All Cases

Order - Status 5: 24-WP-6807-2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6807 OF 2022 Sanjay Hanuman Pandey .. Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors. .. Respondents ******* Mr. A.M. Saraogi for the Petitioner. Mr. D.P.Singh for Respondent No. 1-UOI. Mr. Y.D.Patil, AGP for the State. ******* CORAM: A. A. SAYED & ABHAY AHUJA, JJ. DATE : 13 th JUNE,2022 P.C. :- Registry to verify and place the matter before the appropriate Bench. (ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (A. A. SAYED, J.) YUGANDHARA SHARAD PATIL Digitally signed by YUGANDHARA SHARAD PATIL Date: 2022.06.15 14:12:07 +0530

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6807 OF 2022 Sanjay Hanuman Pandey ....PETITIONER V/S Union Of India And Ors ....RESPONDENT Ashok M. Saraogi for Petitioner Mrs. S. S. Bhende, AGP for State CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.V. GANGAPURWALA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. N. LADDHA, JJ DATE : 12th September, 2022 P.C. : At the request of learned counsel for the Petitioner , stand over to 17/10/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6807 OF 2022 ……. Sanjay Hanuman Pandey … Petitioner. V/s. Union of India and Others … Respondents. Mr. Ashok M. Saraogi for the Petitioner. Ms R. A. Salunkhe, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. Anil K. Singh i/b Mr. D. P. Singh for Respondent No. 1. ……. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR, AND MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 25 September 2023. P.C. : The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that there are substantial amendments will have to be carried out to pursue the petition further. He states that the petition would be withdrawn and petition joining the correct parties and giving particulars would be filed. In view of this prayer, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn as above. (MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1031 OF 2020 … Chinmay Prashant Jagtap .. Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent None for the applicant. Smt. M.M.Deshmukh, APP for the State. CORAM: SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 10TH DECEMBER, 2020 P.C:- Re-notify after Christmas Vacation. SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J Wakodikar

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1031 OF 2020 ..... Chinmay Prashant Jagtap ... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents ….... Mr. Prashant Patil, Advocate for the Applicant. Smt. J. S. Lohokare, APP for State-Respondent. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 05th FEBRUARY, 2021 P.C. : . At the request of learned APP, stand over to 16th March (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1031 OF 2020 Chinmay Prashant Jagtap .... Applicant versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents ….... Mr.Pravin Mengane h/f Prashant P. Patil, Advocate for Applicant. Mr.S.H. Yadav, APP for the State/Respondent. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 16th MARCH, 2021 P.C. : At the request of learned counsel for the Applicant, stand over to 27/04/2021. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1031 OF 2020 Chinmay Prashant Jagtap APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Pravin P. Mengane i/b Prashant P Patil for applicant. P.N.Dabholkar APP for Respondent/state. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDRASINGH GYANSINGH BISHT J DATE : 22nd November, 2021 P.C. : S. O. to 06/12/2021 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1031 OF 2020 Chinmay Prashant Jagtap APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr. Sandeep Shinde a/w Mr. Pravin Mengane i/b Prashant P Patil for Applicant Ms. P.N.Dabholkar APP for Respondent State CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDRASINGH GYANSINGH BISHT J DATE : 6th December, 2021 P.C. : Arguments are concluded. Judgment/ order is reserved. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1031 OF 2020 Chinmay Prashant Jagtap … Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. … Respondents Mr. Sandeep D. Shinde a/w Mr. Pravin Mengane i/b Mr. Prashant Patil, for the Applicant. Ms. P. N.Dabholkar, APP, for the State-Respondent. CORAM : V. G. BISHT, J. RESERVED ON : 6th December, 2021. PRONOUNCED ON : 15th December, 2021. PC:- . The present application has been moved by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in C.R. No. 476 of 2017 registered with Karad Taluka Police Station, District-Satara for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 It is the case of prosecution that informant is uncle of deceased Prathamesh Sanjay Sankpal, who was a student of 12th standard Rekha Patil 1/5 studying in Y.C.College of Science at Vidyanagar, Karad. The applicant and two more students, who are stated to be juveniles in conflict with law, were also studying in the same college. On 17/11/2017 the deceased left his house for college as there was examination but did not return. 3 The prosecution alleges that the relations between the deceased and the applicants and other co-accused were not cordial and therefore, on 17/11/2017 at about 4-00 p.m. they committed murder of the deceased in the area known as 'Bhatki Shiva' near railway line in the vicinity of village Parle, Taluka Karad by means of knife and scythe. Accordingly FIR came to be lodged. 4 Mr. Shinde, learned Counsel for the applicant, submits that there was college rivalry between the deceased and the applicant and another. Although it is alleged that the deceased was assaulted by means of a knife on head, face and neck but those injuries did not match with the findings of Postmortem Report. Although the charge-sheet has been filed but trial is yet to be commenced. Having regard to the circumstance and as also age of the applicant, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. Rekha Patil 2/5 5 Ms. Dabholkar, learned APP, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the submissions by contending that there is statement of eye witness, namely, Yogesh Tanaji Shedge who had witnessed the incident and even the deceased himself had confided to Vishwajit @ Vishu Krushnarao Pawar on 17/11/2017 that he is likely to be beaten. Besides, the Postmortem Report also point out the injuries sustained by the deceased which is quite in consonance with the theory of prosecution. There is no inconsistency between findings of Postmortem Report and theory of prosecution as is claimed by learned counsel for the applicant. According to learned APP, since the deceased was mercilessly killed the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 6 Perused investigation papers. First of all, I may from the FIR point out that the informant has clearly stated that there were injury marks on the head and neck of the deceased by means of a sharp weapon. Column No. 17 of the Postmortem Report clearly shows that there were multiple superficial to deep incised wounds over scalp, face and neck. Thus apparently there is no inconsistency, except wound on face, between the case of prosecution and finding of the Postmortem Report as canvased before me by learned Counsel for the applicant. 7 This brings me to the statements of eye witness viz. Kiran @ Ganesh Shivaji Thorat. From the statement of this witness it is very much clear that he witnessed the whole incident. According to this witness, the hands of deceased was caught hold of by accused Vijay while the applicant took out a scythe from his sack which was given to him by accused Vijay only and then gave a blow on the head of the deceased as a result of which deceased fell down. Even thereafter the applicant gave three blows of scythe on the neck of the deceased. After the deceased died, the applicant threatened the others including the witnesses that if any of them disclosed the incident they would be similarly done to death. His statement further shows that because of threats given by the applicant and as he is of hot temperament, this witness did not tell about the incident to anybody. Incidentally, I may note from the Postmortem Report that the cause of death was " Head injury due to multiple incised wounds associated with fracture skull bone". 8 One more statement is that of Vishwajit @ Vishu Krushnarao Pawar. It appears that on 17/11/2017 when witness had been to college for examination, deceased called him and expressed his apprehension that he would be beaten by the boys. When this witness Rekha Patil 4/5 enquired with him as to who were those boys, the deceased replied that he would tell later on. At about 3-30 p.m. this witness saw applicant and other accused and as also the deceased standing in front of them. 9 From the above, it is clear that the witness, namely, Vishwajit @ Vishu Krushnarao Pawar had seen the applicant and other accused in the company of the deceased immediately before the incident. It is also pertinent to note that the deceased had expressed his apprehension of his being beaten at the hands of boys though he did not name those boys. However, immediately thereafter incident took place and it appears that those boys were applicant and others which is more than clear from the statement of Kiran @ Ganesh Shivaji Thorat. 10 From the above, I find that there is overwhelming evidence. The injured was brutally killed by the applicant by means of scythe. I do not find merit in the application. Hence, the following order. ORDER Bail Application No. 1031 of 2020 is rejected. REKHA PRAKASH PATIL Digitally signed by REKHA PRAKASH PATIL Date: 2021.12.15 12:42:49 +0530 Rekha Patil 5/5 (V. G. BISHT, J.)

Order - Status 4: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO. 12814 OF 2019 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : V. R. Kachare REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : 18/06/2019 None present Three weeks time is granted to remove office objections. sd/- REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2019 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or Judge's orders orders or directions and Registrar's orders Shri S.S. Kulkarni for applicants. CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J. DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2019 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the applicants. The applicants to serve the respondents by Advocate's notice along with the copy of this order informing respondents that the application would be heard on 14/11/2019. It is made clear that an endeavour would be made to dispose of the application finally on 14/11/2019 considering the narrow controversy involved in this application. In the event, the respondents fail to appear despite service of Advocate's notice, the application would be heard on its own merits even in the absence of the respondents. 29.doc The applicants to file an affidavit of service before the returnable date. Stand over to 14/11/2019. (M.S.KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 9: Dond IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2019 Shri Inderpalsingh Rajendrasingh Chadha & Anr. ..Applicants Vs Shri Baljit Ramlal Manchanda & Ors ..Respondents Mr. Swapnil Mhatre i/b S.S. Kulkarni for Applicants. Mr. S.S. Shah i/b Prashant Darandale for respondent Nos.1 to 8. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 28th November 2019. P.C.: 1] It is submitted that, the Advocate on record for applicants has filed a leave note. 2] In view thereof, at the request of learned counsel for the applicants, stand over to 21st January 2020. (A.S.GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 11: Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2019 Inderpalsingh Rajendrasingh Chadha & anr. .Applicants Vs. P. C. Baljit Ramlal Manchanda & ors. .Respondents None for the Applicants Mr. Surel S. Shah i/b. Mr. Prashant Darandale, Advocate, for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 13.01.2020 . None appears for the Applicants. The aforesaid Application has been circulated by the learned counsel for the Respondents and hence, it appears that learned counsel for the Applicants is not present. In order to give one opportunity to the Applicants, stand over to 27.01.2020 . Till then, ad-interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2019 Shri. Inderpalsingh Rajendrasingh Chadha And Anr ....Applicant V/S Shri. Baljit Ramlal Manchanda And Ors ....Respondent Shriram S. Kulkarni For Applicant Prashant Darandale Res. No.1 To 8 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 27th January, 2020 P.C. : In view of the joint request made by the learned Counsel for the parties, stand over to 04/02/2020 . Ad-interim order, if any, to continue till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2019 Shri. Inderpalsingh Rajendrasingh Chadha And Anr ....Applicant V/S Shri. Baljit Ramlal Manchanda And Ors ....Respondent Swapnil Mhatre i/b Shriram S. Kulkarni For Applicant Prashant Darandale For Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 4th February, 2020 P.C. : Stand over to 14/02/2020 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 19: Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2019 Inderpalsingh Rajendrasingh Chadha & anr. .Applicants Vs. Baljit Ramlal Manchanda & ors. .Respondents Mr. S. S. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the Applicants Mr. S. S. Shah i/b. Mr. P. Darandale, Advocate, for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 14.02.2020 P. C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this Application, the Applicants have impugned the order dated 08.02.2019 passed by the learned 5th Jt. C. J. S. D., Nashik below Exhs. 54 & 55 in R. C. S. No. 420 of 2010, by which the Applicants' Application ( Original Defendant Nos. 9 & 10 ) seeking rejection of the plaint under O. VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( for short 'C. P. C.' ) was rejected. Learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that the Partition Deed entered into between the Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 8 is of 1982 and that pursuant to the said Deed, measurements were carried out in the year 1987. He submits that under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, right to sue accrued on the date when the Applicants learnt about the alleged bogus Partition Deed i. e. when measurements were done in 1987. He submits that the present suit is filed after 28 years and as such, is barred by the law of limitation. He further submits that even the cause of action disclosed in the plaint is vague. According to the learned counsel, the plaint does not reveal any cause of action and is clearly barred by the law of limitation and as such, the Applicants' Application, seeking rejection of the plaint under O. VII, Rule 11 of the C. P. C. ought to have been allowed. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 ( Original Plaintiffs ) opposes the Application and submits that no interference is warranted in the impugned order. He submits that the plaint clearly discloses the cause of action and as such, the learned Judge has rightly rejected the Applicants' Application seeking rejection of the plaint under O. VII, Rule 11 of the C. P. C.. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 states that it is the case of the Applicants that the Respondent No. 8 committed fraud on the Respondent No. 1, by entering into a Partition Deed in 1982, and carried out measurements thereafter, by practising fraud on the Respondents and others. He submits that admittedly, the Applicants are the co-owners of the property in question and had not signed the Partition Deed allegedly entered into between the Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 8, in 1982. He submits that the Respondents ( Original Plaintiffs ) filed the suit in 2010, only after learning that the Respondent No. 8 had entered his name in the revenue records, thus, giving rise to cause of action. Perused the papers. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are the Original Plaintiffs, who have filed R. C. S. No. 420 of 2010 in the Court of the learned C. J. S. D. , Nashik, for a declaration that the Partition Deed dated 25.09.1982 entered into between the Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 8 be declared illegal. The Applicants ( Original Defendants ) appeared in the said suit and filed their Written Statement. It appears that the aforesaid Applicants filed two Applications i. e. Exh. 54 and Exh. 55 in the aforesaid suit and sought rejection of the plaint under O. VII, Rule 11 of the C. P. C. on the premise that the suit was barred by limitation. A perusal of the plaint prima facie shows that the issue of limitation, is a mixed question of facts and law. No infirmity can be found in the impugned order dated 08.02.2019 passed by the learned 5th Jt. C. J. S. D., Nashik below Exhs. 54 & 55 in R. C. S. No. 420 of 2010 and as such, the Application being devoid of merit, is dismissed. All contentions of all parties are kept open with respect to the issue of limitation for being decided at the stage of final disposal of the suit. Accordingly, the Application is disposed of. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

Order - Status 5: spb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4379 OF 2011 Zilla Parishad Pune ... Petitioner. V/s. Shir Ganesh Kisan Adsare & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Shekhar i/by J. Shekhar & Co. for the Petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 11th July 2011 P.C. 1 Issue notice to the respondents returnable at the end of eight weeks. Notice to indicate that the petition may be heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 2 In addition to the court service, the petitioner is directed to serve the respondents by a private notice by hand delivery or by speed post registered AD and file affidavit of service on or before the next date. 3 In the meanwhile, it is clarified and ordered that the order of injunction granted by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court shall not in any prevent the petitioner from initiating any proceedings in accordance with the law. The petitioner, however, shall not disturb the possession of the respondents nor evict them except by due process of law. (D.G.KARNIK, J) .....

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4379 OF 2011 Zilla Parishad Pune .. Petitioners v/s. Ganesh Kisan Adsare & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. J. Shekhar for the petitioners Mr. Abhijit B. Kadam for respondent no.3 Mr. S.R. Agarkar for respondent nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 26th MARCH, 2012. P.C. : Respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed R.C. Suit No.99 of 2010. In the said suit, learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Junnar passed order on 30th November, 2010 thereby restraining present petitioners from demolishing the suit property and from constructing the compound wall till the final disposal of the suit. The said Judge also issued an order of injunction restraining the petitioner nos.1 and 2 from disturbing peaceful possession and enjoyment of respondent nos. 1 and 2 from the suit property till the disposal of the suit. This order was challenged by the petitioners in Misc. Civil Appeal No.369 of 2010. The said appeal has been dismissed by learned District Judge14, Pune by order dated 19th April,l 2011. Hence, this writ petition is filed. After having perused the impugned order, it is clear that the learned trial Judge accepted the case of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and issued an order of injunction. The order passed by the learned trial Judge was confirmed by the appellate Court i.e. District Court. In such a situation, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below. The learned advocate for the petitioners states that the petitioners shall adopt appropriate proceedings to redress their grievances so far as respondent nos. 1 and 2 in a competent Court. Statement made by learned advocate for the petitioners is recorded. As and when such proceedings are filed, the petitioners are free to apply to the Court of learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Junnar, Dist. Pune for vacation the order passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Junnar on 30th November, 2010 on the ground that no purpose will be served by continuing the order of injunction on account of the proceedings, which would be filed by the petitioners. With the aforesaid observation, petition stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3260 OF 2015 A/W CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3261 OF 2015 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.14661 OF 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ... Applicant/Appellant Vs. Smt.Shobha Babasaheb Babar & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.M. Dange for the Applicant/Appellant Mr.V.R. Gaikwad for Respondent Nos.1 to 6 CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE: 30th SEPTEMBER, 2015 P.C.: Civil Application No.3260 of 2015 is filed for condonation of delay of 15 days in preferring the appeal. The learned Counsel for the respondent is present. He concedes to the condonation of delay. Hence, this application is allowed. Appeal be numbered. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3261 OF 2015: - By this Civil Application, the applicant / insurance Company seeks stay to the operation and execution of the impugned judgement and award dated 25.11.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satara in MACP No.535 of 2012. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the insurance company is ready to deposit the entire decretal amount alongwith interest accrued thereon, within a period of six weeks. In view of the above, interim stay granted to the operation and execution of the impugned judgement and award dated 25.11.2014 subject to the applicant depositing in the MACT, Satara the entire decretal amount alongwith interest accrued thereon, within a period of six weeks from today. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited in this Court at the time of filing of appeal shall be transferred to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satara. Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) CERTIFICATE Certified that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order.

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2821 OF 2022 …. Kunal Sunil Hargude ...Applicant Versus State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr. Rahul Kadam, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent – State. Mr. A. A. Khatavkar, PSI Shikrapur Police Station present. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : th 12 October, 2022. PER COURT : Heard both sides. Stand over to 19th October, 2022. 'for passing order'. Till then the applicant shall not be arrested. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Order - Status 6: 11.ABA.2821.2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2821 OF 2022 Kunal Sunil Hargude Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.Rahul S. Kadam, Advocate for applicant. MsP.N.Dabholkar, APP, for State. Mr.Tejas S. Pawar, Advocate for complainant. API V.S.Pawar, Shikrapur Police Station, present. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 19th October 2022 PC : Learned Advocate Mr.T.S.Pawar submitted that he has instructions to appear for the complainant. He undertakes to file his vakalatnama. He is permitted to appear for complainant in this application. Copy of application be served upon him by advocate for applicant. Stand over to 14th November 2022. Interim relief to continue. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) MST

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 2821 OF 2022 Kunal Sunil Hargude ....APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT WITH CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3722 OF 2022 In Cr. Anticipatory Bail Appln. 2821 OF 2022 Sunil Namdev Hargude ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....RESPONDENT Mr. Adhik Kadam i/by Mr. Rahul Kadam for Applicant Mr. A. A. Palkar APP for State CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP KASHINATH SHINDE J DATE : 14th November, 2022 P.C. : Not before the Bench of which Justice Sandeep K. Shinde is a member. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3496 OF 2022 Sunil Namdev Hargude and another … Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent AND ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2821 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3722 OF 2022 Kunal Sunil Hargude … Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and another … Respondents …...... …...... Mr. Ashish Vernekar for the Applicants in ABA-3496-2022. Mr. Rahul Kadam for the applicant in ABA-2821-2022. Mr. P.H. Gaikwad Patil, APP for the State. CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATED : 13 FEBRUARY 2023 P.C. :- The learned Counsel for the parties submits that the settlement talks are going on. In view thereof, stand over to 3 March 2023. Interim order to continue till next date. ( N.R. BORKAR, J. ) KANCHAN PRASHANT DHURI Digitally signed by KANCHAN PRASHANT DHURI Date: 2023.02.13 18:44:52 +0530 Kanchan P Dhuri 1 / 1

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3496 OF 2022 Sunil Namdev Hargude and another … Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent AND ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2821 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3722 OF 2022 …...... …...... Kunal Sunil Hargude … Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent Mr. Ashish Vernekar for the Applicants in ABA-3496-2022. Mr. Rahul Kadam for the Applicant in ABA-2821-2022. Mr. P.H. Gaikwad Patil, APP for the State. CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATED : 3 MARCH 2023 P.C. :- At the request of the learned Counsel for the Applicants, stand over to 21 March 2023. Interim order to continue till next date. ( N.R. BORKAR, J. ) KANCHAN PRASHANT DHURI Digitally signed by KANCHAN PRASHANT DHURI Date: 2023.03.04 10:25:56 +0530 Kanchan P Dhuri 1 / 1

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3496 OF 2022 Sunil Namdev Hargude and anr … Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra … Respondent WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2821 OF 2022 Kunal Sunil Hargude … Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra … Respondent WITH CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3722 OF 2022 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2821 OF 2022 Sunil Namdev Hargude … Intervenor In the matter between Kunal Sunil Hargude … Applicant Versus ~ ~ State of Maharashtra … Respondent Mr.Satyavrat Joshi a/w Mr. Ashish S. Vernekar for the Applicant in ABA/3496/2022. …...... Mr. Rahul S. Kadam for the Applicant in ABA/2821/2022. Mr. P.H. Gaikwad Patil, APP for the Respondent – State. Ravikiran Mohan Jadhav, PH 2229, Shikrapur Police Station, Pune, present. CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATED : 21 MARCH 2023 P.C. :- At the request of learned counsel for the Applicant, stand over to 12th April, 2023. Ad-interim relief, if any, granted earlier to continue till the next date. ( N.R. BORKAR, J. )

Order - Status 17: 7-aba-3496-22 @ G.doc DINESH SADANAND SHERLA Digitally signed by DINESH SADANAND SHERLA Date: 2023.04.12 14:07:00 +0500 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3496 OF 2022 Sunil N. Hargude and anr. …Applicants V/s. State of Maharashtra & anr. ...Respondents. WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2821 OF 2022 Kunal S. Hargude …Applicant V/s. State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. WITH CONNECTED INTERIM APPLICATION Mr. Satyavrat Joshi a/w. Mr. Ashish S. Vernekar for the Applicants in ABA 3496/22. Mr. Rahul S. Kadam for the Applicant in ABA 2821/22. Mrs.Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the Respondent/State. Mr. Tejas S. Pawar for the Intervenor. CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 12.04.2023. P.C. : List on 13 June 2023. The interim order, if any, to continue till the next date. [N.R.BORKAR, J.]

Order - Status 19: VRJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3496 OF 2022 Sunil Namdev Hargude & Anr. … Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2821 OF 2022 Kunal Sunil Hargude … Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3722 OF 2022 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2821 OF 2022 Sunil Namdev Hargude … Applicant the matter between In Kunal Sunil Hargude … Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent Mr. Ashish S. Vernekar for the applicant in ABA/3496/2022. Mr. Rahul S. Kadam for the applicant in ABA/2821/2022. Mr. Tejas S. Pawar for the applicnat in IA/3722/2022. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : JUNE 13, 2023 P.C.: 1. Stand over to 4 th July 2023. Ad-interim relief granted earlier to continue till 4th July 2023. (AMIT BORKAR, J.)

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 3496 OF 2022 Sunil Namdev Hargude And Anr APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT WITH CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 2821 OF 2022 Kunal Sunil Hargude APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR J DATE : 25th July, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 10/08/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 25: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3496 OF 2022 Sunil Namdev Hargude and anr. ...Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent WITH CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2821 OF 2022 Kunal Sunil Hargude ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent WITH CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3722 OF 2022 IN CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2821 OF 2022 Sunil Namdev Hargude ...Applicant In the matter between : Kunal Sunil Hargude ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Samay Pawar i/b. Mr. Ashish Vernekar for the Applicant in ABA . Mrs. Geeta P. Mulekar, APP for the Respondent-State. API V. S. Pawar, Shikrapur Police Station, Pune, present. CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED : 24 AUGUST 2023 P. C. : At the request of learned counsel for the applicant, stand over to 13 September 2023. Interim order, granted earlier, shall continue to operate till next date. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

Order - Status 29: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3496 OF 2022 Sunil Namdev Hargude and Anr. … Applicants versus State of Maharashtra … Respondent WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2821 OF 2022 Kunal Sunil Hargude … Applicant versus State Of Maharashtra … Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3722 OF 2022 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2821 OF 2022 Sunil Namdev Hargude … Applicant and Kunal Sunil Hargude … Applicant versus State Of Maharashtra … Respondent Mr. Samay Pawar i/by Mr. Ashish S. Vernekar, for Applicants in ABA 3496 of 2022. Mr. Rahul S. Kadam, for Applicant in ABA 2821 of 2022. Mr. M.G.Patil, APP for State. Mr. Amol Anil Khatavkar, PSI Shikrapur Police Station present. CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 9 OCTOBER 2023 P.C. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2821 OF 2021 This is an application for pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R.No.803 of 2022 registered with Shikrapur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 467, 471 of IPC. 3**.** The Applicant Kunal is the son of Applicant No.1 Sunil in ABA No.3496 of 2022. Applicant No.2 Ganesh is the brother of Applicant No.1 Sunil and uncle of Kunal. The first informant Sunil had lodged a report against Kunal with the allegations that his relations with his wife Dwarka have been strained. Dwarka and Kunal are residing separetely. Disputes arose over the ancestral properties. A civil suit is instituted by Kunal in the Court at Shirur. Namdev, the father of Sunil and Ganesh and grand-father of Kunal was bed-ridden. Namdev passed away on 14 April 2022. The first informant alleged that after the death of Namdev, it transpired that the applicant had obtained a Power of Attorney and Agreement for sale by setting up an imposter. On the basis of the said forged documents, the applicant also got executed the sale deed in his name. After realizing the fraud, the first informant lodged the report. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3496 OF 2022 This is an application for pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R.No.1004 of 2022 registered with Shikrapur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 341, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Subsequently, Section 307 of the IPC came to be added. Kunal lodged a report with the allegations that on 9 November 2022 while he was passing from behind John Dear Factory on Talegaon Dhamdhere to Sanaswadi Road, a car intercepted him. Three persons alighted from the said car and they boarded the first informant's car. One of those persons was armed with a knife like sharp weapon. The first informant was assaulted on his right hand. One of the assailants pointed a pistol at the neck of the first informant and threatened to shoot him if he did not return the lands to his father and uncle. The assailants declared that they were sent by the applicants – Sunil and Ganesh. Initially this Court has granted interim protection in both the matters. The learned Counsel for the Applicant in ABA 2821 of 2022 submits that the applicants have amicably resolved the disputes and the applicant – Kunal has filed an application for quashing of the prosecution. The learned Counsel for the Applicants in ABA 3496 of 2022 also submits that in view of the settlement, those applicants are also in the process of filing an application for quashing the prosecution. Evidently, the genesis of the offences is in the dispute between the father and son over the ancestral properties. It appears that a suit was instituted by the applicant – Kunal during the lifetime of his grand-father. The allegations of forgery and using the forged documents for the purpose of cheating revolve around documents. At this length of time, the custodial interrogation of the applicants does not seem to be warranted. I am, therefore, inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicants. Hence, the following order : ORDER ABA NO.2821 OF 2022 (i) In the event of the arrest of the Applicant – Kunal Sunil Hargude in connection with C.R.No.803 of 2022 registered with Shikrapur Police Station, the Applicant be released on bail on furnishing a PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. (ii) The Applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and report to Shikrapur Police Station on 16th, 17th and 18 October 2023 in between 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. (iii) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and/or give threat or inducement to the first informant or any of the prosecution witnesses or any of the persons acquainted with the facts of the case. (iv) The Applicant shall produce all the original documents which are in his SSP 4/6 custody before the Investigating Officer. (v) The Applicant shall also submit his specimen handwriting and signature to the Investigating Officer. (vi) The Applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the jurisdictional Court. ABA NO.3496 OF 2022 (vii) In the event of the arrest of the applicants – Sunil Namdev Hargude and Ganesh Namdev Hargude in connection with C.R.No.1004 of 2022 registered with Shikrapur Police Station, they be released on bail on furnishing a PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount. (viii) The Applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and report to Shikrapur Police Station on 19th, 20th and 21st October 2023 in between 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. (ix) The Applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and/or give threat or inducement to the first informant or any of the prosecution witnesses or any of the persons acquainted with the facts of the case. (x) The Applicants shall regularly attend the proceedings before the jurisdictional Court. (xi) The applications stand disposed. (xii) The Interim application also stands disposed. (xiii) It is clarified that these prima facie observations are confined to determine entitlement to pre-arrest bail only. ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

Order - Status 2: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 14061 OF 2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : V. R. Kachare REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : $6/09/2018$ None present Three weeks time is granted to remove office objection. $sd/-$ REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Karnik SumitDigitally signed bySumit Ramesh KarnikRameshDate: 2018.09.12Karnik15:21:58 +0530

Order - Status 3: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 14061 OF 2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : V. R. Kachare REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : 28/09/2018 None present Three weeks time as last chance is granted to remove office objection. sd/- REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Sumit Ramesh Karnik Digitally signed by Sumit Ramesh Karnik Date: 2018.10.03 15:10:54 +0530

Order - Status 4: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 14061 OF 2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : V. R. Kachare REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : 22/10/2018 None present Three weeks time as last chance excluding Diwali Vacation is granted to remove office objections. sd/- REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Sumit Ramesh Karnik Digitally signed by Sumit Ramesh Karnik Date: 2018.10.25 17:07:48 +0530

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 14061 OF 2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : A.N. MARE I/c. REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : 7/12/2018 None present 4 weeks time excl. Christmas Vacation is granted to remove office objections, failing which S.A.St. shall stand refused for registration, alongwith all the C.A.Sts. filed in this S.A.St., without further reference to the Court. sd/- I/c. REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

Order - Status 7: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.371 OF 2022 Sharathkumar Narayan Shetty …… Applicant. V/s Nitin Bhagwandas Shroff and Others …… Respondents. Mr. G.S. Hegde i/b Balkrishna Adyanthaya for the Applicant. Ms. Kanchan Pandare for the Respondents. CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE: AUGUST 04, 2022 P.C.:- 1] This Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is by the Tenant/Defendant No.1. 2] Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 are Trustees, whereas Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 are Defendant Nos. 2 and 3. 3] Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 initiated RAE Suit No.687/1111 of 2005 on 22/7/2005 against Applicant/Defendant No.1, and Defendant No.2 i.e. non-applicant No.8 on the ground of unlawful subletting, unauthorized additions and alterations, annoyance and illegal encroachment. Alleging that Defendant No.2 has vacated suit premises in 2007 which were sublet by Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.3, suit came to be amended by maintaining the case of subletting. The suit was resisted by the Applicant/Defendant No.1 vide Written Statement-Exhibit-19, thereby denying all allegations including that of unlawful subletting. It is also urged that earlier suit being RAE Suit No. 742/2351 of 1985 was dismissed in 1991-92. Vide additional Written Statement-Exhibit-34, claim put-forth as regards subletting to Defendant No.3 and surrender by Defendant No.2 of the suit premises was also denied. Third additional Written Statement at Exhibit-64 was filed, thereby denying the claim, alleging that Plaintiffs have no authority to file the suit. Defendant No.3 vide Written Statement – Exhibit-35 denied the suit claim and also denied execution of any agreement/understanding with Defendant No.1 so also her possession over the suit property. In the light of rival pleadings, issues were framed at Exhibit-22. The said issues and findings thereon by Trial Court read as under:- ISSUES FINDINGS 1. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that Defendant No.1 has unlawfully sublet the suit premises to Defendant No.2? In the negative. 2. Whether they further prove that Defendants have carried out additions and alterations of permanent nature in the suit premises without their permission in writing? In the negative. 3. Whether they further prove that Defendant No.1 is a continuous source of nuisance and annoyance to them and other occupiers of the suit property? In the negative. 4. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? In the negative. 24 CRA-371-2022.doc 5. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled for getting possession in respect of the suit premises? In the negative. 6. What order and decree? Suit is dismissed Additional issues A) Do the Plaintiffs prove that at present Defendant No.3 is illegally in possession of the suit premises and she is carrying on any business there? In the negative. 4] In support of the suit claim, Plaintiffs have examined P.W.1 – Devang at Exhibit-39, witness from the office of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited ("MTNL") i.e. P.W. 2 Sadanand, Court Commissioner Nancy Pareira – P.W.3 and photographer Kunal – P.W.4. Plaintiffs have placed on record amended Schedule-I issued by the Charity Commissioner at Exhibit-42, Resolution of Trustees at Exhibit-43, Report of the Court Commissioner at Exhibit-7, Bills of the food items at Exhibit-44, letter dated 21/1/2009 received from MTNL at Exhibit-45, Bill dated 17/9/2008 at Exhibit-46 and photographs and bill at Exhibits-67 and 68 respectively. 5] Applicant/Defendant No.1 has entered into witness box and examined himself at Exhibit-89 and placed on record document Exhibit-72 medical papers, Exhibit-73 electricity bills, Exhibit-74 police license, Exhibit-75 telephone bills, Exhibit-76 shops and establishment license, Exhibit-78 – health license and Exhibit-80 photo copy of Power of Attorney. 6] Trial Court after appreciating pleadings and evidence on record, recorded findings that the Plaintiffs/non-applicant Nos. 1 to 7 have failed to prove that Applicant/Defendant No.1 has unlawfully sublet the suit premises to Defendant No.2 by parting possession. On all counts, including that of additions and alterations to the suit premises, annoyance, Trial Court dismissed the suit. The learned Judge of the Small Causes Court noticed that the conducting agreement between Applicant and Defendant No.3 entered into on 19/12/2007 is a business agreement. It is further observed that the said agreement does not transfer or assign tenancy rights in respect of suit premises to Defendant No.3. 7] Non-applicant Nos. 1 to 7 / original Plaintiffs preferred Appeal No.69 of 2017. Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court vide judgment impugned dated 4/5/2022 allowed the appeal. As such, this Revision. 8] Mr. Hegde, learned Counsel for the Applicant would strenuously urge that the Appellate Court has committed an error in reversing the judgment of the Small Causes Court, particularly on the issue pertaining to business conduct agreement entered into between Applicant/Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.3. He has relied on documents produced by the Applicant viz medical papers, electricity bills, licenses issued by various public authorities and the photographs. According to him, merely because Defendant No.3 was permitted to run and manage business for Defendant No.1 i.e. Applicant, it cannot be said that sub-tenancy was created in favour of Defendant No.3 as neither permanently possession was parted nor compensation or rent is received from Defenant No.3. According to him, business conduct agreement was only to overcome difficulty faced by the Applicant because of his domestic and health issues. So as to substantitate his contentions, he has relied on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Dipak Banerjee vs Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty reported in 1987 (2) R.C.J. 644 so also in the matter of Bhairulal Balmukund Verma vs. Poonamchand Kasturchand Sancheti & Anr., reported in 1997 Bom. R.C. 270. 9] In addition to above, Mr. Hegde, Counsel appearing for the Applicant would invite my attention to the findings recorded by the Small Causes Court. According to him, after reappreciating evidence by the Appellate Bench, merely because different view was possible, suit for eviction came to be decreed. 10] Counsel for non-applicant Nos. 1 to 7/original Plaintiffs would support the order impugned, as according to her, recitals in the conduct agreement, evidence of the Plaintiffs has sufficiently established the case of subletting. 11] I have appreciated rival submissions. 12] Fact remains that Defendant No.2 has not resisted claim by filing Written Statement or examining himself as witness of the Applicant. Applicant denied any relation with Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.3. Defendant No.3 has specifically stated in his Written Statement that she has neither entered into agreement nor is in possession of the suit premises. As far as possession before 2007 with Defendant No.2 is concerned, P.W. 3 – Nancy Pareira has been examined as Court Commissiner who in her evidence specifically brought on record fact about management of business in the name of M/s Food Factory in the suit premises. P.W. 1 – Devang i.e. Plaintiff No.2. in his evidence has placed on record management of the said business by one Mr. Suraj Kundanraj based on the documents issued by the Sales Tax Authority. Fact remains that Defendant No.2 appears to be in exclusive possession of the suit property on the date of initiation of the suit. First appellate court in view of provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 clause (b) has rightly permitted production of documents in relation to the management of business by Defendant No.2 independently, as could be inferred from the document issued by the Sales Tax Department. 13] P.W. 3 – Nancy Pareira in her evidence has proved the report Exhibit-7. In the said report, she has stated about inquiry made by her about names and status of the employees in the suit premises when she visited on 19/08/2005. She has specifically stated that all the employees have stated that they are working with Defendant No.2. Though Applicant in his examination in chief has stated that he is maintaining muster of the employees and their salary register, said documents eventually are not produced by the Applicant on record to discharge his burden, after initial burden was discharged by the land owners i.e. non-applicant Nos. 1 to 7. 14] Though Applicant/Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.3 have specifically denied about parting with possession and receipt of possession for managing business in the capacity of sub-tenant, however, Plantiffs under Right to Information Act collected documents from the office of MTNL. Amongst other said documents contains business conduct agreement whereby Defendant No.3 has managed business in the name of "Dolce Vita". The witness from MTNL's Office i.e. P.W. 2- Sadanand has specifically deposed about providing of three landline connections as against above documents and Applications and has produced forms and copy of the agreement which was submitted by Defendant No.3 for getting landline connection. The said agreement was entered into between Applicant and Defendant No.3 on 19/12/2007. The agreement though is titled as conducting agreement, however, cumulative effect of the recitals, if appreciated viz. "AND WHEREAS THE Conductor herein who is having sufficient experience in managing hotel business approached the owner in the 2nd week of December, 2007 and shown her willingness to conduct the said running business and requested the owner to allow her to conduct the said running business for a period of three (3) years with effect from 19.12.2007, on conducting basis, as such this agreement deemed to have commenced from 19.12.2007." "2. That for the due observance and performance of the terms and conditions of the conducting of said running business, hereinafter incorporated, the Conductor shall deposit with the Owner, a sum of Rs 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) on or before execution of this Agreement and acknowledgment of receipt of the same the Owner acknowledges by signing a receipt which is appeared in the last page of this Agreement and further the Owner shall refund said security deposit of Rs 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) to the Conductor, upon the expiration of these presents by efflux of time or by earlier determination thereof, subject to always to the conditions that said security deposit of Rs 5,00,000/- shall not bear interest of whatsoever nature; "3. The Conductor admit to pay to the Owner, the monthly royalty of Rs 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) per month for first year and there shall be 5% increase in monthly royalty which will be for second year Rs 31,500/- per month and for third year Rs 33,075/- per month and said payment shall be remitted to the Owner on first week of every month, without fail for any reason. In the event the Conductor is complying all terms and conditions mentioned hereinabove, then the Owner is having option to extend the period of this Agreement for the period of further three years, subject to condition that there shall be increase of 10% (ten percent) on the said monthly royalty of third year in fourth year and futher 10% increase of the monthly royalty of 5th year and again 10% per cent increase of monthly royalty of 6th year." "4. That it has been agreed by and between the parties hereto that the Conductor shall be liable to pay the water charges, license fees, electricity charges and society's maintenance charges in respect of the said business premises, during the subsistence of this Agreement at his own costs, in the name of the Owner and shall give the receipt of said payments to the Owner as and when demanded for; "5. The Conductor do hereby convenant with the Owner that the Conductor shall pay the Income Tax, as well as Sales Tax, which number obtained in her own name during the subsistence period of this agreement and shall pay the same, at any event, shall not make said business and/or said premises for whatsoever nature encumbrances and further shall pay such other charges which may be imposed by concerned authorities and may become payable in respect of said hotel business, during the subsistence of this Agreement." "8. That the Conductor doth hereby further covenant with the Owner that during the subsistence of these presents, the Conductor shall not sale, assign, transfer, mortgage or create any lien in respect of the said hotel together with its premises and/or the Conductor shall not do any act in any manner which is likely to affect the rights, title, interest, good-will, tenancy of the said hotel in any manner whatsoever nor shall Conductor sub-let, re-let, under-let or create any third party interest either by way of leave and license or otherwise in respect of the said hotel or its premises or any part thereof." gives positive impression that said agreement is of subtenancy and not business facilitation agreement. The fact that conduct agreement was entered into between Applicant and Defendant No.3, Defendant No.3 getting three land line connections issued and installed in her name, based on the said agreement, the fact that Applicant has parted possession to Defenant No.3, the business conduct agreement was entered into at the request of Defendant No.3 and not as per the requirement of Applicant, accepting security deposit of Rs 5,00,000/-, fixed royalty of Rs 30,000/- per month to be payable by Defendant No.3 to the Applicant, 5% cumulative rise on said amount for each year, initially for three years, thereafter 10% rise in last royalty paid, sufficiently establishes agreement of subletting. The recitals in the agreement expressly provides for exclusive right to possession or interest in the suit premises of Defendant No.3 by the Applicant. Obligation in the form of royalty which will be increased every year with cumulative rise sufficiently speaks of receipt of compensation/rent with advance deposit of Rs 5 lakhs. 15] As such, agreement and telephone connections has prompted the Appellate Court to believe that Defendant No.3 is in possession of the suit premises. As such, act of the Applicant tenant that of giving possession of the tenanted accommodation to Defendant No.3, keeping the Plaintiffs in dark has rightly prompted the Appellate Court to form an opinion that the Applicant in clandestine manner transferred possession to Defendant No.3 who is a stranger to Plaintiffs/non-applicant Nos. 1 to 7. As such, Appellate Court has rightly formed an opinion of subletting of the property. Appellate Court has drawn support from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Bharat Sales Ltd. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India reported in [1998] 3 SCC 1. Agreement entered into between Applicant and Defendant No.3 by no stretch of imagination can be termed as permissive possession and not subletting. Possession handed over by the Applicant is in lieu of not only deposit of Rs 5 lakhs but also for monthly rent in the form of royalty. 16] P.W. 1 / Plaintiff No.2 in my opinion has discharged burden of demonstrating sub-tenancy based on aforesaid documents. Once the Plaintiffs have discharged the burden, then same shift on the Applicant who is duty bound to prove that parting of possession to Defendant No.3 was permissive i.e. within four corners of law. Rather parting of possession was without consent of the landlord and in lieu of fixed royalty to be received by Applicant. As such, support drawn by Mr. Hegde from the aforesaid two judgments of this Court in the matter of Dipak Banerjee and Bhairulal Balmukund Verma cited supra will be hardly of any assistance. Apart from above, Apex Court in its judgment in the matter of Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and Others vs. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and others reported in (2010) 1 SCC 217 has already held that if a party hands over possession of tenanted premises without consent of the landlord or keeping the landlord in dark in lieu of the compensation, the issue of subletting can be inferred. Applicant through his evidence in defense has not brought anything to the contrary on record. Rather from the above discussion Non-applicant/landlord has established the case of subtenancy. 17] In the wake of aforesaid observations, particularly when Plaintiffs have already discharged their burden of demonstrating case of subletting, Applicant was unable to explain about three landline connections provided in the suit premises. 18] In this backdrop, judgment of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court appears to be just and proper and in tune with the law laid down. That being so, no error of jurisdiction could be noticed. Revision Application as such fails and same stands rejected. 19] Interim relief is extended up to 31st December, 2022. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

Order - Status 8: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2612 OF 2006 Ganesh Ramchandra Aarde Versus The State of Maharashtra )Applicant )Respondent Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr.S.B.Malvankar for the applicant Mr.S.S.Pednekar APP for the State Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Date : 27.7.2006. PC 1. This is an application for grant of bail. The applicant is shown as an accused alongwith another person in C.R.No.149/2006 registered by the Goregaon police station for offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 420, 380, & 408 r/w 34 of IPC. The applicant was working as a peon in the office of the Complainant and he said to have stolen blank cheque and handed it to the co-accused who forged it and encashed it for the amount of Rs.1,82,000/ An : 2 : amount of Rs.1,71,800/- is recovered. This applicant is a peon and is arrested on 1.5.2006. Investigation is completed. In my view bail can be granted to the present applicant. It is therefore, directed that pending his trial in connection with C.R.No.149/2006 registered by the Goregaon police station, the applicant may be released on bail in the sum of Rs.5,000/ with one surety in the like amount subject to the condition that he will report to the Investigating officer once a month on every Monday till the disposal of the trial. Application stands disposed off. (R.S.Mohite,J)