IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2931 OF 2021 Sonali Ashok Tandle …Petitioner Versus The Executive Engineer F/S Division & Ors …Respondents Mr Vivek Salunkhe *, i/b Ajinkya Jaibhave, for the Petitioner.* Mr PG Sawant, AGP *, for the Respondent-State.* CORAM G.S. Patel & Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ. DATED: 31st March 2022 PC:- ASHWINI HULGOJI GAJAKOSH Digitally signed by ASHWINI HULGOJI GAJAKOSH Date: 2022.04.01 10:10:23 +0530 1. The Petitioner is now found to be eligible occupant/tenament entitle for Permanent Alternate Accommodation. This has been certified by MHADA. Mr Lad confirms this. It is therefore for the 4th Respondent developer to enter into a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement ( "PAAA" ) with the Petitioner and to provide that Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement once it is ready and the Occupation Certificate is received. We are told that the PAAA will be executed within two weeks. This is to be done on or before 18th April 2022. 2. List the matter on 8th June 2022 for compliance. Page 1 of 2 31st March 2022 3. Reply is to be filed in Registry. (Madhav J. Jamdar, J) (G. S. Patel, J) Page 2 of 2 31st March 2022

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2931 OF 2021 Sonali Ashok Tandle .. Petitioner vs. The Executive Engineer F/S Division and ors. .. Respondents ------------ Mr. Ajinkya J. Jaibhave for petitioner. Ms. Sayli Apte a/w Ms. Prerana Dhoke and Ms. Shreya Shah for respondent nos. 1 to 3-MHADA. Mr. R.M. Haridas a/w Mr. Abhinav A. Bhatkar i/b. Mr. Ajay Patil for respondent no. 4. Mr. M.M. Pabale, AGP for respondent no. 6-State. CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : JUNE 8, 2022. P.C. : Stand over to next Wednesday ( June 15, 2022 ). (M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

Order - Status 23: AGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2931 OF 2021 Smt. Sonali Ashok Tandle …Petitioner V/s. The Executive Engineer F/S Division, Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board & Ors. …Respondents Mr. Vivek Salunkhe i/by Mr. Ajinkya J. Jaibhave for the petitioner. Ms. Sayli Apte i/by Mr. P. G. Lad for respondent nos. 1 to 3/MHADA. Mr. R. M. Haridas with Mr. Abhinav A. Bhatkar i/by Mr. Ajay Patil for respondent no. 4. Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for respondent no. 6/State. CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE: JUNE 15, 2022 P.C.: 1. Wrongly on board. 2. Place the writ petition before the appropriate Bench. (M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

Order - Status 24: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2931 OF 2021 Smt Sonali Ashok Tandle ....PETITIONER V/S The Executive Engineer F/s Division And Ors....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.V. GANGAPURWALA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHRIRAM MADHUSUDAN MODAK, JJ DATE : 18th July, 2022 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 30/08/2022. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 25: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2931 OF 2021 Smt Sonali Ashok Tandle ....PETITIONER V/S The Executive Engineer F/s Division And Ors....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.V. GANGAPURWALA & HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI ARIF SALEH DOCTOR, JJ DATE : 2nd August, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 27/09/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 28: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2931 OF 2021 Smt Sonali Ashok Tandle ....PETITIONER V/S The Executive Engineer F/s Division And Ors....RESPONDENT Mr Vivek Salunkhe i/b Mr Ajinkya J Jaibhave for Petitioner Ms Sayali Apte i/b Mr P G Lad for Resp No. 1 to 3 Mr Abhinav Bhatkar a/w Mr Rajendra Haridas i/b Mr Ajay Patil for Resp No.4 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.V. GANGAPURWALA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ DATE : 30th August, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 26/09/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 31: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2931 OF 2021 Smt. Sonali Ashok Tandle through her constituted attorney Mr. Vikrant Ashok Tandle. …Petitioner. V/s. The Executive Engineer F/S Division, Mumbai Building Repair and Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board & ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Vivek Salunke i/b. Mr. Ajinkya J. Jaibhave, for the Petitioner. Ms. Sayali Apte a/w. Ms. Shreya Shah i/b. Mr. P.G. Lad, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3(MHADA). Mr. R.M. Haridas a/w. Mr. Abhinav Bhatkar i/b. Mr. Ajay S. Patil, for respondent Nos. 4. Mr. A.P. Vanarase, AGP for State. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & R.N.LADDHA, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 26, 2022 P.C. : We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the developer. On 31st March, 2022, this Court has observed that Petitioner is now found to be eligible and entitled for Permanent Alternate Accommodation. This has been certified by MHADA. It is further observed that it is for the 4th Respondent developer to enter into a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement ("PAAA") with the Petitioner and to provide the Permanent Alternate Accommodation once it is ready and the Occupation Certificate is received. The Court further observed that the PAAA will be executed within two weeks. Now the dispute of area is raised. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the developer himself has produced the plan signed by it before MHADA for claiming incentives, wherein it is shown that the Petitioner is entitled for 43.01 sq.metrs. of the premises as per the plan. According to the Respondent-Developer, the petitioner is entitled to an area of 315 sq.ft. Reliance is placed by him on the area, which the Petitioner is occupying according to the developer. 5 The dispute about area is within the realm of MHADA. MHADA shall decide the area that the Petitioner would be entitled to. The Petitioner and the Developer shall appear before the Competent Authority of MHADA on 30/9/2022. MHADA shall consider the documents placed on record by the petitioner and the developer and the stand taken by them and shall take decision with regard to the area of the alternative permanent tenament, the Petitioner is entitled to. The said decision shall be taken preferably within 7 days from the date, the Petitioner and Developer appear before it. Upon decision of MHADA, the Developer shall execute the Permanent Alternative Accommodation Agreement with the Petitioner within 15 days. 7 The parties may raise their plea with regard to parking place etc. before MHADA. 8 Writ Petition disposed of on the above terms. No order as to cost. (R.N.LADDHA, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J)