All Cases

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8650 OF 2003 Union of India & Ors. ...... Petitioners. v/s Chandrabhan R. Shinde & Anr. ...... Respondents. Mr. Y.S. Bhate with Mr. N.R. Prajapati i/b Mr. K.B. Rao for the Petitioners. Mr. Saikumar Ramamurthy for respondent No.1. ----- CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATE : 24th March, 2008. P.C.: By this Petition, the Petitioner - Union of India is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.734 of 2001 whereby the application filed by respondent No.1 is allowed and the order dated 17/09/2001 which was passed by the Petitioner was quashed and set aside and it was held that the applicant/respondent No.1 was entitled to receive pension in view of revision of pension by the Vth Pay Commission. Brief facts in nutshell are as under:- The respondent No.1, initially, was working as Labour Officer in Western Railway with effect from 24/10/1952 to 20/09/1963. Thereafter, he worked as Labour Officer under the Chief Labour Officer and as Assistant Labour Officer from 1963 to 1979 and, thereafter, he joined the International Airport Authority which is a Public Sector Undertaking and came to be absorbed therein with effect from 02/04/1979. Some time in February, 1984 the respondent No.1 was sanctioned pro-rata pension of Rs 297/- per month by the Ministry of Labour with effect from 02/04/1979. Initially, the applicant opted to commute 1/3rd of his pension in February, 1984 i.e. Rs 99/- out of Rs 297 and received an amount of Rs, 14,671.80. On 24/03/1984, he again opted to commute balance 2/3rd of the monthly pension i.e. Rs 198/- and received Rs 29,343.60. Respondent No.1's services in Western Railway, however, were allowed to be counted for the purpose of pension and, consequently, pension was revised to Rs 498/- with effect from 02/04/1979 vide order dated 02/07/1985. Thereafter, in view of the IVth Pay Commission his pension was again revised with effect from 01/01/1986 to Rs 1138/- deducting Rs 297/- which he had commuted in 1984. After the Vth Pay Commission, the respondent No.1's pension was further directed to be revised vide order dated 29/07/1999 and it was revised to Rs 3,443/-. However the respondent No.1's pension was suddenly stopped by the order dated 04/10/2000 and, 2 therefore, he filed Original Application No.861 of 2000. The said Original Application was allowed by order dated 19/03/2001 and a direction was given to the petitioner to issue notice to the respondent No.1 and, thereafter, take a decision. Accordingly a fresh notice was issued to the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 filed his representation and, thereafter, the impugned order was passed against the petitioner. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner - Union of India submitted that the Tribunal had clearly erred in passing the impugned order. He submitted that the respondent No.1 having commuted his entire pension on 24/03/1984 was not entitled to get the revised pension. He invited our attention to Rule 6 of Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 and also Rule 10 of the said Rules. The submission made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner cannot be accepted. It is apparent that what was commuted by the respondent No.1 was pension to the tune of Rs 297/- only and not the entire pension of Rs 498/-. The Tribunal has reproduced the application dated 24/03/1984 and on the basis of this application, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the respondent No.1 never had any intention of commuting the revised pension of Rs 498/- per month. In our view, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. The 3 Tribunal, after having considered the relevant rules and the facts of the case, has recorded a finding in favour of respondent No.1. It is a well settled position in law that while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court is not entitled to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal of competent jurisdiction even if a wrong finding is given. In the present case, we are of the view that the finding recorded by the Tribunal has to be confirmed in view of the admitted position that the respondent No.1 had commuted total amount of Rs 297/- out of the revised pension of Rs 498/- per month and, as such, the respondent No.1 was entitled to the revision made by IVth Pay Commission and Vth Pay Commission on the said balance amount and the impugned order passed by the Petitioner - Union of India was, therefore, rightly set aside by the Tribunal. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4666 OF 2005 Sangli Miraj Kupwad Cities Municipal ) Corporation, Sangli and another ).. Petitioners Versus Mahapalika Kamgar Sabha ).. Respondent Mr.N.V.Walawalkar for the Petitioners. Mr.S.M.Dharap with Mr.Helekar for the Respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 21ST JULY 2005 P.C.: . Leave to amend. This Petition is directed against the order dated 4th April 2005 passed below Exhibit U-13 in Reference (IT) No.6 of 1996 by the Industrial Tribunal, Sangli. According to the Petitioners, the Reference was made between the Miraj Municipal Council and the Miraj Kamgar Union. However, the Miraj Municipal Council is now functioning as a Municipal Corporation and, therefore, according to the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, some of the demands which have been referred may not be applicable and cannot be decided by the Tribunal. He submits that, for instance, Demand No.8 is in respect of the permanency of workmen. The Corporation will now have to decide the seniority based on all employees and not just of Miraj Municipal Council. The Corporation is made up of several Municipal Councils and, therefore, seniority of all the employees will have to be determined. This submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners cannot be accepted. Permanency is a dispute which is between those specific employees and the Council which is now functioning as a Municipal Corporation. After these workmen are made permanent, it is always open for the Corporation to decide the inter-se seniority of all the workmen including that of other Municipal Councils who are now their employees. The other submission made on behalf of the Petitioners is that the Tribunal cannot decide the Reference in view of the new Corporation coming into existence by the merger of three Municipal Councils. It is submitted that the scope of the Reference is enlarged by incorporating the Petitioners as a party to the Reference. The Industrial Tribunal has considered the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and has rightly not accepted this submission of the Petitioners. Hence, Writ Petition rejected.

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8432 OF 2024 a/w INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8433 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 13269 OF 2024 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's order appearance, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's orders CORAM : SHRI S. R. AGRAWAL REGISTRAR (JUDL -II) DATE : 09/07/2024 Adv. Hafan Shaikh i/by S K Legal Associates LLP present for Applicant. Await service of notice for 06 weeks for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Sd/- REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) sat-R(J-II)-09.07.2024

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BEFORE THE NATIONAL LOK ADALAT CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.13269 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.8432 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.13269 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.8433 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.13269 OF 2024 The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai ….Appellant Versus Shobha Arun Poojari And Ors. ….Respondents ********* Ms Swati Sawant, i/b. SK Legal Associates LLP, for the Appellant. Mr BM More, for the Respondents. ********* CORAM : : N R.N. LADDHA, J., HEAD OF THE PANEL H.M. BHOSALE, REGISTRAR, (JUDICIAL-I), MEMBER D.V. KUTE, DEPUTY REGISTRAR PERSONNEL, MEMBER DATE : 27th JULY, 2024. - P.C. : . In this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 26 July 2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, in Application No.2232 of 2016, whereby the appellant was directed to pay Rs.47,99,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum towards compensation to the respondents. Ms Swati Sawant, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr BM More, the learned Counsel representing the respondents, in unison, submit that during the pendency of the appeal, the parties have settled the dispute amicably and executed consent terms dated 27 July 2024, which have been placed on record. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had deposited Rs.72,48,816/- before the competent Court and has no objection to the respondents withdrawing Rs.50,00,000/- towards the settlement of their claim. Further, the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents have agreed to settle their claim by accepting Rs.50,00,000/- and have no objection to the appellant withdrawing Rs.22,98,816/- deposited before the competent Court and Rs.25,000/- along with interest accrued thereon deposited before this Court towards statutory deposit. The consent terms are taken on record and marked as 'X' for identification. Given the foregoing, the present appeal is disposed of in terms of the consent terms. As agreed between the parties, the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- deposited by the appellant before the competent Court is permitted to be released in favour of the respondents. Likewise, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.22,98,816/- deposited before the competent Court and Rs.25,000/- along with the interest accrued thereon, if any, deposited before this Court. In view of the disposal of the First Appeal, pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Accordingly, the Court fees be refunded as per rules. Deputy Registrar (Personnel) Member (D.V. KUTE) (H.M. BHOSALE) (R.N. LADDHA, J.) Registrar (Judicial-I) Member Head of the Panel

Order - Status 5: 938-wp-5679-2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5679 OF 2017 Mr.Shrirang Dadu Pawar & Ors. ..Petitioners V/s. Gramsevak & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Ameya Deshpande i/by Mr.V.B. Shivarkar for the Petitioners. Mr.Vishwajeet V. Mohite for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM : M.S. KARNIK, J. (VACATION COURT) DATE : 26th MAY 2017 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The statusquo order passed on 27th April 2017 by the Appellate Court is continued till 08th June 2017. List the matter on 08th June 2017. [M.S. KARNIK, J]

Order - Status 7: Trupti p506wp-5679-17.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5679 OF 2017 …... …... Mr.Shrirang Dadu Pawar & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Gramsevak, Gramopanchayat Jakhinwadi & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Vikas B.Shivarkar for the Petitioners. Mr.V.V.Mohite for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED: JUNE 7, 2017 P.C. : Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board. The status-quo order passed on 27.04.2017 by the Appellate Court is continued till 27.06.2017. Stand over to 27.06.2017 (High on Board). (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 5679 OF 2017 Shrirang Dadu Pawar & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs. Gramsevak & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Vikas B. Shivarkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vishwajeet V. Mohite, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE: 27th June, 2017. P.C.: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, this Petition is heard finally and decided at the stage of admission. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 27th April, 2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Karad dismissing Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 97 of 2016 thereby confirming the order dated 21st November, 2016 passed by 5th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Karad in Regular Civil Suit No. 410 of 2016. The plaintiffs/petitioners have filed Regular Civil Suit for perpetual injunction against respondent nos. 1 and 2, who are the members of Gram Panchayat of Village Jakhinwadi, Taluka Karad, District Satara and respondent no. 3/one private party that the respondents/original defendants shall not construct especially a wall and the road, which is available to the petitioners/plaintiffs, should not be closed and they should not disturb the petitioners from the use of the said road. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been enjoying the west side of the said road since last many years, however, the respondents collusively have decided to construct a compound wall for the kitchen of the auditorium which was constructed by Gram Panchayat. It is further argued that earlier a suit was filed between the respondents and other parties in the year 1961 and in the earlier suit, a settlement has taken place wherein the said land was shown as a road available for the public use and thus, the petitioners have every right to use the said land as access and which is going to be closed because of the construction. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the orders passed by the Courts below and has submitted that the petitioners have no right over the said property. The auditorium is constructed for the public purpose and public use, so the construction of the wall or any construction for that auditorium is not going to cause any hindrance or any disturbance to the access of the petitioners. He 2 / 3 further argued that other roads are available to the petitioners. Heard the submissions. Perused the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. The reasons given by both the Courts are detailed. It is specifically observed by the learned Judges that the petitioners have failed to establish the case that there was only way as access to their property. It is also observed that other than that there are other access to their respective properties. Under such circumstances, it appears that prima facie no case is made out. The view taken by both the Courts cannot be interfered with. I am not inclined to extend the status quo order passed on 27th April, 2017 by the Appellate Court. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioners orally prays for stay of operation of this order for four weeks. Considering the merits of the matter, I am not inclined to grant stay to this order. Order accordingly. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

Order - Status 8: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6437/2016 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. Kedar G. Prabhu for the petitioner CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : AUGUST 25, 2016 P.C.: At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter is taken up out of turn. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he received instructions from his clients to withdraw the Writ Petition. To that effect, he made an endorsement on a farad. Same is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Same is accepted. Writ Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs. JUDGE

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.115 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4852 OF 2912 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.171 OF 2012 Shri Prabhakar Raghunath Patil & Ors. ..Appellants Versus The Secretary, Pimpalgaon Agriculture Produce Market Committee & ors. ..Respondents. Mr. M.S. Karnik i/b. Sachin Gite for the appellants. Mrs. Prashant Darandale, AGP for respondent Nos.3 to 5 for State. CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 13 August 2012. P.C. This appeal is directed against the interlocutory order dated 14 June 2012 of the learned Single Judge declining to grant interim relief, while admitting the appellants' Writ Petition against the judgment and order dated 15 May 2012 of the Additional Collector, Nashik in Revision Application No.50 of 2012 against the judgment and order dated 30 March 2012 passed by the learned Tahsildar, Dindori. By the said order the Tahsildar had granted permission to respondent No.1- Pimpalgaon Agricultural Produce Market Committee for laying down pipeline for carrying water for drinking purposes under the land belonging to the appellants, 7 in number, and 3 others. The appellants' case is that such permission can be granted only for carrying water for irrigation purposes and not for drinking purposes. The learned Single Judge has admitted the petition for considering the questions of law raised in the Writ Petition. However, the learned Single Judge has found that the balance of convenience is against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order which is only an interlocutory order. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, submits that by allowing large quantity of water for drinking purposes, the water table level will come down considerably and will adversely affect the appellants right to draw water for irrigation purposes. The learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, states that the appellants would like to make representation to the Tahsildar for restricting the quantity of water to be supplied for drinking purposes. It is clarified that pendency of the Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge shall not preclude the appellants (Writ Petitioners) from making such representation, but we make it clear that we may not be treated to have expressed any opinion on the issue. Subject to the above, the Appeal is dismissed without going into the merits of the controversy between the parties. In view of the disposal of the appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. CHIEF JUSTICE (N.M. JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 2: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 15157 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO. 15158 OF 2018 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 15157 OF 2018 Mrs. Lata W/o. Hemant Garg .. Appellant/Orig.Plaintiffs Vs. Nehru Nagar Sukhsagar CHS Ltd. & Anr ..Respondent/Orig. Def. CORAM : K.K. SONAWANE, J. DATE : 7th August, 2018. P.C. :- 1. The appellant did not remove the office objections. The appellant has preferred an appeal, but there were office objections notified by the Registry. The learned Counsel for the appellant undertakes to remove office objections within stipulated period of two weeks. In case, appellant failed to remove the office objections, the appeal shall stands dismissed automatically without further reference to this Court. 2. In case office objections are removed, list this appeal for further process on 31st August, 2018. ( K.K. SONAWANE, J.)

Order - Status 8: Tandle IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 583 of 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.772 OF 2018 Mrs. Lata w/o Hemant Garg ... Appellant/ Orig.Plaintiff Versus Nehru Nagar Sukhsagar CHS Ltd. & Anr. ... Respondent/ Orig. Defendant. . . . . . . Mr. Sushil Upadhye i/b A. M. Saraogi for the Appellant. Mr. S. R. Patel for the Respondent No.2. . . . . . . CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 20th NOVEMBER, 2019 P. C. : 1] After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant at length, when this Court was not inclined to grant any relief, the learned counsel on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the present application unconditionally. Leave granted. 2] Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 3] In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, Civil Application No. 772 of 2018 does not survive and is accordingly disposed off. (A. S. GADKARI, J.)