All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2013 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 288 OF 2008 :­ APPLICANTS :­ RESPONDENTS :- Mr. Agnel Carneivo, i/b. M/s. Mulla and Mulla and CBC for the Applicants. Mr. Pravin Kamble, for Respondent Nos. 2A, 2C to 2E. Mr. Mohan B. Jadhav, for Respondent Nos. 3 to 6B. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JUNE 28, 2013 P.C. : Heard Mr. Agnel Carneivo, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants. Issue notice to the heirs of Respondent No. 2B, returnable on 12th July, 2013. In addition to service of notice through Court, the advocate for the Applicants may serve a private notice by Registered Post A.D. and/or by Courier service and/or by hand delivery to the heirs of Respondent No. 2B and shall file affidavit of service before the returnable date. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2013 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 288 OF 2008 Nozer Sheriyar Mazda and Ors. : Applicants versus Gulab Shankar Dangat and Ors. : Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 830 OF 2013 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 803 OF 2001 Mr. Agnel Carneivo, i/b. M/s. Mulla and Mulla and CBC, for the Applicants. Mr. Anup Lahoti, for Respondent Nos. 2(B1) to 2(B3). Mr. Pravin V. Kamble, with Mr. Sharan Patole, for Respondent Nos. 2A to 2E in Second Appeal. Mr. Samrat K. Shinde, i/b. Mr. Tejas Deshpande, for Respondent Nos. 7 and 8. Mr. S. P. Joshi, for Respondent No. 1 in Second Appeal. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JULY 19, 2013 P.C. : At the request of Shri. Lahoti appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2(B1) to 2(B3), adjourned to 23rd July, 2013. The parties to note that no further adjournment would be granted. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)

Order - Status 12: can-20-13.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.20 OF 2013 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO.288 of 2008 Nozer Shriyar Mazda & Ors. : Applicants versus Gulab Shankar Dangat & Ors. : Respondents Mr. Agnel Carneivo i/b Mulla & Mulla CBC for the Applicants Mr. Mohan Jadhav for the Respondent Nos.3 to 6(B) Mr. Pravin Kamble for the Respondent Nos.2A, 2C to 2E Mr. T. D. Deshmukh for the Respondent Nos.7 and 8 CORAM: R M SAVANT, J DATED : 23rd JULY, 2013. P.C. 1 The above Civil Application has been filed for bringing the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) on record who are the Respondent Nos.2B1 to 2B3. In so far as the said heirs are concerned, they are represented by Mr. Lahoti whose appearance is shown on the cause list. The above Civil Application had appeared on 1972013 when at the request of Mr. Lahoti it was specifically adjourned for today, however today Mr. Lahoti has not appeared though the matter has been called out twice. This Court had made it clear on the last occasion that no further adjournment would be granted. The cause for filing the above Civil Application so as to join the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) as party Respondent is to facilitate the execution of the cancellation deed for cancelling the sale deed dated 217 2006. The Respondent No.2(A) to 2(E) have executed the sale deed dated 2162006 in favour of the Respondent Nos.7 and 8 which according to the Petitioners in the above Contempt Petition is in breach and violation of the order dated 2812002 passed in the above Second Appeal, by which order the parties were directed not to create third party rights in respect of the suit property. When the above Contempt Petition had come up before a Learned Single Judge of this Court on 2642013, the Learned Judge was informed by the parties that the Respondent Nos.2(A) to 2(E) would execute a cancellation deed cancelling the said sale deed dated 2172006, the order passed on the said day discloses that a draft of the cancellation deed was also produced before the Court. Since the Respondent No.2(B) has expired after the said sale deed was executed, the cancellation deed cannot be effectively executed without bringing the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) on record. As indicated above inspite of the matter being adjourned at the request of Mr. Lahoti, no appearance is put up for the heirs today. The Civil Application is accordingly allowed, resultantly the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) i.e. Respondent No.2B1, 2B2 and 2B3 are allowed to be brought on record of the Contempt Petition. Amendment can-20-13.sxw to be carried out within one week. Amended copy to be served on the concerned Advocates. The Civil Application is accordingly disposed of. 2 The parties have also agreed to cancel the partition deed between the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2(A) to 2(E), it seems that an undertaking to that effect was given before this Court which has been recorded in the order dated 2232013. 3 Since the impediment of the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) being not on record has now been removed. It is expected of the parties that they would execute the deed of cancellation of the sale deed as well as the deed of cancellation of the unregistered partition deed within one week of the time elapsing for carrying out the amendment, and report to this Court on the next date. The Contempt Petition is adjourned to 13th August, 2013. (R M SAVANT, J)

Order - Status 8: CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1141 OF 2016 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1142 OF 2016 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 16356 OF 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .. Applicant Vs. 1. Shri Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Devendranath S. Joshi, Advocate for applicant. CORAM : N.J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 13TH MARCH 2019 P.C. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1141 OF 2016 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 4th June 2019. Hamdast granted. Private service is permitted. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1142 OF 2016 1 The learned counsel for the applicantinsurer makes a statement that that the applicantinsurer will deposit the entire amount of compensation along with interest and costs as awarded by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mumbai by the impugned order dated 6th February 2015 in Application (ECA) No. 4/C3/2009. 2 The statement made by the learned counsel for the applicantinsurer is accepted. The applicantinsurer shall deposit the entire amount of compensation along with interest till date and costs as awarded by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mumbai within a period of four weeks from today, before the learned Commissioner. 3 In the meanwhile, there shall be adinterim stay to the execution and operation of the impugned order. It is, however, made clear that in the event, the applicantinsurer fails to deposit the aforesaid amount as directed above, the adinterim stay shall stand vacated automatically. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Regional Office-i ....APPELLANT V/S Shri. Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole And Anr....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7046 OF 2024 In First Appeal STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole ....PETITIONER V/S The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Region Office-no.2 ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 1142 OF 2016 In First Appeal STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Regional Office-i ....APPLICANT V/S Shri. Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole And Anr....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 1141 OF 2016 In First Appeal STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Regional Office-i ....APPLICANT V/S Shri. Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole And Anr....RESPONDENT None for the appellant VISHWAMBHAR MAHADEV PARKAR for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE KISHORE C. SANT J DATE : 27th March, 2024 P.C. : At the request of learned counsel for the Respondent , stand over to 24/04/2024 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Regional Office-i ....APPELLANT V/S Shri. Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole And Anr....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 1142 OF 2016 In First Appeal STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Regional Office-i ....APPLICANT V/S Shri. Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole And Anr....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 1141 OF 2016 In First Appeal STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Regional Office-i ....APPLICANT V/S Shri. Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole And Anr....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7046 OF 2024 In First Appeal STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole ....PETITIONER V/S The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Region Office-no.2 ....RESPONDENT Adv. V. M. Parkar for Appellant. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE KISHORE C. SANT J DATE : 2nd May, 2024 P.C. : S. O. to 09/05/2024 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.685 OF 2006 Smt. Shubhangi wd/o. Ramkisan Cheulkar .. Appellant versus The Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Bombay .. Respondent Mr.V.V. Mishra for appellant Mrs. Geeta Joglekar for respondent CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED :5th October, 2006. P.C:- ... Heard counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the order dated 3rd March, 2006 passed by the City Civil Court dismissing the appellant's Notice of Motion No.4308 of 1999 for injunction against demolition of his unauthorised structure on the road. The respondent municipal corporation issued a notice on 17th February, 1997 to the appellant under Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act (for short 'the Act'). The appellant did not reply the said notice nor showed cause that the structure was authorised or was not constructed on the public street, but straightway filed suit bearing L.C. Suit No.5256 of 1999 in the City Civil Court, Mumbai for injunction. In the said Suit he took out a Notice of Motion No.4308 of 1999 for an injunction restraining the respondents from demolishing his stall. After carefuly considering the material adduced before it, the City Civil Court came to the conclusion that the stall was on the public road and not in the tenanted premises as alleged by the appellant. In view of this the trial court dismissed the Motion. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any material which shows that the stall was constructed not on the public street but on private property and that he was tenant of anybody. In the circumstances the findings that the stall was on a public street, is a finding of fact which apparently is a proper finding. In view of this appellant is not entitled for any injunction. No error is found in the findings of the trial court. Appeal is dismissed summarily. ( D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.7624 of 2004 Shri Shankar Narsaiah Samala ..Petitioner vs. 1. Administrative Officer Municipal Education Board Bhiwandi, and ors. ..Respondents Shri M.S.Lagu for petitioner Shri R.M.Agrawal with Shri G.R.Agrawal for respondent no.1. Shri R.D.Rane, Addl.G.P. for respondent nos. 2 and 3. CORAM: A.P.SHAH AND S.C.DHARMADHIKARI JJ 23rd NOVEMBER, 2004 P.C. Heard Advocates. Shri Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and Shri Rane, Addl.G.P. appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 fairly conceded that the impugned directions were issued without affording to the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. It is obvious that there was violation of the principles of natural justice. It appears that respondent no.1 has suspended the payment of trained teacher to the petitioner solely on the basis of the directions given by the Deputy Director. At no stage the petitioner was heard by any of these authorities. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of recovery. We direct the Deputy Director to grant personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. All contentions on merits are left open to the parties. Petition is disposed of.

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1063 OF 2008 IN S.C.SUIT NO.313 OF 2008 ....................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda . of Coram, appearances, Court's . Orders or directions and . Registrar's Order Court's or Judge's Order ....................................................... Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b.L.J.Law for the Appellant. Mr.G.S.Godbole for Respondents. CORAM : S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 17TH OCTOBER, 2008. P.C. :- . Leave to the Appellant to make an application for removal of the debri alone before the Trial Court. (S.J.VAZIFDAR, J.)

Order - Status 8: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1063 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1304 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, appearances, Court's . orders or directions and . Registrar's orders . -------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Sanjay Jain for the Appellant. Mr.G.S. Godbole i/b Ms.J.V. Kanade for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J . DATED : 10TH NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C. : Admit. 2.The impugned order does not warrant any interference. Prima-facie, it does appear that the Plaintiff had some right in the suit structure purchased from the predecessor-in-title of the Appellant. There is nothing at this stage which indicates that the agreement dated 10.10.1988 is of no effect. Added to this is the fact that the Appellant issued the bills in respect of the Plaintiff's structure after they acquired rights in respect of the suit property. 3.It further appears that the confusion regarding the identity of the structure and co-relation thereof with the municipal numbers is on account of certain construction activity/demolition which has taken place recently. Unless these aspects are considered at the final hearing of this Appeal from Order, it would not be correct to grant interlocutory order virtually allowing the Appeal at this stage. 4.In the circumstances, no interim orders staying the operation of the impugned order. The pendency of this Appeal from Order will not be a reason for the trial Court not to proceed with the trial.

Order - Status 12: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE DISTRICT : APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1063 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1304 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's of Coram, appearances, Court's orders orders or directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b.M/s.L.J.Law for the Appellant. Mr.Girish Godbole i/b.Mr.J.V.Kanade for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 17TH DECEMBER, 2008 P.C : Order in terms of the consent terms/Minutes of the Order, tendered in Court and marked 'X' and 'X1' respectively. The consent terms have been signed by he parties and their Advocates. The compliance regarding registration shall be informed to the Court. ***

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE,CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5852 OF 2007 Vardhman Industries Ltd...Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Prakash Shah for the Petitioners i/b.PDS Legal. Mr. R.V.Desai,Senior Counselwith Mrs.S.V.Bharucha, for the Respondents. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO & S.R.SATHE,JJ. DATED: 16TH AUGUST, 2007 P.C.: . At the request of the learned Counsel for the respondent reply, if advised to be filed within one week. Petitioners to file rejoinder within one week thereafter. Place the matter on board on 30th August, 2007. (S.R.SATHE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) MGN

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5852 OF 2007 Vardhman Industries Ltd. V/S. Union Of India And Ors. ...Petitioner ... Respondents Ms. Arya Anil i/b. Mr. Sriram Sridharan for the Petitioner. CORAM : G.S. KULKARNI & RAJESH .S. PATIL, JJ. DATED : 9 th JUNE, 2023 P.C.: Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave to take discharge in this Petition. Stand over to $23^{rd}$ June, 2023. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (G.S. KULKARNI, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5852 OF 2007 …. Vardhman Industries Ltd. .. Petitioner v/s. Union of India And Ors. .. Respondents …. Mr. Sriram Sridharan, i/b. M/s. PDS Legal, for the Petitioner. CORAM: G.S. KULKARNI & JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. DATE : 30th JUNE 2023 P.C:- Mr. Sridharan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, states that already steps are taken by him to obtain a discharge. Accordingly, as a last chance, stand over to 14th July 2023. Mr. Sridharan to inform the Petitioner of the present order. (JITENDRA JAIN, J.) (G.S. KULKARNI, J.) SMITA JOHNSON GONSALVES Digitally signed by SMITA JOHNSON GONSALVES Date: 2023.07.03 10:47:20 +0530

Order - Status 12: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5852 OF 2007 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders None present. CORAM : H. M. BHOSALE REGISTRAR (JUDL-I) Date : 07/07/2023 M/s. PDS Legal, Advocate representing the Petitioner in the present Petition has sought discharge vide preacipe dated 23/06/2023. The Hon'ble Court (Coram : G. S. Kulkarni & Jitendra Jain, JJ) vide order dated 30/06/2023 is pleased to direct the learned Advocate for the Petitioner to inform the petitioner of the order dated 30/06/2023 and the petition is scheduled on 14th July 2023. Therefore, it would be just and proper to place the present petition before the Hon'ble Court on 14th July 2023. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial-I)

Order - Status 49: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5852 OF 2007 Vardhman Industries Ltd. ….Petitioner V/s. Union of India and Ors. .…Respondents ---- Mr. Sriram Sridharan i/b. M/s. PDS Legal for petitioner. None for respondents. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. DATED : 14th JUNE 2024 P.C. : 1 Advocates for petitioner have been discharged pursuant to a chamber order dated 7th July 2023. Nobody else has entered appearance for petitioner. 2 Petition dismissed. (JITENDRA JAIN, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5757 OF 2008 Mr.Baliram Namdev Wagh. ..Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. None present. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : AUGUST 6, 2008. P.C. : None appears. Dismissed for non-prosecution. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)

Order - Status 11: mptIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5757 of 2008 Mr.Baliram .. Namdev Wagh Petitioner versus State.. of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondents ... Mr.K.H. Holambe for the petitioner. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED : 5th September 2008 P.C.: 1.Issue notice returnable on 1st October 2008. 2.In addition, petitioners to serve the respondents by advocate's notice, either personally or by courier/speed post/e-mail/fax, and file an affidavit of service before the returnable date. 3.Status quo as of today be maintained with regard to the suit property. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)

Order - Status 13: ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5757 OF 2008 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Court's or Judge's Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.B.V.Holambe-Patil for the Petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Behere for Respondent No.2. CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED : 1st October, 2008. P.C. . By consent, adjourned for two weeks. Status-quo as ordered on 5th September, 2008 to continue till then. [ ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.]

Order - Status 16: ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5757 OF 2008 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Court's or Judge's Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.B.V.Holambe-Patil i/by Mr.K.H.Holame for the Petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Behere for Respondent No.2. CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED : 17th October, 2008. P.C. . By consent, adjourned to 24/10/2008. Meanwhile, status-quo to continue till then. [ ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.]

Order - Status 20: SPB FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. I IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5757 OF 2008 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders None for the Petitioner. Mr.S.A. Rayrikar, AGP for the State. Mr.Sameer D. Pendse i/by Rajesh Behere for the respondent no.2. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 04TH DECEMBER, 2008 P.C.: 1. None present for the petitioner again. Put on Wednesday, the 10th of December, 2008 as a last chance for dismissal. (Anoop V.Mohta,J)

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5757 OF 2008 Mr. Baliram Namdev Wagh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents None present for the Petitioner. Shri Sameer D. Pendse i/b Shri Rajesh Behere for Respondent No.2. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED: DECEMBER 10, 2008 P.C: As none appeared for the petitioner on 2-12-2008, the matter was adjourned to 4-12-2008 for dismissal. On 4-12-2008 as again none appeared for the petitioner, as last chance, the matter was ordered to be listed today under the same caption. Even today when the matter is called out, none appears for the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petition is dismissed for default. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) sjs/D8wp5757.8

Order - Status 27: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5757 OF 2008 Mr.Baliram Namdev Wagh ...Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Ganesh Nagargose i/b Mr.K.H.Holambe Patil for Petitioner. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.Pankaj Das for Respondent No.2. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. MARCH 20, 2009. P.C. ...... Request for adjournment is made on the ground that the Advocate on record for the Petitioner is unwell and has been hospitalised. In the circumstances, stand over to 30th April 2009. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Order - Status 32: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5757 OF 2008 Mr.Baliram Namdev Wagh .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.K.H.Holambe-Patil for the petitioner. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P for the State. Mr.Milind D. Parab for the respondent no.2. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 12th August 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2. The petitioner is the 1st defendant. The 2nd respondent is the original plaintiff. In a suit filed by the 2nd respondent, ex-parte decree has been passed against the petitioner. The petitioner has made an application for setting aside the exparte decree and has also prayed for stay. In the meanwhile, 2nd respondent filed execution application and applied for arrest and detention of the petitioner under Rule 30 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. An application was made by the petitioner in the execution application for stay of proceedings of the execution on the ground that his application for setting aside exparte decree was pending. By the impugned order the said application has been rejected. After having considered the submissions of the petitioner, I find no fault with the impugned order. The application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the exparte decree is still pending. If at all the petitioner is entitled to stay of execution of the decree, he has to apply for stay in application for setting aside exparte decree. Unless stay is granted in application for setting aside exparte decree, the executing Court was justified in not granting stay. Unless there is a stay granted to the execution by the competent Court in appropriate proceedings, the execution has to proceed. Therefore, no case for interference is made out. However, it will be open for the petitioner to apply for stay in the pending application for setting aside the exparte decree. To enable the petitioner to do so, ad-interim relief granted by this Court can be continued for a reasonable time. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) The petition is rejected. The rejection of the petition will not preclude the petitioner from applying for appropriate interim relief in the pending application for setting aside exparte decree. (b) To enable the petitioner to take steps, ad-interim relief granted by this Court on 17th October 2008 will continue to operate for a period of six weeks from today. (A.S.OKA,J)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 467 OF 2002 AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 468 OF 2002 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or orders or directions & Judge's orders. Registrar's orders. Shri Mohan N. Dhamal for the Appellant. Shri L.S. Gaikwad for Respondent Nos.1B, 2 and 3. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18TH MARCH, 2011 P.C.: . Learned counsel appearing for the parties state that both the parties are present in the Court. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant on instructions of the Appellant who is personally present in the Court seeks permission to withdraw the Appeals. Accordingly, the Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. The Appellants will be entitled to refund of Court fees as per the rules. Civil Application No.1956 of 2002 in First Appeal No.467 of 2002 does not survive and the same is disposed of. ( A.S.OKA, J )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Chitra Vasant More Petitioner Vs. Bhavika Vidya Prasarak Respondents Mandal and Ors. Mr. Mandar Limaye, for the petitioner. Mr. Dilip Bodke, for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : Dr. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATED : 21st, November 2008. P.C. . The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondent seeks an adjournment to file a reply. The reply shall be filed on or before 5th December, 2008. Matter be placed for final disposal on 12th December, 2008. Sd/- [ Dr. D.Y. ChANDRACHUD, J.]

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4197 OF 2008 Mrs.Chitra Vasant More : Petitioner V/s. Bhavika Vidya Prasarak Mandal & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.Mandar Limaye for the petitioner. Mr.Dilip Bodke for respondent nos.1 to 3. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : JANUARY 12, 2009. P.C . Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr.Bodke waives service for the respondent nos.1 to 3. Heard by consent. The petitioner teacher has challenged the judgement and order dated 4.2.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Addl. School Tribunal, New Mumbai, in appeal no.48 of 2007. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against her dismissal from service. The petitioner was dismissed in pursuance of an inquiry in which it was found that she along with others was guilty of misconduct i.e. distribution of a letter containing serious grievances against the management and going on a relay hunger strike in front of the office of the Zilla Parishad. In appeal filed by the petitioner, the learned Tribunal relied on two letters dated 8.6.2006 and 31.7.2006 in which the petitioner has explained the circumstances in which she along with others participated in the hunger strike. In fact, in relation to participation in the hunger strike, the petitioner denied their actual participation on the ground that on 15.5.2006 i.e. the day of the strike, she was due to get married and she was busy in the performance of the marriage. There is no dispute about the proposed marriage, but the Tribunal has observed on the basis of oral arguments of Mr.Modgi that the marriage was postponed. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner has admitted the participation in the strike in the above letters. The finding of the Tribunal in regard to circulation of the pamphlet containing defamatory matter is not clear. It may be noted that there is no admission in this regard by the petitioner at all since the petitioner has written in her letter that on that date, certain teachers who had been removed from service distributed letters. Obviously, the petitioner was not one of them because she had not been removed from service on that date. There is also no dispute that the petitioner's name does not appear as one of the signatories of the pamphlet. Mr.Mandar Limaye, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the order of the School Tribunal is vitiated since it is held that it is not necessary to hold any inquiry. The learned counsel submitted that even if there are letters apparently containing an admission where there is a denial of actual participation by the delinquent, there must be a finding of fact and an inquiry cannot be dispensed with. He further pointed out that in the present case, the conduct of the teachers cannot be described as misconduct because they went on a hunger strike in the Zilla Parishad office and not in the school premises and, therefore, there was no cessation of work. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgement of this Court in Nandkumar Mahadeo Dengane & Ors. v. Bhavika Vidya Prasarak Mandal & Ors. (2008 (4) Bom.C.R. 319). Having perused the judgement in the aforesaid case, it is clear that this Court was deciding an identical view taken by the Tribunal arising out of the same incident. This Court held that the acts with which the teachers such as the petitioner were charged with do not constitute misconduct. This Court further held that there is a violation of rule 36 of the MEPS Rules. This Court, -: 4 :- therefore, set aside the order of the Tribunal. Mr.Bodke, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3, submitted that it cannot be said that there is no misconduct since the petitioner could be said to be guilty of misconduct described by the residuary clauses which read as follows:- "(i) breach of the terms and conditions of service laid down by or under these rules; (ii) violation of the code of conduct; and (iii) any other act of similar nature." However, the learned counsel is not in a position to point out the basic definition from which similarity can be worked out. I find that the challenge is substantially covered by the judgement of this Court in Nandkumar's case (supra) and the petition is liable to be allowed and is, accordingly, allowed. Mr.Limaye points out that the petitioner has not been reinstated in service till now. He further pointed out that other teachers in whose favour this Court passed an order have also not been reinstated in service. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I consider it appropriate to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner within a period of one month from today along with consequential benefits. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. S.A. BOBDE, J.

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1087 OF 2005 State of Maharashtra V/s Applicant. Khandu Mahadu Hake Respondent. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office ) Court's or Judge'sOrders Memoranda of Coram, appearances, ) - Court's orders or directions and ) Registrar's orders. ) ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Mr.A.M. Shringarpure, APP for the State. CORAM:V.G. PALSHIKAR AND R.C. CHAVAN, JJ. 20.7.2005 PC: Heard. Application for leave to file the appeal is granted. Appeal admitted. Record and proceedings be called for. 20.7.05