All Cases

Order - Status 4: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 6: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 8: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 10: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 2: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 446 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3413 OF 2021 Siddharth Colony Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha and Ors. … Appellants V/s. The Municipal Corporation for Gr. Mumbai … Respondent Mr. Nilesh Pandey a/w Mr.Rahul Bhosale i/b. Equajuris for Appellants. Mr. Rajesh S. Patil a/w Smt. Madhuri More for Respondent-Corporation. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 8th DECEMBER, 2021. P.C. : By an Order dated 25th June 2021, on the basis of statement made by the learned counsel for the Appellants that, the Appellants shall maintain status-quo and shall not carry out any further construction, this Court directed the Respondent Corporation not to take coercive action till next date of hearing. The present Appeal was thereafter adjourned from time to time for various reasons as has been recorded in earlier Orders. On 22nd November 2021, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent – Corporation had made a grievance that, by taking undue advantage of ad-interim relief granted by this Court, the Appellants are carrying out construction on footpath abutting the suit property. In support of his contention, he relied on certain photographs annexed to the reply of Interim Application. The matter was thereafter adjourned on 30th November 2021, however, on that day, due to some reasons the present Appeal could not be listed on board. The Respondent-Corporation through their Advocate thereafter circulated the present praecipe dated 7th December 2021 seeking urgent hearing of the present Appeal. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Corporation again reiterated that, the Appellants by taking undue advantage of the Order dated 25th June 2021 are still carrying out construction on footpath attaching to the suit property. He drew my attention to the basic pleadings of the Appellants in the plaint of L.C. Suit (St.) No.4560 OF 2021 and in particular para No.10 thereof. It has been categoricaly pleaded by the Appellant that, the newly appointed developer started process of development activities at said plot of land and in order to redevelopment of the said plot of land the Plaintiffs/Appellants herein vacated the suit premises and handed it over to the Plaintiff No.1 for the purpose of site office as required to deal with occupants at large on site. It is further pleaded that, the Plaintiff No.1/Appellant No.1 herein has taken possession of the suit premises from its members being Plaintiff No.2 and 3 and Others. In this precise background, learned counsel for the Appellants had made a statement on 25th June 2021 and as noted earlier. Repeated grievances are made before this Court that by taking undue advantage of Order dated 25th June 2021, the Appellants are carrying out further construction on footpath. It is therefore necessary to direct the Assistant Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, M/W Ward, Mumbai to immediately visit the suit property today at 3.00 O'clock and inspect it. If it noticed that, the Appellants have carried out construction at the suit premises after 25th June 2021, to record a finding accordingly and submit a detailed report to this Court on next occasion i.e. on 17th December 2021. The present Order is passed in open Court in presence of learned counsel for the Appellants and learned counsel for the Respondent-Corporation. The Assistant Commissioner of Municipal Corporation therefore shall not wait for a copy of the present Order and shall inspect the suit premises today at 3.00 p.m. without giving any excuse. The Appellants are directed to maintain status-quo as of 12.00 noon of 8th December 2021. The Chairman of Appellant No.1 and Appellant Nos.2 and 3 along with their Advocate are permitted to remain present at the time of inspection by the Assistant Commissioner of Corporation, M/W Ward, Mumbai. The Senior Inspector of Police, Chembur Police Station is directed to provide necessary police protection to the Assistant Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, M/W Ward, Mumbai at the time of his inspection, to avoid any untoward incident or breach of law and order situation at the suit property. Stand over to 17th December 2021. [A.S. GADKARI, J.] MANOJ R TANDALE Digitally signed by MANOJ R TANDALE Date: 2021.12.08 14:19:06 +0530

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MOHAMMAD NAJEEB MOHAMMAD QAYYUM Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD NAJEEB MOHAMMAD Date: 2022.02.18 17:54:12 +0530 Appeal from Order No. 446 / 2021 Alongwith Interim Application No. 3413 / 2021 in Appeal from Order No. 446 / 2021 Siddharth Colony Vikas Seva Sang Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Through its Chief Promoter Mr. r. Waghmare and Ors. … Appellants Versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai … Respondent **** Mr. Nilesh R. Pandey i/by Equa Juris, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. Rajesh Patil, Counsel for MCGM. Mr. Ravindra Sirsikar, Advocate for MCGM. **** CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J. DATE : 18th FEBRUARY, 2022. P.C. Appellants shall implead the Slum Rehabilitation Authority as a party Respondent. Amendment shall be carried out forthwith. Learned Counsel shall serve amended copy of the appeal on Counsel for the Corporation and also to the newly added Respondent. Stand over to 11th March, 2022. Ad-interim relief to continue till the next date. (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 9: Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD NAJEEB MOHAMMAD OHAMMAD QAYYUM QAYYUM Date: 2022.03.11 18:38:02 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Appeal from Order No. 446 / 2021 Alongwith Interim Application No. 3413 / 2021 in Appeal from Order No. 446 / 2021 Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Chief Promoter. Mr. R. Waghmare ... Appellant Versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ... Respondent **** Mr. Nilesh R. Pandey i/by Equa Juris, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Rajesh Patil a/w Mr. Ravindra Sirsikar, Advocate for the MCGM/ Respondent No.1. Mr. Yogesh Patil i/by Mr. Vijay Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J. DATE : $11^{th}$ MARCH, 2022. P.C. Mr. Patil waives on behalf of the Respondent No.2 – Slum Rehabilitation Authority. He seeks time to file reply. Time granted. Appellant may file the rejoinder/ reply before the returnable date. Stand over to 26th April, 2022. Interim relief if any, shall continue to operate till the next date. (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 446 OF 2021 Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Cheif Promoter. Mr.r. Waghmare ....APPELLANT V/S The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 9907 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 446 OF 2021 Lahu Bapu Kamble ....PETITIONER V/S Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Cheif Promoter. Mr.r. Waghmare ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3413 OF 2021 In Appeal from Order 446 OF 2021 Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Cheif Promoter. ....PETITIONER Mr.r. Waghmare V/S The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN J DATE : 27th June, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 06/07/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 446 OF 2021 Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Cheif Promoter. Mr.r. Waghmare ....APPELLANT V/S The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 9907 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 446 OF 2021 Lahu Bapu Kamble ....PETITIONER V/S Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Cheif Promoter. Mr.r. Waghmare ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3413 OF 2021 In Appeal from Order 446 OF 2021 Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Cheif Promoter. ....PETITIONER Mr.r. Waghmare V/S The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 19th October, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 16/11/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 446 OF 2021 Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Cheif Promoter. Mr.r. Waghmare ....APPELLANT V/S The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 9907 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 446 OF 2021 Lahu Bapu Kamble ....PETITIONER V/S Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Cheif Promoter. Mr.r. Waghmare ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3413 OF 2021 In Appeal from Order 446 OF 2021 Siddharth Col. Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Santha Thr. Its Cheif Promoter. ....PETITIONER Mr.r. Waghmare V/S The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 16th November, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 15/12/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1685 OF 2022 Samadhan Dattu Gore ..Applicant v/s. The State of Maharashtra . ..Respondents Ms. Sheetal Gaikar i/b. Tushar Sonawane for the Applicant. Mr. A.A.Palkar, APP for the State. CORAM : ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. DATED : 26th AUGUST, 2022. P.C. Issue Notice to Respondent No.2. Learned APP to make an endeavor to intimate the next date of hearing to the Respondent No.2, through the officer of the concerned police station. Stand over to 13.09.2022. (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1685 OF 2022 Samadhan Dattu Gore APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Shri. Tushar Sonawane for Applicant. Shri. A. A. Palkar, APP for the State. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH D. NAIK J DATE : 11th October, 2022 P.C. : Await service. Stand over to 20/10/2022. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1685 OF 2022 Samadhan Dattu Gore ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and anr. ...Respondents Mr. Tushar Sonawane for the Applicant. Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the State. $cdots cdots cdots$ $cdots cdots cdots$ CORAM: N.R. BORKAR, J. DATED : 20 OCTOBER 2022 $P.C. :=$ The Investigating Officer shall intimate about the filing of the present application and the next date of hearing of the application to the respondent No. 2. $2.$ Stand over to 16 November 2022. $(N.R. BORKAR, J.)$

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1685 OF 2022 Samadhan Dattu Gore APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for Respondent-State CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. R. BORKAR J DATE : 16th November, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 05/12/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1685 OF 2022 Samadhan Dattu Gore Applicant v/s. The State of Maharashtra ••• Respondent Mr. Tushar Sonawane for the Applicant. Mr. V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the State. Mr. Ravi Rajulwar, API, Sangola Police Station, Solapur. CORAM : R.N.LADDHA, J. DATE : 5 th December 2022 P.C. : The Investigating Officer is directed to inform the first informant about filing of the present application within a week. Stand over to 15 th December 2022. (R.N. LADDHA, J) Lata Panjwani, P.S.

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1685 OF 2022 Samadhan Dattu Gore Versus The State of Maharashtra Applicant. Respondent Mr. Tushar Sonawane, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the State. Mr. Ashish Satpute, Legal Aid Counsel appointed. CORAM : R. N. Laddha, J. DATE: 15 th December 2022 Digitally signed by LATA SUNIL SUNIL PANJWANI PANJWANI Date: 2022.12.16 11:15:15 +0530 P.C.: Learned APP informs this Court that the Applicant is not in a position to engage private Advocate and requests to provide legal aid. Mr.Ashish Satpute, Counsel from the Legal Aid Panel is appointed as Advocate to espouse the cause of the Applicant. Office is directed to serve a copy of the Application to the learned counsel appointed on behalf of the Applicant. Page No. 1 of 2 15 th December 2022 36 ba 1685.22.docx Stand over to 9 th January 2023. (R. N. LADDHA, J.) L.S.Panjwani, P.S. Page No. 2 of 2 15 th December 2022

Order - Status 15: ba 1685.22 speaking.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1685 OF 2022 Samadhan Dattu Gore Versus The State of Maharashtra Applicant. Respondent CORAM : R. N. Laddha, J. (IN CHAMBER) DATE: 5 th January 2023 P.C.: The matter is taken in chamber suo moto. In Paragraphs 1 & 2 of the order dated 15 th December 2022, wherever the words 'Applicant' is there, it be replaced by words 'Respondent No.2'. The order dated 15 th December 2022 stands corrected accordingly. (R. N. LADDHA, J.) L.S.Panjwani, P.S. Page No. 1 of 1 15 th December 2022

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1685 OF 2022 Samadhan Dattu Gore ....APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Mr. Tushar Sonawane a/w Pooja Satpute for Applicant. Ms. A. A. Takalkar, APP for State. Mr. Amit Icham i/b Ashish Satpute for Complainant. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 8th February, 2023 P.C. : S. O. to 15/02/2023 ( H. O. B.). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1685 OF 2022 Samadhan Dattu Gore ....APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Mr. Tushar Sonawane a/w Pooja Satpute for Applicant. Ms. A. A. Takalkar, APP for State. Mr. Ashish Satpute for Respondent No. 2 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 15th February, 2023 P.C. : S. O. to 17/02/2023 ( H. O. B.). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 22: Urmila Ingale 22.ba 1685.22.doc URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Digitally signed by URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Date: 2023.02.17 14:22:07 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1685 OF 2022 Samadhan Dattu Gore ...Applicant VS. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr. Tushar Sonawane a/w Ms.Pooja Satpute, for the Applicant. Ms. A. A. Takalkar, APP for the State. CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 17, 2023 P.C. : The matter to come up in due course. (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 24: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1685 OF 2022 Samadhan Dattu Gore ..Applicant $v/s$ . The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent Mr. Tushar Sonawane for the Applicant. Mr. Ashish Satpute for the Respondent No.2 Mrs. A.A.Takalkar, APP for the State. CORAM : ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. DATED : $13 th $ APRIL, 2023. $P.C.$ $1.$ This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the aforesaid Applicant, who is facing trial in Special Case No.7 of 2021 pending before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pandharpur. The said case arises from Crime No. 10 of 2022, registered with Sangola Police Station for the offences under Section 354, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4, 8, 12 and 42 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act. $2.$ Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 and learned APP for the State. I have perused PRASANNA P SALGAONKAR the records and considered the submissions advanced by the learned Digitally signed by PRASANNÄ‚ P SALGAONKAR Date: 2023.04.18 10:37:49 p +0530 Counsels for the respective parties. The aforesaid crime was registered pursuant to the FIR lodged by the mother-in-law of the victim. She has stated that on 04.01.2022 she had gone in search of the victim, who had gone to wash clothes near the rivulet (Odha). She saw the Applicant pulling the victim by her hand and heard the victim crying for help. She has stated that she had also heard the Applicant threatening her not to shout. When she intervened the Applicant left the victim and ran away from the spot. Based on the said report, initially crime was registered under Section 354, 506 of IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act. Statement of the victim was recorded. The victim claimed that the Applicant had touched her chest and private parts. On the basis of the allegations made by the victim, Section 4 and 8 also came to be added. It is to be noted that though the Applicant is charged for committing offences under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the statement of the victim does not prima facie indicate that the Applicant had committed penetrative sexual assault. In such circumstances, in my considered view, prima facie, the offence under Section 4 of not made out. The maximum sentence in respect of other offences is five years. The Applicant was arrested on 04.01.2022 and is presently in Judicial Custody. Considering the large pendency, the trial is not likely to commence in the near future. The application filed by the Applicant has been rejected mainly on the ground of antecedents of the Applicant. Learned Counsel for the Applicant states that the Applicant shall not visit Sangola District, Solapur, till the evidence of the victim is recorded. Considering the above facts and circumstances, in my considered view, this would be a fit case, to exercise discretion under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in favour of the Applicant. Hence the application is allowed on the following terms and conditions:- (i) The Applicant who is facing trial in Special Case No.7 of 2021 pending before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pandharpur arising out of Crime No. Crime No. 10 of 2022, registered with Sangola Police Station, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twentyfive Thousand Only) with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount; (ii) The Applicant shall not visit Sangola District till the evidence of the victim is recorded. (iii) The Applicant shall report to the nearest police station on the first Monday of every month till the date of framing of charge; (iv) The Applicant shall not interfere with the complainant or the other witnesses, or tamper with the evidence in any manner; (v) The Applicant shall keep the Special Court as well as the Investigating Officer informed of his permanent as well as temporary address, and his contact details, and/or change of residence or mobile details from time to time. (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 697 OF 2014 Shashikant Chandrakant Rane vs. … Applicant The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents Mr. R. Sathyanarayanan, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Alpa Javeri, APP for the State. I.O. Mr. P.D. Kadam, A.S.I., LCB, Ratnagiri present. CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 17th June, 2014. P.C. This Application for anticipatory bail is moved directly before this Court. Learned APP, on instructions from the police constable of Ratnagiri Police Station, makes a statement that on the basis of complaint of Mrs. Suhasini Chavan, no offence is registered at Ratnagiri Police Statement. The learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this Application, as the applicant/accused wants to file an Application before the Sessions Court, Thane. As the offence is registered at C.R. No. I264/2013 with Dombivli Police Station, Thane, the learned counsel is allowed to withdraw this Application for anticipatory bail with liberty to file an Application before Sessions Court, Thane. Hence, the Application for the anticipatory bail is dismissed as withdrawn. (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4796 OF 2010 Shamrao Mahadev Phate : Petitioner V/s. The Collector & District Election Officer, Solapur & Ors. : Respondents .... Mr.S.S.Salunkhe for the petitioner. Mr.S.N.Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos.1 & 2. .... CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE : JUNE 23, 2010. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner orally seeks permission to implead Solapur District Central Co-operative Bank as a partyrespondent. Leave granted. Appropriate amendment in the cause title be carried out forthwith. Notice before admission, returnable on 12.7.2010. Mr.Patil, the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, waives service for the respondent nos.1 & 2. (D.D. SINHA, J.) (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4796 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.S.S.Salunkhe for the petitioner. Mr.S.N.Patil, AGP for resp. nos.1 & 2. Mr.Sarag Aryadha for respondent no.3. Mr.S.S.Inamdar for respondent no.4. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : JULY 09, 2010. P.C.: Considering the cause of action involved, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to mention the matter before the appropriate Court. Permission granted. (D.D. SINHA, J.) (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 WRIT PETITION NO.4796 OF 2010 Petitioner Respondents Mr.S.S.Rajeshirke for petitioner. Mr.S.N.Bhosale, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr.Sarang Aradhye for respondent no.3. Mr.Inamdar for respondent no.4. CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. DATE : 12th July 2010 PC : Not on on board. In view of urgency, the production is allowed and matter is taken on board. Heard Mr.Rajeshirke for the petitioner, Mr.Aradhye for respondent no.3, Mr.Inamdar for respondent no.4 and Mr.Bhosale, learned AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2. The petition pertains to the election of respondent no.4 The Solapur District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Solapur (hereinafter referred to as "the said bank"). The Gardi Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd; Gardi (hereinafter referred to as "the Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd.") is the member of respondent no.4. The said Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd. passed a resolution on 20th March 2010 thereby nominating the respondent no.3 as it's delegate to take part in the general election of respondent no.4 bank. The resolution was sent to the respondent no.4 bank by the said Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd. and respondent no.3's name was shown in provisional voters list as a delegate of said Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd.. The petitioner contends that a resolution came to be passed by the said Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd. on 24th March 2010 thereby nominating him as a delegate of the said Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd.. In spite of this resolution, his name is not entered into the provisional voters list. An objection was raised before the Collector, however, the same was rejected only on the ground that the signature of the Secretary of the said Society does not appear on the resolution. By order dated 18th March 2010, the learned Collector rejected the petitioner's petitioner for non inclusion of his name in the provisional voters list as a delegate of the said Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd.. The final voters list thereafter was published in the month of May 2010 and against the name of said Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd; the name of respondent no.3 is shown as it's delegate. Rule 16 programme was subsequently published on 3rd July 2010 and the last date for filing the nomination is today. The election is at an advanced stage. The petitioner, in spite of rejection of objection by the Collector on 18th May 2010, filed present petition on 18th June 2010 i.e. after nearly about one month. The petitioner is guilty of laches. Apart from these facts, admittedly there are two resolutions passed by the said Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd; one in favour of respondent no.3 and another in favour of the petitioner. The respondent no.4 bank acted upon the resolution of the said Society wherein respondent no.3 was nominated as a delegate. The relevant question would be, which, out of the two resolutions, is the valid resolution. The validity of said two resolutions can be gone into by the Co-operative Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the validity of the said resolution along with the out-come of the election. Taking totality of the circumstances into consideration, I am of the opinion that the petition is devoid of any substance and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (R.V.MORE, J.)

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

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

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

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