All Cases

#VALUE!

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRTIT PETITION NO.237 OF 2005 Shri...Petitioner. Jayant Vithal Abhyankar V/s Mr. Lulu Domnic Fernandes and...Respondents. Ors. --- Mr. Sunil R. More for the petitioner. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. --- CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 1st March, 2005 P.C. Issue notice before admission. Returnable within four weeks. In the meantime, there shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c). Hamdust permitted. V.M. KANADE, J.

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 237 OF 2005. Jayant V. Abhyankar ....Petitioner Versus Lulu D. Fernandes and Ors. ...Respondents Mr. S.S. Mangaonkar for the petitioner. Ms. Nipa Singh, instructed by M/s. Mahesh Menon & Co., for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATE: DECEMBER 13, 2005 . P.C. Due to paucity of time, it is not possible to take up this matter today. Stand over to 13 th February, 2006. Ad-interim order granted , if any, to continue till the next date of hearing. (A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 237 OF 2005 Jayant Vithal Abhyankar ….Petitioner. Vs. Lulu Domnic Fernandes & Ors. ….Respondents. None for the Petitioner. Mr. A.R. Patil APP, for the RespondentState. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 17th SEPTEMBER, 2018. P.C.: None for the Petitioner. 2 Dismissed for nonprosecution. (A.S. GADKARI, J.) S S Mashalkar Digitally signed by S S Mashalkar Date: 2018.09.18 17:01:12 +0530

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 95 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6112 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders Registrar's orders None present. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI REGISTRAR (JUDLI) Date : 21 APRIL 2017 As per order passed by Registrar (JudicialI) on 19.01.2017, W.P. stands dismissed without further reference to the Court. Hence, this Civil Application filed for bringing legal heirs of deceased Petitioner, become infractous as does not survive. REGISTRAR (JUDLI) RJ I gpj / 21.04.2017

Order - Status 9: Vidya Amin FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 95 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6112 OF 2016 Eknath Yeshwant Bondre (Decd) through LRs Mrs. Sharvari S. Mirashi & Ors. … Applicants Versus Madhav Prakash Joglekar & Ors. … Respondents Mr. S.C. Wakankar, Advocate for the applicants. CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE: 2 nd August, 2018. P.C.: This Application is moved for bringing legal heirs of deceased applicant/petitioner no. 1-Ekanth Yeshwant Bondre. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that petitioner-Eknath Bondre died on 17th October, 2016 and Civil Application was filed on 11th January, 2017, i.e., within 90 days, hence the legal heirs of petitioner no. 1 are to be brought on record. In view of this submissions, the legal heirs of deceased petitioner no. 1 is brought on record. Civil Application is allowed. Amendment to be carried out till 7th August, 2018. The amended copy of the petition is to be served on the other side. In Writ Petition, issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 18th September, 2018. Additionally private service allowed. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

#VALUE!

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1832 OF 2017 IN REJECTED CASE NO.16 OF 2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders None Present. CORAM : V.R. KACHARE REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 27th August, 2018 In view of the dismissal of First Appeal Stamp No.13947/2017 vide Court's order dated 27/07/2017, this Civil Application for stay does not survive. sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 27.08.18

Order - Status 4: Digitally signed by SNEHA ABHAY DIXIT Date: 2024.06.25 13:49:54 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7844 OF 2024 IIFL Home Finance Ltd., Thane .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents Ms. Priyanka Fadia, i/by Mr. Shashank Fadia, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. M.S. Srivastava, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No.1. CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR & RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ DATE : 24 TH JUNE, 2024. P.C. : It is informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the next date of the proceedings before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is 8th July 2024. To consider whether the said proceedings are taken up on the adjourned date, put up for further consideration on 16th July 2024. [ RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7844 OF 2024 Iifl Home Finance Ltd PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra Thr Assistant RESPONDENT Government And Anr CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.S. CHANDURKAR & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ DATE : 16th July, 2024 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 30/07/2024 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7844 OF 2024 IIFL Home Finance Ltd., Thane .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents Ms. Priyanka Fadia, i/by Mr. Shashank Fadia, Advocates for the Petitioner. Ms. M.S. Srivastava, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent-State of Maharashtra. CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR & RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ DATE : 21 ST OCTOBER 2024. P.C. : The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the writ petition since the purpose of filing the same has been served. The writ petition is disposed of. [ RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ] 6-WP-7844-2024.doc Dixit

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT Petition No. 1360 OF 2008 KailasPetitioner Balkrishna Patil (Through Jail) Vs. TheRespondent State of Magistrate & Ors. Mrs. S. D. Shinde, for the Respondent. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI, & A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J. DATE : AUGUST 4, 2008. PC :- 1.The petitioner has filed the petition, seeking his release after serving sentence of 14 years, as life convict. Earlier he had moved an application which was rejected by the respondents on 12th April, 2006. On the last occasion, we had asked the learned Public Prosecutor to file a reply, stating as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be released in terms of the policy framed in April 2008. The reply has not been filed. Further time was sought to file the reply. 2.In the circumstances, we direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his release in terms of the policy framed in April 2008 and pass the speaking order within two weeks from today. 3.After passing of any such order, pursuant to above direction, such order be placed before us. S.O. to 20th August, 2008. Sd/- [ BILAL NAZKI, J.] Sd/- [ A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.]

Order - Status 11: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 1360 OF 2008 l -1- - Office Notes, Office Memoranda l of Coram, appearances, Court's l Orders or directions and l Registrar's orders. l Court's or Judges' Order i -i- - Mrs. P.H.Kantharia A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: S. B. MHASE & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATE: October 8, 2008. P.C. Mr. Ashutosh Gole is hereby appointed as an advocate to conduct the petition on behalf of the accused who is in jail. Office is directed to furnish copy of the petition to the appointed advocate. S.O. to 14th October 2008. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1360 OF 2008 Kailas..Petitioner Balkrishna Patil V/s The..Respondents State of Maharashtra & Ors. Mr.Ashutosh Gole for the Petitioner Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP for the State CORAM : S.B.MHASE & A.A. SAYED JJ. DATE : 17TH NOVEMBER, 2008 P.C. 1.Heard. 2.Rule. Rule returnable immediately with the consent of the parties. 3.The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for release from the jail in view of the provisions of Section 432, 433 of Criminal Procedure Code, remitting the entire portion of the sentence for his premature release under 14 years rule. The petitioner is in jail for a period as follows:- (a)Under trial period two years, 6 months, 20 days. (b)Actual sentence under gone 13 years, 7 months, 15 months. (c)Ordinary remissions and other remissions including State remissions 6 years, 1 month, 29 days. Total period with remissions is 22 years, 4 months, 4 days. 4.This was the position on the date when the return was filed by the State on 21st October, 2008. At that time the petitioner was classified under category 3(b) of the guide-lines dated 11/5/1992. But with new guide-lines introduced on 11th April 2008, this Court directed the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner under new guide-lines. The respondents accordingly considered the case of the petitioner under new guide-lines and passed an order dated 26th August, 2008 classifying him under category 4(c) of Annexure-1 and directed that he should be released after completion of the 24 years with remission subject to 14 years of actual imprisonment. 5.It is admitted position that the petitioner has undergone actual imprisonment for more than 14 years. The only question which requires to be considered is as to how the petitioner is to be categorised and after completion of how many years with remission the petitioner is to be released. 6.Under new guide-lines of 2008 the petitioner has been categorised in category 4 viz. "for other reasons" and in sub-category, he has been categorised in 4(c) viz. "crime committed (a) above but with the premeditation or by gang or by a person having criminal history" and the punishment is shown to be 24 years in the said Annexure-1. What is important to be taken into consideration is that the classification of the accused under category 4 is basically incorrect, because from the final noting which have been prepared by the State, it appears that the deceased Ramesh was involved in criminal cases and as against him there were several offences registered and chapter cases were also filed. 7.From the facts of the case it transpires that some persons from the Mumbai desired to purchase agricultural property at Madhi and it is alleged that in order to see that those transaction are cleared, the deceased Ramesh was indulging in gundagiri and therefore the accused persons have come together and have committed the murder of the deceased. Thus, the act of murder has taken place as a result of land dispute. When the murder is committed in relation to land dispute, the same has been categorised in category 3 viz " murder arising out of land dispute, family feuds, family prestige and superstition". Thus the categorisation by the respondents into category 4 is not just and proper. 8.The offence committed by the accused thus falls in category 3 as stated above. Since many persons have come together and have indulged in the said murder we further find the offence falls in sub-category (b) viz. "the crime committed as above with premeditation either individual or by gang". Therefore, assuming that the crime has been committed with premeditation still offence will fall under category 3(b) and not category 4(c) and thus we find that the order which has been passed by the respondents categorising the petitioner into category 4(c) by order dated 26th August, 2008 is not just and proper and we set aside the said order. 9It is also equally admitted position that with the remission the petitioner has completed more than 22 years imprisonment. Both the conditions are therefore satisfied i.e the petitioner has undergone actual punishment for 14 years and he has undergone 22 years with all remissions at his credit. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released from the jail. 10.We therefore direct the respondents that giving benefit of sections 432 and 433 of Cr.P.C. and petitioner being classified into category 3(b),of the guide-lines dated 11-04-2008, he should be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 11.Rule is made absolute in terms above and the petition is disposed of. ( A.A. SAYED, J.) (S.B. MHASE, J.)