All Cases

Order - Status 5: SALUNKE J V Digitally signed by SALUNKE J V Date: 2023.01.13 17:42:56 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 4 OF 2020 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17167 OF 2022 Sunil Tukaram Jagtap } Petitioner Versus Sanjay Krishnarao Taksande } and Ors. } Respondents Ms. Radhali Kadam with Mr. S. S. Kulkarni for the petitioner. Mr. A. R. Gole for respondent no. 1. Mr. Hrishikesh Chavan for respondent no. 2. Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader with Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for State. Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kiran Gandhi i/b. Little and Co. for respondent no. 4. Mr. Aditya A. Joshi i/b. Mr. Abhijeet A. Joshi for respondents 5 and 6 (MSETCL). CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, Act.CJ.& SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE: JANUARY 13, 2023 P.C.: 1. The learned advocate for respondent no. 2 seeks time to file affidavit in reply to the interim application. The reply shall be filed within one week from today. 2. Place the matter on 1st February 2023. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) 1

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.4 OF 2020 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.17167 OF 2022 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.4 OF 2020 Sunil Tukaram Jagtap ....Petitioner/Applicant V/S Sanjay Krishnarao Taksande & Ors. ....Respondents … Mr. Shriram S. Kulkarni for the Petitioner/Applicant. Mr. G.S. Godbole a/w Mr. A.R. Gole for Respondent No.1. Mr. Hrishikesh Chavan for Respondent No.2-MSEB. Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate and Mr. Kiran Gavellkar i/b M/s. Little & Co. for Respondent No.4-MSEDCL. Mr. P.P. Kakade, GP a/w Mr. M.M. Pabale, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 7-State. … Mr. Abhijit Joshi for Respondent Nos.5 and 6-MSETCL. CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 1st FEBRUARY 2023. P.C.: 1 We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner/Applicant and the learned Advocates for the respective Respondents. 2 The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has filed Interim Application for amendment in view of the subsequent development. He submits that the Petitioner had challenged the appointment of Respondent No.1 initially with Respondent No.5. The tenure of Respondent No.1 with Respondent No.5 is over. Fresh selection process was conducted by Respondent No.4 in which Respondent No.1 is selected as Director (Operations). The same is also against the rules. The rules require that a person with impeccable past history can be considered. The Respondent No.1 does not fit into it. 3 The learned Advocate for the Respondent submits that the fresh appointment is by another employer, the cause of action of the Writ Petition now does not subsist. In view of that in a Writ Petition, for which the cause of action does subsist, amendment may not be allowed. 4 It is not disputed by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that when the PIL was filed Petitioner was seeking writ of quo warranto qua appointment of Respondent No.1 by Respondent No.5. The tenure of Respondent No.1 with Respondent No.5 is over. Respondent No.4 conducted fresh selection process and has selected Respondent No.1 as Director (Operations). The same would be a completely fresh cause of action as the employer and the designation has changed. 5 In light of above, as the relief in the original Writ Petition itself has become infructuous, it would be improper to consider the present 2/3 Application for amendment. It is for the Petitioner to take appropriate steps by filing proceedings as may be maintainable. 6 In light of above, the PIL and Interim Application stands disposed of. The Petitioner may take proceedings as may be permissible under law. In that event all contentions of the Petitioner as well as respective Respondents are kept open. No costs. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Date: 2023.02.04 10:27:34 +0530

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 594 OF 2021 …...... …...... Atul Hanumant Kale … Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent None for the Applicant. Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATED : 17 JANUARY 2023 P.C. :- . The Registry has received this application through jail. The notification which was issued to release under-trial prisoners on bail in view of Covid-19 pandemic has ceased to exist. The present application for bail on that ground thus does not survive and the same is disposed of. ( N.R. BORKAR, J. ) KANCHAN PRASHANT DHURI Digitally signed by KANCHAN PRASHANT DHURI Date: 2023.01.17 18:21:02 +0530 Kanchan P Dhuri 1 / 1

#VALUE!

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.217 OF 2006 Santosh Madhukar Chavan. ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Shashikant Samant for the Petitioner. Mr.P.S. Hingorani, APP. for the State. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE,J. DATED : 31/1/2006. P.C. Heard both sides. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. This petition impugns an order dated 7.1.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg below Exh.131 and 148 in Sessions Case No.3/4/5 of 2005. The crux of the matter is that during the trial certain witnesses who had made certain statements of facts in their police statements were examined. When they entered into the witness box, in their examination in chief they did not depose about the said facts mentioned in the police statements. However, in their cross examination a version which was contrary to what they had stated in police statement relating to those facts was elicited by the defence. On eliciting such a contradictory version in their substantive evidence, a contradiction with their earlier police statement was sought to be brought on record. This has been disallowed by the trial court on the ground that a statement of fact which find place in the police statement recorded in the course of the investigation cannot be used to contradict the different version which had been elicited during the cross examination of the witness in the court. Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the rules relating to use of police statements in evidence. In short, the said section provides that when any witness is called by the prosecution in an inquiry or trial and the statement of such witness has been reduced to writing in the police investigation, then any part of the statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the court by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down the rules relating to cross examination as to previous statements made by a witness in writing. It provides that a witness may be cross examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into :2: writing, and relevant to matters in question without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. Neither Section 162 nor Section 145 lay down any embargo to the effect that such a contradiction can only be brought on record in the examination in chief. It is well settled that the evidence of a witness consists of examination in chief, his cross examination as well as re-examination if any. In the absence of any embargo, it would be open to the defence to prove a contradiction, if any exists, between the police statement and the evidence which has been brought on record during the cross examination of the witness. The Trial Court in the present case appears to be of the view that the defence cannot be allowed to create a contradiction and then prove the same. There is no question of creation of contradiction. If within the parameters which define the scope of the cross examination, any statement is brought on record by the defence in the cross examination, then said statement is a part of the evidence and if their exists a previous statement of the witness which is contradictory then in my view, the contradiction can be put to the witness and brought on record. In the circumstances, in my view this is a case where rule will have to be made absolute. It has been observed in the impugned order that certain questions were improperly asked in the sense that they pertained to nature of the contents of the statement made to the police. It is made clear that the reasoning given hereinabove would not permit the defence to ask the witness directly about the contents of the statement said to have been made to the police officer. I am informed that the evidence of some of the witnesses in respect of whose evidence questions were disallowed, has been already completed. I am further informed that this application was moved principally because the defence may face similar difficulty in the recording of evidence yet to come. In view of the closing of the evidence of the said witnesses, it will be open to the defence to apply for recall of those witnessses and if any such application is made, the same may be dispose off on merits. Rule is made absolute accordingly and the the petition is disposed off. (R. S. MOHITE, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2008 Smt.Sakhubai Dnyanu Pukale ...Appellant vs. Shri Dnyanu Dadu Pukale ...Respondent None for the Appellant. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. AUGUST 25, 2011 P.C :- None for the appellant. Issue notice to respondent, returnable in six weeks. In addition to court notice, the appellant is directed to give advocate's notice to the respondent either personally or through RPAD/Speed Post and file an affidavit of service before the returnable date. The appellant is also directed to file appeal memo in substance forms along with decree forms within a period of six weeks failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the court. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.) (D.B. BHOSALE, J.)

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.688 OF 2019 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.984 OF 2019 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearance, Court's Court's or orders or directions & Judge's orders. Registrar's orders. Mr. Dilip Bodke for applicant. Mrs. Tanaya Goswami, AGP for respondent Nos. 5 to 7. Mr. Pradip Zende I/b Nandu Pawar for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 11 MARCH 2019. P.C. :- . Heard learned Counsel for parties. Advocate for respondent submits that they filed their caveat and in spite of that copies are not served. Hence, advocate for applicant is directed to serve the entire proceedings on respondent's advocate on or before 22.03.2019. Matter to appear on board on 29.03.2019. (K.K. TATED, J.)

Order - Status 9: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.688 OF 2019 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.984 OF 2019 Court's or Judge's orders Mr. Dilip Bodake for applicant. Mr. Nikhil Wadikar I/b Nandu Pawar for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mrs. Tanaya Goswami, AGP for respondent Nos. 5 to 7. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J DATE : MARCH 29, 2019 P.C.: . Heard learned Counsel for parties. By this Civil Application, applicant is seeking permission to file the present Appeal on behalf of present trustees of the appellant No.1-Shri.Nageshwar Bhairavnath Vithoba Deosthan Trust. Considering the submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicant, averments made in Civil Application, I am satisfied that the applicant has made out case for allowing this Civil Application. Hence, following order :- a) Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus :- "a. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant the leave to the Applicant Nos.4A to 7A to file the Appeal along with the Applicant Nos.1 to 3 thereby challenging the impugned Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2018 passed by the Ld. Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Satara, in Misc. Civil (Delay) Application No.135 of 2014 and further substituted them as Applicant Nos.4 to 7 by deleting the name of original Applicant Nos.4 to 7 from array of cause title of First Appeal and Civil Applications." b) Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly. c) No order as to costs. (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.229 OF 2006 Rajaram Waman Masurkar. ..Petitioner. V/s. Lokmanya Shikshan Prasarak & Ors. ..Respondents. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : JULY 17, 2006. P.C. : None appears for the petitioner. Dismissed for non-prosecution.

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 229 OF 2006 Rajaram Waman Masurkar ....Petitioner Versus Lokmanya Shikshan Prasarak & ors. ...Respondents Mr. Chetan Damre i/b. Mr. D. N. Salvi, advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 26th July, 2012. P.C.: Learned counsel for the petitioner having taken instructions from the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the contempt petition with liberty to approach the competent authority under Section 13 of M.E.P.S. Act for implementation of the order of the School Tribunal. Leave with liberty as prayed for, is granted. The contempt petition is disposed of, as withdrawn. In the event, the petitioner prefers an application under Section 13 of the M.E.P.S. Act before the competent authority, the competent authority shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. In view of the disposal of the contempt petition, Civil Application Nos. 85 and 256 of 2011 will not survive for consideration, and the same are disposed of.

Order - Status 9: Vasant Nanasaheb Mandlik .... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Shri D.G. Khamkar for the Petitioner. Shri D.P. Adsule, APP, for the State. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED: OCTOBER 6, 2009 P.C: The petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for life and according to him, he has served the sentence which he was required to serve. The Government also passed an order on 17-9-2009 ordering the immediate release of the petitioner, but he was not released. It is stated that while the petitioner was serving the sentence, he was released on parole during which he committed offences under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC. In both the offences he was given sentence of five years each which were directed to run consecutively. Therefore, the petitioner is now serving the sentence which he was awarded in the offence under Section 376. The petitioner wants to know as to when he completed the serving of sentence under Section 302 of the IPC and when the serving of the sentence under Section 376 commenced because, according to him, even if the said sentence is taken into consideration, he has served both the sentences. The Government to consider the matter and inform the petitioner within two weeks as to from which date the petitioner is serving the sentence under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1652 OF 2009 Girish Vasant Kolhe .... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Through Jail Shri A.S. Gadkari, APP, for the State. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED: SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 P.C: The petitioner is serving life imprisonment and has undergone more than five years of imprisonment. He applied for furlough leave. It appears that till date he has never been released on furlough. Furlough leave is to be granted as a matter of right. However, the State has power under Rule 4 of the relevant Rules to deny furlough to a convict on certain grounds. In the present case, furlough has been denied on the ground that the concerned police officer was of the view that if the petitioner is released, there would be danger to public peace. We have not found any material having been considered by the concerned police officer for coming to such a conclusion. It was merely an apprehension of the concerned police officer. For these reasons, we allow the petition; set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to release the petitioner on furlough leave on usual terms and conditions. The petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)