All Cases

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Machindra Bodke, advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. V.S. Mhaispurkar, APP for State. CORAM :SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV , J DATE :JANUARY 15, 2014 P.C.: 1 Learned APP waives service for respondent and seeks time. Issue notice to respondent No. 2. Notice returnable on 12/2/2014. 2 Pendency of this Petition shall not be construed as stay to the proceedings. ( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J) Talwalkar 1/1

Order - Status 7: Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2 OF 2014 Jayesh B. Kanoga .Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & anr. .Respondents Mr.A.M.Moorthy, Advocate, for the Petitioner Mr.Rajesh More, APP, for the Respondent No.1 – State Mr.Rahul Arote, Advocate, for the Respondent No.2 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 20TH JUNE, 2014 P.C. . Mr.Arote states that he has been instructed to appear on behalf of the respondent No.2. The office objection, therefore, does not survive. The matter to be listed under the caption "For Admission" after notice on 04.07.2014. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

Order - Status 10: spb/ 10wp2-14.sxw CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 02 OF 2014 Jayesh B. Kanoga … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents. Mr. A. M. Moorthy, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Mr. S. Pasbola with Rahul Arote, Advocate, for the Respondent No.2. Mr. V.B.KondeDeshmukh, APP for the State. CORAM : M.L.TAHALIYANI,J. DATE : 02 SEPTEMEBR, 2014 P.C. : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 The Petitioner is facing trial for the offences punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial is concluded and it is kept for recording of the statement of the Petitioner under section 313 of the Cr. P.C.. 3 The Petitioner had made an application for sending the cheque to the document examiner to determine the hand writing on the cheque. The Petitioner denies of his hand writing on the cheque. He admits his signature on the cheque. The learned Advocate Mr.Pasbola, appearing on behalf of the Borey 1/2 Respondent No.2, has stated that it is not the case of the Respondent No.2 that the cheque was in the hand writing of the Petitioner. The case of the Respondent No.2 is that the cheque bears the signature of the Petitioner and it was given by the Petitioner to Respondent No.2. 4 In view of the statement of the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2, it is not necessary to discuss the order of the learned Magistrate in detail. The position is made absolutely clear by the statement of the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. In view thereof, I pass the following order. 5 The Writ Petition stands dismissed. Adinterim order, if any stands vacated. ….. (JUDGE)

Order - Status 7: cas1137.11&1191.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICTION NO.1137 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 468 OF 2011 Bajaran Tatyaba Kalokhe : Applicant. Versus Kisan Shankar Darwatkar and ors. : Respondents. Mr.Rajesh B Parab for the Applicant Mr. S V Pitre with Mr.Mahesh Subramaniam for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1191 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.487 OF 2011 Kisan Shankar Darwatkar and ors. : Applicants Versus Bajrang Tatyaba Kalokhe : Respondent. Mr. S V Pitre with Mr. Mahesh Subramaniam for the Applicants. Mr. Rajesh B Parab for the Respondent. CORAM : R M SAVANT, J. DATE : 12th April 2012 P.C. 1 The above Civil Applications, by each of the Applicants/Appellants abovenamed have been filed for staying the decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court dated 22/3/2011 in the above mentioned Appeals. It is required to be noted that in so far as aspect of possession is concerned, both the Courts below have recorded a finding in favour of the Appellant in Second Appeal No.468 of 2011 who is the original Plaintiff. In the light of the said finding in my view it would be just and proper to direct the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the said 15 Ares of land which is the suit property, pending the hearing and final disposal of the above Second Appeals. By directing as aforesaid, the above Civil Applications are disposed of. [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1866 OF 2024 In CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. 578 OF 2023 Deepa Virendra Pawar ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Adv. Vrushali L. Maindad for the Applicant. Mr. Prashant D. Patil for the Intervenor. Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for the Respondent - State. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 29th April, 2024 P.C. : S. O. to 30/04/2024 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: 2024:BHC-AS:21462-DB Urmila Ingale 7.ia.1866-24.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1866 OF 2024 IN CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 578 OF 2023 DEEPA VIRENDRA PAWAR ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT ------------ Ms. Vrushali Maindad a/w Ms.Shaheen Kapadia, for the applicant. Mr.Raja Thakare, Senior Advocate-Special PP a/w Mr.Akash Kavade and Ms.Sangeeta Shinde, Addl. P.P. for the State. API- Mr.R.A. Gaikwad, Chaturshrungi police station present. CORAM : M. S. KARNIK DATE : 8 MAY, 2024 P.C. : 1. This is an application for modification/relaxation of the condition imposed by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. 2. By the order dated 31/10/2023, the applicant was directed to reside outside the State of Maharashtra. The applicant has 5 years old daughter. For the reasons mentioned in the application, I am inclined to allow the application for modification of the condition of bail though learned senior advocate Shri Raja Thakare opposed the application. 3. In this view of the matter, the condition nos. (c) and (e) shall stand relaxed. 4. The condition now will be 'except for attending the trial, the applicant shall not enter the area of Pune Corporation limits and Pimpri Chinchwad Corporation limits. Rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 5. The application is disposed of. (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.5102 of 2013. Mr Sandip Bharat Jangam & another ..Petitioners. Vs The State of Maharashtra & others ..Respondents Mr S.M.Oak i/by Sagar Joshi for the Petitioners. CORAM : CORAM : A.S. OKA, & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 18th June, 2013 P.C. Not on board. Taken on board. The challenge in this petition is to the order rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioners in the election of the village Panchayat. In view of the constitutional mandate, at this stage, no interference can be made by this Court. The petitioners will have to adopt the statutory remedy. By keeping the statutory remedy open, the petition is disposed of. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)