All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6285 OF 2017 Shri. Ajay Rajendra Pawar ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent Suresh M Sabrad For Petitioner Mrs.R.M.Shinde,A.G.P.for state. CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M.S. SONAK, JJ DATE : 14th June, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 12/07/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6285 OF 2017 Shri. Ajay Rajendra Pawar ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent Suresh M Sabrad For Petitioner Shri P.P. More, AGP for State. CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M.S. SONAK, JJ DATE : 12th July, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 13/07/2017 under the caption of withdrawal. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6285 OF 2017 Ajay R. Pawar ..Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents Mr. S.M. Sabrad for the Petitioner Mr. P.P. More, AGP for the Respondents – State. CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M. S. SONAK, JJ. DATE : JULY 13, 2017. P.C. : . The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order dated 6th May 2016 did not consider the Government Resolution (G.R.) dated 12th March 2013 (ExhibitW), the report dated 16th February 2016 of the Additional Collector and the various judgments passed by this Court from time to time. 2] We find that there is no mention about consideration of the said G.R., report of the Additional Collector as also the judgments on which the petitioner has placed reliance. In the circumstances, we allow the petitioner to withdraw this petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition before respondent No.1. The petitioner may file the review petition within two weeks. 3] Needless to say that we have not commented upon the merits on the petitioner's entitlement. The respondent No.1 is free to decide the review petition, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of filing of such review petition. 4] With aforesaid liberty, the petition is allowed to be withdrawn. (M. S. SONAK, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16 OF 2014 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2013 Mr.Kobad Dorabji Davierwalla ...Applicant / Orig.Respondent No.1 In the matter between Mrs.Perin Hoshang Davierwalla & Anr. ...Appellants vs. Mr.Kobad Dorabji Davierwalla & Ors. ...Respondents AND REVIEW PETITION (STAMP) NO. 19448 OF 2014 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2013 WITH CIVIL APPLIATION NO. 171 OF 2014 Mrs.Perin Hoshang Davierwalla & Anr. vs. Petitioners / Orig.Appellants Mr.A.V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Prathamesh Bhargav i/b. Mr.S.B. Deshmukh for Applicant (Original Respondent No.1). Mr.Darius Khambata, Senior Advocate with Mr.J.B. Sen, Senior Advocate, Mr.Akshay Patil i/b. M/s.Federal & Rashmikant for Respondent No.1 and 2 (Original Appellants). Mr.Priyanka Vegad for Respondent No.2 in Review Petition No**.**19448/2014, Arb.Appeal No.42/2013, Respondent No.3 in CA 16/2014. Mr.B.K. Bali i/b. M/s.Bali Associates for Respondent No.3. CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J. 01 SEPTEMBER 2014 P.C. : The delay of fourty-five days in taking out the review petition is condoned, and the review petition is taken up for hearing. 2 The review petition is filed by the original Appellants seeking a review of paragraphs 16 and 17(ii) of the order passed by this Court on 7 May 2014 and modification of the same by directing Respondent No.1 to vacate the two rooms in the hotel premises, currently in occupation of Respondent No.1 as agent of the Court Receiver without payment of royalty and security. The application is made in the following facts. 3 The Appellants and Respondents are partners in a partnership firm called IL Palazzo Hotel running a business of lodging and boarding house at Panchgani in Maharashtra. During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings between the parties for adjudication of disputes arising out of dissolution of this partnership firm by the Appellants, by an order passed by this Court on 7 May 2014, Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay has been appointed as a receiver of the assets and business of the partnership firm. The Appellants have been appointed as agents of the Court Receiver for conducting the business of IL Palazzo Hotel on payment of royalty. Paragraph 15 of this order inter alia records that Respondent No.1, who was carrying on business on the date of this order, not only had the suit business as the only source of livelihood, but even lived in two rooms within the building where the partnership business of lodging and boarding house was carried on. The order records the plea of Respondent No.1 that the residence of Respondent No.1 inter alia needs to be protected since he was actually using the two rooms. Accordingly, paragraph 17(ii) of the order provides that Respondent No.1 would be entitled to retain these two rooms presently in his personal use for the residence of himself and his family as agent of the Court Receiver without payment of any royalty or security. 4 It is a case of the Appellants in the present review petition that on or about 20 April 2014, after the conclusion of the hearings in the appeal, the Appellants came to know that Respondent No.1 has been in possession of a two storied apartment bungalow with a workable basement in Khinger village (about 3 to 4 km from IL Palazzo Hotel) admeasuring an area of more than 2000 sq.ft.; that this bungalow was in the name of Respondent No.1 and his wife; that the bungalow has a telephone installed therein; that the Respondent has been paying telephone and electricity charges; that this bungalow has been used by Respondent No.1 for the residence of himself and his family since much before the passing of the order dated 7 May 2014 and till today; that in the premises, Respondent No.1 has never actually resided in the hotel premises even once after the charge of the hotel was handed over to the Appellants, as agents of the Court Receiver and that, on the other hand, Respondent No.1 and his wife have only visited the two rooms occasionally during all this period; that the wife of Respondent No.1 had been interfering with the administration and functioning of the hotel and ordering around the staff and interacting with the hotel guests; and that in the premises, it is necessary and in the interests of justice that the directions in the order dated 7 May 2014 be modified and Respondent No.1 and his family be directed to vacate the rooms occupied by them in the hotel premises. 4 Along with the review petition, there is an application filed by Respondent No.1 himself inter alia for certain modifications to the order of 7 May 2014. It is prayed by Respondent No.1 that he should be allowed to use all common facilities, services, amenities, etc. provided in the hotel such as common hot and cold water, appliances, common generators and other infrastructure and utility services without any charge. Respondent No.1 has also applied for use of boarding facilities and services provided by the hotel at a charge of Rs.10,000/ per month. By an amendment proposed in the affidavit dated 22 June 2014, Respondent No.1 sought to amend the prayer inter alia providing for payment of charges in the sum of Rs.3500/- per month for use of the common and shared amenities and services provided in the hotel. Respondent No.1 does not press his prayer for provision of boarding facilities against payment of Rs.10,000/- per month, as originally proposed in his civil application. Thus, the application is now for permission to use all common amenities and facilities provided by the hotel on payment of a charge of Rs.3500/- per month. 5 It is obvious that the original application for permission to retain the two rooms claimed to be in occupation of Respondent No.1, as agent of the Court Receiver and without payment of royalty or security, was on the express footing that Respondent No.1 had all along been using, and even now requires, the two rooms for residence of himself and his family. At no stage in the pending appeal, before the order was passed on 7 May 2014, had the Respondent indicated that he was in possession of, and using, a bungalow of more than 2000 sq.ft. at Khinger village near IL Palazzo Hotel. In fact, in his reply filed in the review petition, Respondent No.1 has not disputed his residence in the bungalow at Khinger. All that the Respondent mentions in his reply to the review petition is that the two rooms in the hotel are his permanent residence; that all official documents, fax documents and administrative documents have the address of the hotel as his permanent residence; and that it would cause great difficulty to Respondent No.1 if this permanent address has to be changed temporarily. It is also submitted by Respondent No.1 that the bungalow at Khinger is not habitable round the year; that residence at this bungalow is not practicable due to its distant location, extreme weather conditions, etc. However, Respondent No.1 has not said that he does not actually use the bungalow as his residence. 6 Secondly, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 that photographs of this bungalow were shown to the Court by the Appellants, before this Court passed its order on 7 May 2014. Since these photographs were before the Court, it is submitted that the attention of the Court was invited to the existence of this bungalow and that therefore, the facts narrated before the Court in the review petition are neither new nor brought for the first time before the Court to enable the Appellants to apply for review of the order. It may be that the photographs were shown to the Court when this Court passed its order on 7 May 2013. The photographs were, however, not shown by Respondent No.1. The contest as to whether this bungalow was actually used as residence by Respondent No.1 throughout the relevant period was not before the Court when the order of 7 May 2014 was passed. The Appellants have claimed in the review petition that this fact came to light after the hearing of the matter concluded on 23 April 2014 and the order was reserved. On the basis of their knowledge acquired subsequently, the Appellants have averred in the review petition that Respondent No.1 and his family have been residing in the bungalow at Khinger and have not used the two rooms for residence at any time during the period of pendency of the arbitration appeal. There is no effective denial of this fact in the reply of Respondent No.1. Secondly, it is submitted that right from inception, four rooms have been kept for three groups of partners of the firm for their residence and that these rooms have been kept for residence of the parties in spite of the fact that even the Appellants have their bungalow at Panchgani, not very far from IL Palazzo hotel. It is submitted that even today, two rooms are in occupation of the Appellants. Whether or not the two rooms are in occupation of the Appellants, it is a fact that these two rooms have been treated to be a part of the hotel premises under the order of 7 May 2014 and the compensation payable by the Appellants as agents of the Court Receiver has been worked out on that basis. Whether the rooms are, in fact, used as guest rooms to be rented out for the hotel business or whether they are actually used for occupation of the Appellants, is immaterial as long as these two rooms are in occupation of the Appellants as agents of the Court Receiver for conducting the hotel business and the Appellants are paying compensation for the same as agents of the Court Receiver. In fact, the fact that two rooms in occupation of the Appellants for their residence have been made part of the hotel premises, in occupation of the agents of the Court Receiver and for which compensation is payable by the agents, supports the Appellants' case that the two rooms which are in occupation of Respondent No.1 and which are not actually used for his residence ought to be made over to the Court Receiver for conducting the hotel business. The Appellants have offered to pay an additional royalty of Rs.6 lakhs per annum for the two rooms to be vacated by Respondent No.1 and allowed to be used for the hotel. This additional royalty is offered with a view to account for the additional revenue that may accrue to the agents, if these two rooms are allowed to be used for the hotel. 7 Lastly, it is submitted that the Court Receiver has not been appointed of the four rooms which were in occupation of the partners for their respective residence. This submission is made on the basis of the licence issued by the authorities, which is in respect of 17 rooms only. It may be that the licence for renting out room to the guests exists in respect of 17 rooms for the lodging business of the hotel, but there is nothing to indicate that these two rooms are not part of the assets of the partnership firm of which Court Receiver is appointed. In fact, it is on the basis that the Court Receiver is appointed also of these four rooms that the two rooms in occupation of the Appellants have been made part of the agency business and for which the Appellants have been asked to pay compensation. So also, it is on the same basis that Respondent No.1 is directed to be appointed as agent of the Court Receiver without any royalty for the two rooms purportedly in his occupation. There is no substance in the plea that the Court Receiver is not appointed of these four rooms. 8 In the premises, the review petition filed by the Appellants deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the order of 7 May 2014 is modified by directing Respondent No.1 to vacate the two rooms in his occupation and make over the same to the Court Receiver for being used as part of the hotel premises. With effect from the expiry of a period of 45 days after the rooms are vacated and possession thereof is handed over to the Court Receiver by Respondent No.1, the Appellants shall pay an additional royalty of Rs.6 lakhs per annum for use of these two rooms as part of the agency agreement. This amount shall be paid on a quarterly basis as in the case of royalty of Rs.70 lakhs payable per annum for the agency of the hotel. 9 At the time of handing over of the two rooms by Respondent No.1 to the Court Receiver, the Court Receiver shall prepare an inventory of the furnitures and fixtures lying within the premises. Respondent No.1 shall be at liberty to make a claim in respect of these furnitures and fixtures at the hearing before the District Court or before the Arbitrator, as the case may be. The Court Receiver will, of course, permit Respondent No.1 to take away his movables lying within the two rooms. 10 Having regard to the order passed on the review petition, the civil application of Respondent No.1 for use of additional amenities and facilities provided by the hotel in connection with the two rooms in his occupation as agent of the Receiver, does not survive and is disposed of. 11 There shall be no order as to costs. 12 On the application of the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, this order is stayed for a period of five weeks from today. (S.C. Gupte, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3353 OF 2021 Ramesh Baban Gavhane & Anr. Petitioners Vs. Shaila Suresh Kanhurkar Respondent Mr. Drupad Patil for Petitioners Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. Date : 26th JULY, 2021 P.C.: Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, on instructions makes a motion for withdrawal of the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, this will not preclude the Petitioner from taking out such other proceedings as are permissible and available in law, which be dealt with in accordance with law without being influenced by the withdrawal of the present petition. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2053 of 2013 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8145 OF 2011 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Petitioner Ansari i/b. Ms.Saima Ansari i/b. R.N.Gite for the the Mr.Sachin Padye i/b. Girish Agarwal for the Respondents. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 29th AUGUST, 2013 P.C. : Rule. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2053 OF 2013 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8145 OF 2011 Smt. Rangubai Anandrao Murkute & Ors..... Applicants Vs. Shri. Bhika Ganpat Murkute (deceased) .... Respondents thru' heirs and LRs. Shri. Ashok Bhika Murkute & Ors. Ms. Saima Ansari h/for Mr. R.N. Gite, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. G.R. Agarwal, Advocate for respondents no.1 A to 1F. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 4th July, 2014. P.C. This civil application is for restoration of the writ petition, which was dismissed pursuant to the order dtd. 3rd April, 2013. By that order, an application for adjournment by the applicant was granted on condition that the applicants pay costs quantified Rs.1,500/ by depositing the same in the office of Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority, High Court, Mumbai on/or before the next date, which was after one week. The costs being condition precedent, it was directed that if the costs are not paid within the stipulated time, the petition shall stand dismissed without any further reference to the court. Admittedly, the costs are not paid till date. In that circumstance, there can be no question of restoration of the writ petition. The civil application is therefore dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2019 Aniket Anand Pawar ...Petitioner Versus Ruchita Aniket Pawar & Ors. ...Respondents …… Mrs. Veena J. Kamble, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. Ruchita Pawar, Respondent No. 1 in person. Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for State. CORAM : S. S. Shinde J. DATED : 12th June, 2019 P.C . Respondents No. 1 is present in Court. Learned APP Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar interacted with Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 has made request to appoint advocate to represent her. Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority to appoint senior advocate from the panel within a period of one week to represent Respondent No. 1. At the request of Respondent No. 1 stand over to 4th July 2019. [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

Order - Status 7: 48-wp-2531-2019.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2019 Mr.Aniket Anand Pawar ...Petitioner Versus Mrs.Ruchita Aniket Pawar & Ors. ...Respondents …... Mrs.Veena J. Kamble for the Petitioner. Mr.Ajit M. Savagave for the Respondents. Mrs.G.P.Mulekar, APP for the Respondent -State. CORAM : S.S.SHINDE J. DATE : 4 JULY 2019 P.C.: The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this matter does not pertain to the assignment of this Court. Hence, remove from board. …... (S.S.SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 9: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2019 Office Notes, Office Memorandam of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- Ms. Veena J. Kamble for the Petitioner. CORAM: SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATE : 22nd OCTOBER 2019. P.C. : 1 Liberty to move before Vacation Court. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)

Order - Status 11: Dond IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2019 Aniket Anand Pawar ..Petitioner Vs Ruchita Aniket Pawar And Ors. ..Respondents Ms. Veena Kamble for the Petitioner. Mr. A.M. Savagave for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 15th November 2019. P.C.: 1] At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that, there is an arrears of Rs.1,42,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent No.1. 2] Before the petitioner be heard on merits, the petitioner is directed to either deposit the said amount of arrears in the Registry of this Court or to pay to the respondent No.1 directly within a period of one month from today. 3] Stand over to 7th January 2020. (A.S.GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2019 Aniket Anand Pawar ....Petitioner V/S Ruchita Aniket Pawar And Ors. ....Respondent None for Petitioner Mr. Ajit M. Savagave a/w Jyotsna Kamble For Respondent Adv.S.S.Hulke APP for State CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J DATE : 22nd January, 2020 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the Respondent No. , Stand over to 29/01/2020 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: Bharat D. Pandit by Bharat D. 13:17:49 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2019 Mr. Aniket Anand Pawar …. Petitioner. V/s Mrs. Ruchita Aniket Pawar and Ors. ….. Respondents. ---- None for the Petitioner. Mr. Ajit M. Savagave for Respondents. Mr. S.S. Hulke, APP for the State. CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE: JANUARY 29, 2020 P.C.:- Stand over to 30/1/2020 for dismissal. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2019 Mr. Aniket Anand Pawar .... Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Ruchita Aniket Pawar & Ors. .... Respondents Smt. Veena J. Kamble for Petitioner Mr. Ajit M. Savagave for Respondents. Ms. P.N. Dabholkar, APP for State. Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. Date : 30th January, 2020 P.C.: The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that in compliance with the last order, the petitioner is willing to deposit an amount of Rs.90,000/- in this Court by tomorrow. The petitioner is present in the Court. Since the statement is made on instructions, the same is accepted as an undertaking. The petitioner is permitted to deposit an amount of Rs.90,000/- as undertaken. The respondent-wife will be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited. The learned Magistrate in a proceeding initiated by the respondent-wife under the provisions of D.V. Act ordered maintenance of Rs.4,000/- and additional Rs.4,000/- towards accommodation expenses, which was modified in appeal under Section 23 of the D.V. Act by reducing the amount of accommodation expenses to Rs.2,000/-. The petitioner-husband feeling aggrieved preferred this petition. The contention of the counsel of the petitioner is, the petitioner is a self employed and though he earns very meager income, he is ready and willing to maintain his wife. According to him, the respondent-wife is resident of Mumbai and presently staying with her parents. He would further urge that there is independent source of income, as the respondent is practising profession of beautician. While countering aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife would urge that the petitioner has neglected to maintain the respondent as the petitioner is in habit of not Dusane 3/4 905 wp 2531.2019.doc attending family duties his routine conduct creates serious doubt that the petitioner has some extra marital affair. According to the respondent, even if the respondent has taken training of beautician, still her earning from such profession is not sufficient to maintain herself. As such, she is forced to stay with her parents. Having appreciated rival submissions, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is self employed person, as such his average income is around Rs.12,000/- to Rs.16,000/- per month i.e. Rs.300/- to Rs.400/- per day. In the aforesaid background order of award of interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month is very much justified. As the respondent-wife is staying with her parents and it is not her case that she intend to stay independently or her parents are incurring expenses towards the rent, the order of award of accommodation charges, in my opinion, is not justified. As such, the order of maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month is confirmed, whereas, the order of award of accommodation charges of Rs.2,000/- per month is quashed and set aside. It is, however, clarified that the petitioner will be liable to pay accommodation charges till this date of the order. In response to the Court query, the petitioner submits that he shall clear entire arrears of maintenance within a period of four weeks from today, which statement is accepted as an undertaking. Let the entire amount be deposited in the Court of Magistrate within four weeks from today, to which the respondent-wife will be entitled to withdraw. The petition is partly allowed. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

Order - Status 19: Dusane 1/1 906.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2019 Mr. Aniket Anand Pawar .... Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Ruchita Aniket Pawar & Ors. .... Respondents Smt. Veena J. Kamble for Petitioner. Shri. Ajit M. Savagave for Respondent Shri. N.B. Patil, APP for State. Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. Date : 5th February, 2020 P.C.: Time to deposit the amount is extended till tomorrow, i.e. 6th February, 2020. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

Order - Status 3: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10504 OF 2022 In SECOND APPEAL 517 OF 2022 Shri. Dadaso Hariba Rode ....PETITIONER V/S Shri. Vinayak Tukaram Chavan And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 874 OF 2022 Pandurang Maruti Chavan ....APPELLANT V/S Vinayak Tukaram Chavan And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 962 OF 2022 Pandurang Maruti Chavan ....APPELLANT V/S Vinayak Tukaram Chavan And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 19901 OF 2022 In Second Appeal 517 OF 2022 Shri. Vinayak Tukaram Chavan And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S Shri. Dadaso Hariba Rode ....RESPONDENT None for Applicant. Mr. Sukumar Ghanavat for Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 18th January, 2023 P.C. : Mentioned out of turn. At the request of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Respondent, stand over to 15/02/2023. Ad-interim relief, if any, to continue till the next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10504 OF 2022 In SECOND APPEAL 517 OF 2022 Shri. Dadaso Hariba Rode ....PETITIONER V/S Shri. Vinayak Tukaram Chavan And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 874 OF 2022 Pandurang Maruti Chavan ....APPELLANT V/S Vinayak Tukaram Chavan And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 962 OF 2022 Pandurang Maruti Chavan ....APPELLANT V/S Vinayak Tukaram Chavan And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 19901 OF 2022 In Second Appeal 517 OF 2022 Shri. Vinayak Tukaram Chavan And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S Shri. Dadaso Hariba Rode ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 15th February, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 26/04/2023. Interim order, 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 INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 19901 OF 2022 In SECOND APPEAL 517 OF 2022 Shri. Vinayak Tukaram Chavan And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S Shri. Dadaso Hariba Rode ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10504 OF 2022 In Second Appeal 517 OF 2022 Shri. Dadaso Hariba Rode ....PETITIONER V/S Shri. Vinayak Tukaram Chavan And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 874 OF 2022 Pandurang Maruti Chavan ....APPELLANT V/S Vinayak Tukaram Chavan And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 962 OF 2022 Pandurang Maruti Chavan ....APPELLANT V/S Vinayak Tukaram Chavan And Ors ....RESPONDENT Mr.Sukumar Ghanavat for Applicant in I.A.No.19901/2022. Ms.Divya Pawar for Appellant in S.A.No.517/2022 and Applicant in I.A.No.10504/2022 in S.A.No.517/2022. Mr.Nagesh Y. Chavanf or Appellant in S.A.No.962/2022. S.A.No.874/2022 and Applicant in I.A.No.428/2023 in S.A.No.962/2022. for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 8th March, 2023 P.C. : At the request of the learned Counsel for the Appellant(s)/ Applicant(s) / Petitioner(s) / Respondent No. stand over to 15/03/2023. Ad-interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: 9-ia-10504-2022 in sa-517-2022.doc Pallavi IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.10504 OF 2022 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.517 OF 2022 Shri. Dadaso Hariba Rode ...Applicant Versus Shri. Vinayak Tukaram Chavan and Ors. ...Respondents WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.517 OF 2022 Shri. Dadaso Hariba Rode … Appellant Versus Shri. Vinayak Tukaram Chavan and Ors. … Respondents WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.962 OF 2022 Pandurang Maruti Chavan … Appellant Versus Vinayak Tukaram Chavan & Ors. … Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.428 OF 2023 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.962 OF 2022 Pandurang Maruti Chavan … Appellant Versus Vinayak Tukaram Chavan & Ors. … Respondents WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.874 OF 2022 Pandurang Maruti Chavan … Appellant Versus Vinayak Tukaram Chavan & Ors. … Respondents 1/2 Pallavi WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.19901 OF 2022 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.517 OF 2022 Shri Vinayak Tukaram Chavan …Applicant In the matter between Shri Dadaso Hariba Rode …Appellant Versus Shri Vinayak Tukaram Chavan and Ors. Respondents Mr. Sandesh D. Patil i/b. Ms. Divya A. Pawar, for the Applicant in SA/517/2022 and for Applicant in IA/10504/2022. Mr. Nagesh Y. Chavan for the Appellant in SA/962/2022, SA/874/2022 & Applicant in IA/428/2023 and for Respondent in SA/517/2022. Mr. Sukumar Ghanavat for the Applicant in IA/19901/2022 in SA/517/2022. CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 29th MARCH 2023 P.C. : Stand over to 12th April 2023 at 2.30 pm. Ad-interim relief to continue till then. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]