All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1105 OF 2015 Ghanshyam Jagannath Vishwakarma ... Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Ms. Priyanka S.Karnik, Advocate appointed ,for the applicant. Ms. P.P.Shinde, APP, for the State CORAM: SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV,J. DATE : 18th June, 2015. P.C . An application is received through jail. The applicant is praying for bail in Case No.253 of 2012 registered at Kandivli Police Station. This Court had requested the learned counsel Ms. Priyanka S. Karnik, to espouse the cause of the applicant. He has graciously accepted to do the same. Office to furnish copy of the application to the Advocate so appointed. The learned APP to take specific instructions in respect of the stage of the trial. S.O. 30.6.2015 (SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1105 OF 2015 Ghanshyam Jagannath Vishwakarma .....Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent None for Applicant Ms. P. P. Shinde APP for the State. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATED : 30th JUNE 2015 PC : Learned APP has placed on record the report showing that applicant herein has been enlarged on bail on 12/06/2015. It is also fairly submitted that applicant has attended Sessions Court on 18/06/2015. Report is taken on record and marked as article 'X' for the purpose of identification. In view of this, prayers in the application have become infructuous. Application stands disposed of in above terms. Office to communicate this order to the Sessions Court. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6285 OF 2017 Shri. Ajay Rajendra Pawar ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent Suresh M Sabrad For Petitioner Mrs.R.M.Shinde,A.G.P.for state. CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M.S. SONAK, JJ DATE : 14th June, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 12/07/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6285 OF 2017 Shri. Ajay Rajendra Pawar ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ....Respondent Suresh M Sabrad For Petitioner Shri P.P. More, AGP for State. CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M.S. SONAK, JJ DATE : 12th July, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 13/07/2017 under the caption of withdrawal. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6285 OF 2017 Ajay R. Pawar ..Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents Mr. S.M. Sabrad for the Petitioner Mr. P.P. More, AGP for the Respondents – State. CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M. S. SONAK, JJ. DATE : JULY 13, 2017. P.C. : . The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order dated 6th May 2016 did not consider the Government Resolution (G.R.) dated 12th March 2013 (ExhibitW), the report dated 16th February 2016 of the Additional Collector and the various judgments passed by this Court from time to time. 2] We find that there is no mention about consideration of the said G.R., report of the Additional Collector as also the judgments on which the petitioner has placed reliance. In the circumstances, we allow the petitioner to withdraw this petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition before respondent No.1. The petitioner may file the review petition within two weeks. 3] Needless to say that we have not commented upon the merits on the petitioner's entitlement. The respondent No.1 is free to decide the review petition, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of filing of such review petition. 4] With aforesaid liberty, the petition is allowed to be withdrawn. (M. S. SONAK, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16 OF 2014 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2013 Mr.Kobad Dorabji Davierwalla ...Applicant / Orig.Respondent No.1 In the matter between Mrs.Perin Hoshang Davierwalla & Anr. ...Appellants vs. Mr.Kobad Dorabji Davierwalla & Ors. ...Respondents AND REVIEW PETITION (STAMP) NO. 19448 OF 2014 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2013 WITH CIVIL APPLIATION NO. 171 OF 2014 Mrs.Perin Hoshang Davierwalla & Anr. vs. Petitioners / Orig.Appellants Mr.A.V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Prathamesh Bhargav i/b. Mr.S.B. Deshmukh for Applicant (Original Respondent No.1). Mr.Darius Khambata, Senior Advocate with Mr.J.B. Sen, Senior Advocate, Mr.Akshay Patil i/b. M/s.Federal & Rashmikant for Respondent No.1 and 2 (Original Appellants). Mr.Priyanka Vegad for Respondent No.2 in Review Petition No**.**19448/2014, Arb.Appeal No.42/2013, Respondent No.3 in CA 16/2014. Mr.B.K. Bali i/b. M/s.Bali Associates for Respondent No.3. CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J. 01 SEPTEMBER 2014 P.C. : The delay of fourty-five days in taking out the review petition is condoned, and the review petition is taken up for hearing. 2 The review petition is filed by the original Appellants seeking a review of paragraphs 16 and 17(ii) of the order passed by this Court on 7 May 2014 and modification of the same by directing Respondent No.1 to vacate the two rooms in the hotel premises, currently in occupation of Respondent No.1 as agent of the Court Receiver without payment of royalty and security. The application is made in the following facts. 3 The Appellants and Respondents are partners in a partnership firm called IL Palazzo Hotel running a business of lodging and boarding house at Panchgani in Maharashtra. During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings between the parties for adjudication of disputes arising out of dissolution of this partnership firm by the Appellants, by an order passed by this Court on 7 May 2014, Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay has been appointed as a receiver of the assets and business of the partnership firm. The Appellants have been appointed as agents of the Court Receiver for conducting the business of IL Palazzo Hotel on payment of royalty. Paragraph 15 of this order inter alia records that Respondent No.1, who was carrying on business on the date of this order, not only had the suit business as the only source of livelihood, but even lived in two rooms within the building where the partnership business of lodging and boarding house was carried on. The order records the plea of Respondent No.1 that the residence of Respondent No.1 inter alia needs to be protected since he was actually using the two rooms. Accordingly, paragraph 17(ii) of the order provides that Respondent No.1 would be entitled to retain these two rooms presently in his personal use for the residence of himself and his family as agent of the Court Receiver without payment of any royalty or security. 4 It is a case of the Appellants in the present review petition that on or about 20 April 2014, after the conclusion of the hearings in the appeal, the Appellants came to know that Respondent No.1 has been in possession of a two storied apartment bungalow with a workable basement in Khinger village (about 3 to 4 km from IL Palazzo Hotel) admeasuring an area of more than 2000 sq.ft.; that this bungalow was in the name of Respondent No.1 and his wife; that the bungalow has a telephone installed therein; that the Respondent has been paying telephone and electricity charges; that this bungalow has been used by Respondent No.1 for the residence of himself and his family since much before the passing of the order dated 7 May 2014 and till today; that in the premises, Respondent No.1 has never actually resided in the hotel premises even once after the charge of the hotel was handed over to the Appellants, as agents of the Court Receiver and that, on the other hand, Respondent No.1 and his wife have only visited the two rooms occasionally during all this period; that the wife of Respondent No.1 had been interfering with the administration and functioning of the hotel and ordering around the staff and interacting with the hotel guests; and that in the premises, it is necessary and in the interests of justice that the directions in the order dated 7 May 2014 be modified and Respondent No.1 and his family be directed to vacate the rooms occupied by them in the hotel premises. 4 Along with the review petition, there is an application filed by Respondent No.1 himself inter alia for certain modifications to the order of 7 May 2014. It is prayed by Respondent No.1 that he should be allowed to use all common facilities, services, amenities, etc. provided in the hotel such as common hot and cold water, appliances, common generators and other infrastructure and utility services without any charge. Respondent No.1 has also applied for use of boarding facilities and services provided by the hotel at a charge of Rs.10,000/ per month. By an amendment proposed in the affidavit dated 22 June 2014, Respondent No.1 sought to amend the prayer inter alia providing for payment of charges in the sum of Rs.3500/- per month for use of the common and shared amenities and services provided in the hotel. Respondent No.1 does not press his prayer for provision of boarding facilities against payment of Rs.10,000/- per month, as originally proposed in his civil application. Thus, the application is now for permission to use all common amenities and facilities provided by the hotel on payment of a charge of Rs.3500/- per month. 5 It is obvious that the original application for permission to retain the two rooms claimed to be in occupation of Respondent No.1, as agent of the Court Receiver and without payment of royalty or security, was on the express footing that Respondent No.1 had all along been using, and even now requires, the two rooms for residence of himself and his family. At no stage in the pending appeal, before the order was passed on 7 May 2014, had the Respondent indicated that he was in possession of, and using, a bungalow of more than 2000 sq.ft. at Khinger village near IL Palazzo Hotel. In fact, in his reply filed in the review petition, Respondent No.1 has not disputed his residence in the bungalow at Khinger. All that the Respondent mentions in his reply to the review petition is that the two rooms in the hotel are his permanent residence; that all official documents, fax documents and administrative documents have the address of the hotel as his permanent residence; and that it would cause great difficulty to Respondent No.1 if this permanent address has to be changed temporarily. It is also submitted by Respondent No.1 that the bungalow at Khinger is not habitable round the year; that residence at this bungalow is not practicable due to its distant location, extreme weather conditions, etc. However, Respondent No.1 has not said that he does not actually use the bungalow as his residence. 6 Secondly, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 that photographs of this bungalow were shown to the Court by the Appellants, before this Court passed its order on 7 May 2014. Since these photographs were before the Court, it is submitted that the attention of the Court was invited to the existence of this bungalow and that therefore, the facts narrated before the Court in the review petition are neither new nor brought for the first time before the Court to enable the Appellants to apply for review of the order. It may be that the photographs were shown to the Court when this Court passed its order on 7 May 2013. The photographs were, however, not shown by Respondent No.1. The contest as to whether this bungalow was actually used as residence by Respondent No.1 throughout the relevant period was not before the Court when the order of 7 May 2014 was passed. The Appellants have claimed in the review petition that this fact came to light after the hearing of the matter concluded on 23 April 2014 and the order was reserved. On the basis of their knowledge acquired subsequently, the Appellants have averred in the review petition that Respondent No.1 and his family have been residing in the bungalow at Khinger and have not used the two rooms for residence at any time during the period of pendency of the arbitration appeal. There is no effective denial of this fact in the reply of Respondent No.1. Secondly, it is submitted that right from inception, four rooms have been kept for three groups of partners of the firm for their residence and that these rooms have been kept for residence of the parties in spite of the fact that even the Appellants have their bungalow at Panchgani, not very far from IL Palazzo hotel. It is submitted that even today, two rooms are in occupation of the Appellants. Whether or not the two rooms are in occupation of the Appellants, it is a fact that these two rooms have been treated to be a part of the hotel premises under the order of 7 May 2014 and the compensation payable by the Appellants as agents of the Court Receiver has been worked out on that basis. Whether the rooms are, in fact, used as guest rooms to be rented out for the hotel business or whether they are actually used for occupation of the Appellants, is immaterial as long as these two rooms are in occupation of the Appellants as agents of the Court Receiver for conducting the hotel business and the Appellants are paying compensation for the same as agents of the Court Receiver. In fact, the fact that two rooms in occupation of the Appellants for their residence have been made part of the hotel premises, in occupation of the agents of the Court Receiver and for which compensation is payable by the agents, supports the Appellants' case that the two rooms which are in occupation of Respondent No.1 and which are not actually used for his residence ought to be made over to the Court Receiver for conducting the hotel business. The Appellants have offered to pay an additional royalty of Rs.6 lakhs per annum for the two rooms to be vacated by Respondent No.1 and allowed to be used for the hotel. This additional royalty is offered with a view to account for the additional revenue that may accrue to the agents, if these two rooms are allowed to be used for the hotel. 7 Lastly, it is submitted that the Court Receiver has not been appointed of the four rooms which were in occupation of the partners for their respective residence. This submission is made on the basis of the licence issued by the authorities, which is in respect of 17 rooms only. It may be that the licence for renting out room to the guests exists in respect of 17 rooms for the lodging business of the hotel, but there is nothing to indicate that these two rooms are not part of the assets of the partnership firm of which Court Receiver is appointed. In fact, it is on the basis that the Court Receiver is appointed also of these four rooms that the two rooms in occupation of the Appellants have been made part of the agency business and for which the Appellants have been asked to pay compensation. So also, it is on the same basis that Respondent No.1 is directed to be appointed as agent of the Court Receiver without any royalty for the two rooms purportedly in his occupation. There is no substance in the plea that the Court Receiver is not appointed of these four rooms. 8 In the premises, the review petition filed by the Appellants deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the order of 7 May 2014 is modified by directing Respondent No.1 to vacate the two rooms in his occupation and make over the same to the Court Receiver for being used as part of the hotel premises. With effect from the expiry of a period of 45 days after the rooms are vacated and possession thereof is handed over to the Court Receiver by Respondent No.1, the Appellants shall pay an additional royalty of Rs.6 lakhs per annum for use of these two rooms as part of the agency agreement. This amount shall be paid on a quarterly basis as in the case of royalty of Rs.70 lakhs payable per annum for the agency of the hotel. 9 At the time of handing over of the two rooms by Respondent No.1 to the Court Receiver, the Court Receiver shall prepare an inventory of the furnitures and fixtures lying within the premises. Respondent No.1 shall be at liberty to make a claim in respect of these furnitures and fixtures at the hearing before the District Court or before the Arbitrator, as the case may be. The Court Receiver will, of course, permit Respondent No.1 to take away his movables lying within the two rooms. 10 Having regard to the order passed on the review petition, the civil application of Respondent No.1 for use of additional amenities and facilities provided by the hotel in connection with the two rooms in his occupation as agent of the Receiver, does not survive and is disposed of. 11 There shall be no order as to costs. 12 On the application of the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, this order is stayed for a period of five weeks from today. (S.C. Gupte, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3353 OF 2021 Ramesh Baban Gavhane & Anr. Petitioners Vs. Shaila Suresh Kanhurkar Respondent Mr. Drupad Patil for Petitioners Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. Date : 26th JULY, 2021 P.C.: Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, on instructions makes a motion for withdrawal of the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, this will not preclude the Petitioner from taking out such other proceedings as are permissible and available in law, which be dealt with in accordance with law without being influenced by the withdrawal of the present petition. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

Order - Status 4: SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Digitally signed by SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Date: 2023.06.02 16:44:17 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1486 OF 2023 Sachin Hemant Sawant and Anr. ...Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents ***** Mr.Mayank Joshi – Advocate for Applicants. Mr.Y.Y.Dabke – APP for the Respondent – State. ***** CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : st 31 MAY, 2023 P. C. :- Mentioned out of turn. Learned Advocate for the Applicants seeks liberty to carry out an amendment in the Application. Liberty granted. It be carried out within a week. Copy be served on other side. Matter be kept on 13th June, 2023. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1486 OF 2023 Sachin Hemant Sawant And Anr. APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra And Ors. RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHRIRAM MADHUSUDAN MODAK J DATE : 17th July, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 17/08/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1486 OF 2023 Sachin Hemant Sawant And Anr. APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra And Ors. RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHRIRAM MADHUSUDAN MODAK J DATE : 24th July, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 28/07/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1486 OF 2023 Sachin Hemant Sawant and Anr. ...Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents ***** Mr. Mayank Joshi - Advocate for the Applicant Mr. H. J. Dedhia - APP for the Respondent/State ***** CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 28th JULY, 2023 P. C. :- The Respondent No. 2 is department of the CGST. Recently, they have not been served about circulation. Matter be kept on 31st July, 2023, high on board. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 13: +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1486 OF 2023 Sachin Hemant Sawant and Anr. ...Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents ***** Mr.Mayank Joshi a/w Mr.Sumedh Sonawane and Mr.Parshva Bhankharia – Advocates for Applicants. Mr.H.J.Dedhia – APP for Respondent No.1 – State. Mr.Santosh Khedkar – Assistant Commissioner SGST–Mazgaon, Mumbai–INV–044. Mr.Rajendra Pisal – State Tax Officer–Thane–THA–SUR–C–002. ***** CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATED : 31ST JULY 2023 P. C. : Heard learned Advocate for the Applicants. There is a preliminary objection taken by learned APP about placing this Application before the concerned Court. According to him, Thane Office of Sales Tax Department is not going to lodge prosecution but Competent Authority is the Mazgaon Office – Mumbai. With their assistance, my attention is invited to the following three documents :- (a) A show cause notice issued for cancellation of registration on Page No.22 dated 7th September, 2022. (b) Summons issued by Assistant Commissioner of State Tax – Mazgaon, Mumbai dated 31st March, 2023 on Page No.25 wherein, the Applicant was directed to remain present for recording statement under Section 70 of MGST Act. (c) A show cause notice for cancellation of registration dated 26th April, 2023 issued by Thane Office (Page No.31). Learned APP after taking instructions submitted that Thane Office is not going to initiate any prosecution against the Applicant. The statement is accepted. In view of that, the subject does not fall within the assignment of this Court. So, only apprehension remains is on the basis of summons issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax – Mazgaon. In respect of that apprehension, let Office to place it before Appropriate Bench. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1486 OF 2023 Sachin Hemant Sawant and Anr. … Applicants versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents None for Applicants. Mr. R.M.Pethe, APP for State. CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 8 SEPTEMBER 2023 P.C. None appears for the Applicants when called out. Stand over to 12 October 2023. ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. ) SSP 1/1

Order - Status 18: 4-ABA-1486-23.DOC Sayali Upasani IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1486 OF 2023 Sachin Hemant Sawant and Others ...Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents None for Applicants. Mr. M. G. Patil, APP for State. CORAM:- N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED:- 12th OCTOBER, 2023 PC:- None present for the applicants. None had appeared for the applicants on 8th September, 2023 as well. The application stands dismissed for want of prosecution. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] Signed by: Sayali D Upasani Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 13/10/2023 11:46:26 1/1

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.865 OF 2010 (Rekha Vs.Vijay) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's order Court's or Judge's orders Mr.Saeed Akhtar, for appellant. CORAM : R.G.KETKAR,J. DATE : 7th JULY, 2010 P.C. Heard Mr.Saeed Akhtar, learned counsel for the appellants. 2] Issue notice before admission to the respondent, returnable after four weeks. 3] In the meantime, call for Record and Proceedings of the case. The appellant shall file compilation of the relevant documents before the next of hearing. [R.G.KETKAR, J.] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2392 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.865 OF 2010 (Rekha Vs.Vijay) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's order Court's or Judge's orders Mr.Saeed Akhtar, for applicant. CORAM : R.G.KETKAR,J. DATE : 7th JULY, 2010 P.C. Heard Mr.Saeed Akhtar, learned counsel for the applicants. 2] This application is preferred by the original plaintiffs praying for injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from disturbing the peaceful use and occupation and exclusive possession of the suit tenement. 3] Rule. Rule is made returnable after four weeks. 4] Mr.Saeed submits that during the pendency of the suit, the appellants took out Notice of Motion. By order dated 27th October, 2005, the learned trial Judge restrained the respondent/original defendant from disturbing peaceful possession of the appellants in respect of Tenement No.61/2729, Second Floor, Bandra Tarang CHS Ltd., Gandhi Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai. In so far as the shop No.1 situate in the same society is concerned, the learned trial Judge has issued injunction restraining the respondent from causing obstruction and interference in peaceful possession of the appellants. 5] In view of this, there shall be adinterim order in terms of prayer clause (a). [R.G.KETKAR, J.]

Order - Status 11: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2392 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 865 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or orders or directions & Judge's orders. Registrar's orders. Shri Saeed Akhtar for the Applicants. Shri K.S. Patil for the Respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 27TH JANUARY, 2011 P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Applicants. He submits that interim relief during pendency of the suit was operating in terms of prayer clause (a) of this application and, therefore, the said interim relief deserves to be continued. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent opposed the said prayer by submitting that the case made out by the Applicants regarding exclusive possession has been discarded by the Trial Court. There was an interim relief operating during pendency of the suit granted in terms of prayer clause (a) of this application which deserves to be continued. Accordingly, the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to condition that the Applicants will not create any third party rights and will not part with possession of the suit premises in favour of any third party. (A.S.OKA, J)

Order - Status 5: 35APL6222016.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 622 OF 2016 Kapil Vilas Gandhi …Applicant Versus Ritesh Khandewal & Anr. …Respondents Mr. Kuldeep U. Nikam, for the Applicant. Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP for Respondent No.2State. CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 20th June 2016 P.C. : Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and learned APP for 2nd Respondent. Issue notice to the 1st Respondent returnable on 4th August 2016. In addition to service through Court, the Advocate for the Applicant is directed to serve private notice along with an authenticated copy of this order. If proper Affidavit of Service is not filed on or before 27th July 2016, the Application shall stand dismissed for non prosecution without further reference to the Court. By way of adinterim relief, we direct that though 35APL6222016.doc investigation shall continue in the subject F.I.R., ChargeSheet shall not be filed as against the Applicant. [A.A. SAYED, J.] [A.S. OKA, J.]

Order - Status 6: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 662 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memorandam of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders None for the Applicant. Shri. A.S.Patil, APP. for the State. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 02nd August, 2016 P.C. None for the applicant. Even on earlier occasion none appeared for the applicant. Dismissed for non prosecution. (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 8: Vidya amin IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION AND CIVIL/CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : A.S. OKA & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : 4TH AUGUST, 2016. P.C. On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on Supplementary Board are adjourned to dates fixed as per the CMIS (Court Management Information System) which read as under: Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 44, 45, 46, 51, 52, 53 (Cri.) 28/11/2016 47(Cri) 15/06/2017 48 (O.S.), 60 (Cri.) 16/08/2016 49, 50 (Cri.) 27/09/2016 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 (Cri) 29/11/2016 61 (Cri.) 21/10/2016 62, 63 (O.S.) 21/09/2016 64, 66 (Cri.) 27/09/2016 65 (Civil) 25/08/2016 67 (Cri.) 18/08/2016 If in any of the above matters, adinterim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates fixed in the matters. If adinterim or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. If there is an extreme urgency, the parties can get the papers produced before this Court. (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 622 OF 2016 Kapil Vilas Gandhi ....Applicant V/S Ritesh Khandewal And Anr ....Respondent Kuldeep U. Nikam For Applicant Mr. A. K. Saxena a/w Ravi Subash Rattesar Respondent No.1 Dr. F. R. Shaikh APP for state CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ DATE : 27th September, 2016 P.C. : Place the petition on 28/09/2016 at 12.30 p.m. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 622 OF 2016 Kapil Vilas Gandhi …Applicant Versus Ritesh Khandewal & Anr. …Respondents Mr. Kuldeep U. Nikam, for the Applicant. Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP for Respondent No.2-State. Mr.A.K.Saxena i/b Mr.Ravi S.Rattesar for the Respondent No.1. ... CORAM : A.S.OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 28 SEPTEMBER 2016 P.C.: Learned APP has tendered across the bar, the report dated 22 September 2016 submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police of Lonawala City Police Station. In the report, it is stated that the charge sheet is being filed by the police against the accused Vicky Rajpal. Further, it is stated therein that there was no material found against the Applicant showing his involvement in the crime and therefore, charge sheet will not be filed as against the present Applicant. The statement is accepted. The report is taken on record and marked "R-1" for identification. The report shall be kept in a sealed envelope and copies of the report shall not be furnished to any party without express order of this Court. In view of the aforesaid statement made in the report, the present Application for quashing the First Information Report need not be entertained. Learned Counsel for the first Respondent submits that there is a material against the Applicant. However, it is for the first informant to take appropriate steps in that behalf. Suffice it to say that in view of what is stated in the report, at this stage, the present Application for quashing the First Information Report need not be entertained and the same is accordingly disposed of. In any event, under the orders of the Court if the police are permitted to carry out any further investigation as against the Applicant, it will be open for the Applicant to file a fresh Application seeking a relief which is sought in this Application. Subject to what is observed above, the Application is disposed of. (A.A. SAYED, J.) (A.S.OKA, J.)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.490 OF 2015 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.773 OF 2015 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. Shyamkumar Marwadi for applicant. Ms. Mallika Ingale for respondent no.2. Mr. Tapan Thatte for Intervener in APPP-490/2015. Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for State. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 17th November 2015 P.C.: This application has been taken out by the original complainant for intervention in Anticipatory Bail Application no.773 of 2015. For the reasons stated in the said application and in the interest of justice, I am inclined to allow the said application. The applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application No.773 of 2015 is hereby directed to implead the original complainant as respondent no.3. The amendment to be carried out within one week from today. The application is allowed in the above terms. (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1541/2015 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO.1236/2015 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders - Mr. N. M. Bhole for the Applicant CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : OCTOBER 13, 2015 P.C.: Heard. This Application is made by the Plaintiff for condonation of 8 days delay in filing the appeal challenging the decree dated 08/09/2014 passed by the Appellate Court in civil appeal NO.164/2008. Rule. Rule made returnable after 12 weeks. In addition to usual mode of service, Applicant is permitted to serve Respondents by private notice either by registered post A.D. and/or by hand delivery and file Affidavit of Service to that effect. JUDGE

Order - Status 6: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1541 OF 2015 IN SECOND APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 1236 OF 2015 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 : R.M. JOSHI REGISTRAR (JUDL.II) DATE : 18th November, 2015 One week time granted to supply copies for issuing notice to Respondent. REGISTRAR (JUDL.II)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1541 OF 2015 IN SECOND APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 1236 OF 2015 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 : R.M. JOSHI REGISTRAR (JUDL.II) DATE : 30th November, 2015 S.O. one week time granted to supply copies for issuing notice to Respondents, as a last chance. REGISTRAR (JUDL.II)

Order - Status 8: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1541 OF 2015 IN SECOND APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 1236 OF 2015 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 : R.M. JOSHI REGISTRAR (JUDL.II) DATE : 14th December, 2015 S.O. two weeks time granted to supply copies failing which this Civil Application stand disposed of without reference to the Court. REGISTRAR (JUDL.II)

Order - Status 10: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1541 OF 2015 IN SECOND APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 1236 OF 2015 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 : R.M. JOSHI REGISTRAR (JUDL.II) DATE : 7th January 2016 Issue notice to Respondent, returnable date is extended by eight (8) weeks. REGISTRAR (JUDL.II)

Order - Status 12: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1541 OF 2015 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO.1236 OF 2015 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders Registrar's orders Adv. for Appellant present CORAM : A.N. MARE REGISTRAR (JUDLII) Date : 3/03/2016 S.O. three (3) weeks time granted to take steps against unserved R.No.1. REGISTRAR (JUDLII)

Order - Status 14: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1541 OF 2015 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO.1236 OF 2015 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders Registrar's orders None present CORAM : A.N. MARE REGISTRAR (JUDLII) Date : 28/03/2016 S.O. three (3) weeks i.e. 18/04/2016 time granted to take steps against deceased Respondent No.1. sd/ REGISTRAR (JUDLII)

Order - Status 16: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1541 OF 2015 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO.1236 OF 2015 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders Registrar's orders CORAM : A.N. MARE REGISTRAR (JUDLII) Date : 18/04/2016 None present Three weeks (excluding Summer Vacation) time granted to take steps as a last chance. sd/ REGISTRAR (JUDLII)

Order - Status 18: THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Civil Application No. 1541 of 2015 In Second Appeal Stamp No. 1236 of 2015 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders CORAM : A.N. MARE REGISTRAR (JUDL.II) Date : 07/06/2016. Advocate for the Applicant is present. S.O. for three (3) weeks time granted to take steps regarding deceased R. No. 1. sd/- REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

Order - Status 20: Sequeira IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1541 OF 2015 in SECOND APPEAL (St.) NO. 1236 OF 2015 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's order or Directions and Registrar's Orders Court's or Judge's Orders Mr.Nilesh Bhole, for the Applicant. Mr.Harshad Shingnapurkar i/b Mr.Rohit Joshi, for Respondent No.2. CORAM: Jamdar N M J , Friday July 2016 1 , C P .: The Civil Application is abated as against Respondent No.1. The learned counsel for the Applicant seeks time. Stand over to eight weeks, i.e. 26 August 2016. (N Jamdar ) M J ,

Order - Status 25: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1541 OF 2015 IN SECOND APPEAL (STAMP) NO.1236 OF 2015 Sou. Rohini Sudhakar Patil ....Applicant vs. Shri. Ramchandra Kashinath Patil And Anr. ....Respondents .... Mr. N.M. Bhole, for the Applicant. Mr. Rohit Joshi, for Respondent No.2. CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J. DATED : 20 JANUARY 2017 P.C. : . Learned Counsel for the Applicant informs the Court that Respondent No.1 is dead and that he will take appropriate steps to bring legal heirs of deceased Respondent No.1 on record. Stand over to 17 February 2017. ( S.C. GUPTE, J. )

Order - Status 27: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1541 OF 2015 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO.1236 OF 2015 ….. Sou. Rohini Sudhakar Patil … Applicant Versus Shri. Ramchandra Kashinath Patil & Anr. … Respondents ….. Mr. Nilesh Bhole for the Applicant. Mr. Akshay Kandarkar i/b Rohit Joshi for Respondent No.2. CORAM : S.C.GUPTE, J. DATE : 17 FEBRUARY 2017 P.C. : Learned Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant states that the Respondent has died and his application for bringing legal heirs of the deceased Respondent on record is ready but not yet moved. He seeks time for the purpose. This Civil Application accordingly stood over to 24 March 2017. (S.C.GUPTE, J.)

Order - Status 29: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA NO. 1541 OF 2015 In SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO. 1236 OF 2015 Sou. Rohini Sudhakar Patil ....Applicant V/S Shri. Ramchandra Kashinath Patil And Anr. ....Respondent None For Applicant Ms. Aditi Athawale i/b. Rohit D Joshi For Respondent No. 2. CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J DATE : 24th March, 2017 P.C. : None for the applicant, stand over to 21/04/2017 as a last chance. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 31: Rane (sr.58) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Application in SA NO. 1541 OF 2015 IN Second Appeal (ST) NO. 1236 OF 2015 Sou. Rohini Sudhakar Patil ...Applicant Versus Shri. Ramchandra Kashinath Patil And Anr. ...Respondents None for the Applicant, Appellant. Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advocate for Respondent no.2. CORAM: N.M. JAMDAR, J DATED: 21st April, 2017 PC:- . None for the Applicant. By order dated 1 July, 2016 it is recorded that Civil Application is abated as against Respondent no.1. Time was taken to take steps. No steps have been yet taken. The Application stands dismissed as against Respondent no.1. Stand over to next CMIS date i.e. 30 June, 2017. The Applicant will explain whether the Civil Application survives in view of dismissal of the Application as against Respondent no.1. (N.M. JAMDAR,J.)

Order - Status 33: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA NO. 1541 OF 2015 In SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO. 1236 OF 2015 Sou. Rohini Sudhakar Patil Applicant V/S Shri. Ramchandra Kashinath Patil And Anr. Respondent Nilesh Bhole For Applicant/Appellent Rohit Joshi Respondent No. 2 CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J DATE : 1st July, 2017 P.C. : In view of the joint request made by the learned Counsel for the parties, stand over to 07/07/2017 under the caption for High on Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 35: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1541 OF 2015 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 1236 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO. 12068 OF 2017 Sou. Rohini Sudhakar Patil … Applicant Versus Shri. Ramchandra Kashinath Patil and another … Respondents Mr. Nilesh Bhole for the Applicant in both C.A./Appellant. Mr. Rohit Joshi for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATED : 7TH JULY, 2017 P.C.: Stand over to 10.07.2017, high on Board. ( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )

Order - Status 37: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA NO. 1541 OF 2015 In SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO. 1236 OF 2015 Sou. Rohini Sudhakar Patil ....Applicant V/S Shri. Ramchandra Kashinath Patil And Anr. ....Respondent Nilesh Bhole For Applicant Rohit Joshi for Respondent No. 2 CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J DATE : 10th July, 2017 P.C. : At the request of the learned Counsel for the Appellent, stand over to 18/07/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 39: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA NO. 1541 OF 2015 In SECOND APPEAL STAMP NO. 1236 OF 2015 Sou. Rohini Sudhakar Patil ....Applicant V/S Shri. Ramchandra Kashinath Patil And Anr. ....Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA STAMP NO. 12068 OF 2017 In SECOND APPEAL LODGING NO . 1236 OF 2015 Sou. Rohini Sudhakar Patil ....Applicant V/S Shri. Ramchandra Kashinath Patil And Anr. ....Respondent Nilesh Bhole For Applicant/Appellent Rohit Joshi for Respondent No. 2 CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J DATE : 18th July, 2017 P.C. : At the request of the learned Counsel for the Application, stand over to 19/07/2017 under the caption for First on Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 43: kpd 1 / 1 912CAS15412015.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1541 OF 2015 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 1236 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO. 12068 OF 2017 Mrs.Rohini Sudhakar Patil … Applicant Versus Shri.Ramchandra Kashinath Patil and another … Respondents Mr.Nilesh Bhole for the Applicant and Appellant. Mr.Rohit Joshi for the Respondent No.2. CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATED : 19th JULY, 2017 P.C.: The Learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant on instructions seeks to withdraw the above Second Appeal. The above Second Appeal alongwith both the above Civil Applications are disposed off as withdrawn. ( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )