All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 164 OF 2017 Satish Kumar Manchanda And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 4th April, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 25/04/2017.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 CR. APPLICATION NO. 164 OF 2017 Satish Kumar Manchanda And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 13th June, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 04/07/2017. 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 CR. APPLICATION NO. 164 OF 2017 Satish Kumar Manchanda And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 10th July, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned 28/07/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 164 OF 2017 Satish Kumar Manchanda And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Ashok M Saraogi For Applicant Mr.M.G.,Patil, APP for State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 14th July, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 19/07/2017, on Suppl. Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 164 OF 2017 Satish Kumar Manchanda And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Ashok M Saraogi For Applicant M.G.Patil, APP for State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 19th July, 2017 P.C. : Stand Over to 28/07/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.164 OF 2017 Satish Kumar Manchanda and anr. …Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Mr. Anand Mishra i/b. Mr. A. M. Sarogi for the applicant. Mr. A. R. Kapadnis, APP for the respondent State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 21 JULY, 2017 P.C. : This is an application for modification of order passed by the Sessions Court. The applicant was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court vide ABA No. 1114 of 2016. The said application was allowed by confirming interim order dated 24th June, 2016 passed by the said Court in that application on 10th August, 2016. As per the said interim order dated 24th June 2016, the applicant was directed to be released on P.R. of Rs.20,000/ (Rupees Twenty Thousand only.) and like amount of one surety. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is not in position to make arrangement for solvent surety since the Sessions Court has directed the applicant to be released on P.R. of Rs.20,000/. The applicant prefers the present applicant for modification of order 24th June, 2016 passed by the Sessions Court. Considering the circumstances and the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the applicant, order dated 24th June, 2016 can be modified. Hence, I pass following order; :: ORDER :: (i) Order dated 24 June,2016 passed by the Sessions Court in ABA No.1114 of 2016 which is confirmed by order dated 10th August, 2016 is modified and the applicant is directed to be released on furnishing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand only.) with one or more sureties in the like amount. (ii) Application stands disposed of. [PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 981 OF 2018 Mrs. Aditi Arun Shinde Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. Prakash Wagh for the Applicant. Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : V. L. ACHLIYA, J. (VACATION COURT) DATE : 15th MAY, 2018. P. C. : Learned Counsel for the applicant, on instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the application with liberty to surrender before the Investigating Officer within five days. Allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed. The applicant shall not be arrested till 20.05.2018 to enable her to surrender before the Investigating Officer. Application stands disposed of as withdrawn. [V. L. ACHLIYA, J.]

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2431 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1529 OF 2009 Krishna Tukaram Shete Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents Shri L.M.Acharya, advocate for applicant. Smt. G.P.Mulekar, AGP for respondents. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.A.SAYED, JJ DATED:- JULY 16, 2010 P.C. Considering issue raised in this application, we think it appropriate that reply ought to have been filed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, respondent herein. Learned AGP seeks time to file reply within two weeks from today. Accordingly list this application on 30th July, 2010. Advance copy of the reply affidavit be made over to the Counsel for the Applicant. (A.A.SAYED, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2431 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4071 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1529 OF 2009 ...... Krishna Tukaram Shete ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.R.S.Shekhawat i/b Mr.L.M.Acharya for Applicant. Mrs.G.P.Mulekar, A.G.P. for Respondents. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED:- AUGUST 5, 2010. P.C. Request for adjournment is made at the instance of Applicant on the ground that the Advocate on record is out of station. No leave note has been filed. In such situation, the matter ought to proceed. However, by way of indulgence, we defer the hearing of this matter to 16th August 2010. It is made clear that no request for adjournment or keeping back the matter at the instance of Applicant shall be entertained on the next date of hearing. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2431 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1529 OF 2009 . Mr.Krishna Shete .. Applicant v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Others ..Respondents Mr.L.M.Acharya, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.A.R.Patil, AGP for the Respondents CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED : 19th November , 2010 P.C. : The applicant had filed Special Civil Suit No.157 of 2005 claiming recovery of interest on the award amount of Rs.51,16,492/- and the said suit has been decreed for a total sum of Rs.92,78,008/- which amount has been already deposited by the State Government as directed in First Appeal No.1529 of 2009 which impugns the said decree. By this application, the plaintiff prays for leave to withdraw the amount deposited by the State Government and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are not inclined to allow this application. Admittedly, the acquired land admeasuring about 4766.76 sq. meters located within the municipal area of Bhor, District-Pune was reserved in the development plan for the Forest Office and Nursery and its possession was taken over on 28.1.1983. The award came to be passed on or about 7.4.1998 determining the compensation payable to the plaintiff at Rs.51,16,492/- and the said amount has been paid to the plaintiff on 30.9.1998. While allowing the Special Suit by the impugned decree dated 18.4.2009, the trial court has granted simple interest at 9% on the award amount from 7.4.1998 to 30.9.1998, with which we do not find any fault atleast at this stage. However, interest has been granted at 8% per annum on Rs.51,16,492/- w.e.f. 28.1.1993 to 7.4.1998 and from 7.4.1998 to 5.1.2009 further interest has been awarded at 6% per annum. As noted earlier the amount deposited by the Government has been invested in a fixed deposit with a nationalised bank for a period of three years and even if we may not prima facie find fault in awarding interest of Rs.2,21,972/- for the period from 7.4.1998 to 13.9.1998, we are not inclined at this stage to disturb the investment. At the best First Appeal No.1529 of 2009 can be heard and decided expeditiously. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff will submit private paper book within four weeks and as soon as the appeal is ready for final hearing will take out a motion for fixing the date. Hence the stay application is rejected. [R.Y.GANOO, J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.]

Order - Status 8: SSK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8084 OF 2013 Shri Kiran Uttamrao Hole & ors. ....Petitioners Versus Shri Tukaram Genbhau Ambekar & ors. ....Respondents Mr. Vasant Adsul, advocate for the petitioners. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 19th November, 2013. P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition pertains to recording of mutation entry. It is now a settled position of law that mutation entry does not create or extinguish rights of the party and the same is recorded only for fiscal purposes. The parties are always at liberty to approach the Civil Court to get their rights adjudicated. A reference can be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Balwant Singh & Another V/s. Daulat Singh reported in 1997(7) SCC 137. Sr.No30. Wp 8084.13 In the present case, the petitioner as well as respondents have filed civil suits and same are pending for adjudication. A mutation entry is always subject to the outcome of the civil proceedings. Suffice it is to observe that the Civil Court shall decide the rights of the respective parties independently on its own merits and without being influenced by the findings recorded by the revenue authorities in the proceedings for recording mutation entry. In the light of the above observation, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in the jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4848 of 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 5th July 2010. Mr.R.R.Sonawane for the petitioner. P.C. : Issue notice before admission to the respondents returnable on 9 August 2010. Notice shall indicate that the writ petition may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself. In addition to the court service, petitioner shall serve the respondents by private notice and file affidavit of service. Interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) to be operative till 9 August 2010 only. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 10: FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4848 of 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr.R.R.Sonawane for the petitioners. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 18th November 2010 P.C. : Office to verify and report service. S.O for four weeks. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 12: FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4848 of 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders None for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 20thDecember 2010 P.C. : None present for the petitioner when called. Writ Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 4848 of 2010 Smt. Sumanbai w/d. Of Damu Bodake & ors. ... Petitioners v/s. Manohar Narayan Bodake & anr. ... Respondents Mr. R.R. Sonawane for the petitioners. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- APRIL 27, 2011. P.C. Inspite of being duly served with notice for final disposal, none appears for the respondents. Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally. The petitioners by way of present petition challenges the order dated 10th November, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for setting aside no written-statement order. The respondents-plaintiffs have filed suit for partition. The petitioner no. 1 is the wife of deceased brother of the plaintiffs whereas no. 2 and 3 are the children of the petitioner no. 1. Respondents 4 and 5 are the sisters of the plaintiff. The suit summons came to be received by some of the defendants on 7th April, 2008 and by the others on 11th April, 2008. On being summoned the petitioners appeared on 3rd May, 2008 and thereafter from time to time on 26th June, 2008 and 4th July, 2008 file an application for grant of time to file written-statement. The same were granted. On the next date i.e.. 5th August, 2008, the written-statement was filed. However, since it was brought to the notice of the plaintiffs that the written-statement was filed after the period of 90 days, the application was filed on 15th September, 2008 below exhibit 19 for condonation of delay. The same was rejected on 15th October, 2008. As such the present application came to be filed for setting aside no written statement order. The parties are closely related to each other. The suit is for partition. It appears from the record that the applications filed by the present petitioner for adjournment, so as to enable them to file written-statement were granted and as such the written statement was filed beyond the period of 90 days. The delay is of 30 days. The petitioner no. 1 is the widow and no. 2 and 3 are her sons taking education whereas other petitioners are married sisters of the plaintiff who are residing at far away places. Taking into consideration these aspects of the matter and particularly that the learned trial Judge himself has granted adjournment to the petitioners to file written-statement, I am inclined to allow the petition. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (B.R. GAVAI, J)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.72 OF 2005 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION ST. NO.16223 OF 2005 Shri Madhukar Narayan Karandikar (expired as on 13.4.2004 L/R on record) Smt.Lilabai Madhukar Karandikar &.. ors. Applicants v/s. Maharashtra Chittapavan Sandh, Pune.. & ors. Respondents Mr.A.P.Vanarase for the applicants. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. DATED : 10th October, 2005 P.C. Heard Mr.Vanarase, the learned counsel for the applicants. No.16223 stamp under Application Appli Revision R Civil 2. hence, and dly belatedly t 1 but filed been has 2005 of per As delay. of 0 ion condonation for ation application this The days. 32 of 5 ( is caused delay note, office the and age old be to stated stat been has delay for reason awarding ä by condoned hereby he is delay The illness. the to remitted re and 8 Rs.500/- at ed quantified cost two within ty Authority A Services Ser Legal Court High weeks. Place this Civil Revision Application for admission after vacation. (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)