All Cases

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

Order - Status 5: 16 wp 443-20=.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 443 OF 2020 Sunny Rajesh Lot … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent None for the Petitioner. Mr. S.R.Shinde APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI,& N.R.BORKAR, JJ. DATE : 28th JANUARY 2020 P.C. Issue notice to Respondent, returnable on 06.03.2020. Learned APP waives notice for State. High Court Legal Aid Committee to appoint panel Advocate for the Petitioner. (N.R.BORKAR,J.) (B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 443 OF 2020 Sunny R. Lot … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent ---------------- Mr. Aniesh S. Jadhav (appointed) for the Petitioner. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for the Respondent – State. ---------------- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE & N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : MARCH 6, 2020. P.C. 1] For the reasons recorded in the order passed today in Criminal Writ Petition No. 4256 of 2018, which we have allowed, this petition can be conveniently disposed of with following directions: "We fnd both orders are unsustainable and the same are quashed and set aside. We direct the frst authority to pass fresh orders, in accordance with law, within four weeks from the date of communication of this order to it." 2] Here, the prisoner was under trial from 25th September 2015 to 5th May 2017 and thereafter, as a convict from 6th May 2017 to 30th November 2019. 3] Thus, he has never been released either on bail or on any other leave and hence, the adverse police report against him is not justifed. 4] Hence, with similar liberty and directions as mentioned in our earlier order supra, we partly allow this petition and dispose of it. 5] This order be communicated to the prisoner in Jail. (N.R. BORKAR, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 184 OF 2020 Jayesh Thokarshi Shah ….Applicant v/s. The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent **** Mr. S.S. Karmarkar i/by. Karmarkar & Associates, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. P.P. Shinde, APP for the State. PSI, Mr. Anil More, Mira Road Police Station present. CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J. Thursday, 23 January, 2020. P.C. : At the request of the learned Counsel for the applicant, list as per the CMIS date. Interim relief is refused. (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 184 OF 2020 Jayesh Thokarshi Shah ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SANDEEP KASHINATH SHINDE, J DATE : 20th February, 2020 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 18/03/2020 . In case any ad-interim/interim relief is operating till today, the said order will continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: Diksha Rane IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 184/2020 JAYESH THOKARSHI SHAH ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT ------------ Mr. Vrindavan Patil i/b. Kamalakar & Asso. for the applicant. Smt. M.R. Tidke, APP for the respondent – State. ------------ C0RAM : M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : OCTOBER 22, 2021 P.C. : At the request of learned APP, stand over to October 25, (M.S.KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 184 OF 2020 Jayesh Thokarshi Shah APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 25th October, 2021 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 30/10/2021 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: PMB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.184 OF 2020 Jayesh Thokarshi Shah .. Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. S.S. Karmarkar i/b M/s. Karmarkar and Associates for the Applicant. Mr. N.B. Patil, APP for the State. Mr. Sachin Kotmire, P.I., Mira Road Police Station. CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 26, 2021 P.C.:- At request of learned counsel for the applicant, stand over to 06.12.2021. (M.S. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 15: Diksha Rane IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 184 OF 2020 JAYESH THOKARSHI SHAH ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT ------------ Mr. S.S. Karmarkar i/b. Karmarkar & Associates for applicant. Mr. N.B. Patil, APP for State. Mr. Sachin Kotmire, PI, Mira Road Police Station. ------------ CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : DECEMBER 6, 2021 P.C. : Stand over to 8th December, 2021 for passing orders. (M.S.KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 19: Ingale FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 184 OF 2020 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. Karmarkar i/b Karmarkar & Associates, for the Applicant. Mr.N.B. Patil, APP for the respondent. CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J. DATE : DECEMBER 8 2021 $$ Learned Counsel for the applicant has served some documents on the learned APP. He requests for time to go through the same. Stand over to 17/12/2021 at 5.00 p.m. (M.S.KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 22: Diksha Rane IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 184/2020 JAYESH THOKARSHI SHAH ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT ------------ None for the applicant. Smt. Veera Shinde, APP for the State. Mr. Sachin Kotmire, PI, Mira Road Police Station. C0RAM : M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : DECEMBER 20, 2021 P.C. : None for the applicant. Only by way of an indulgence, list the application on 6/1/2022, at 5.00 p.m. (M.S.KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 24: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 184 OF 2020 Jayesh Thokarshi Shah ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Mr.S.S.Karmarkar i/b M/s.KARMARKAR AND ASSOCIATES for Applicant. Smt.Veera Shinde - APP for State. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 14th February, 2022 P.C. : At the request of the learned APP, stand over to 17/02/2022 . Ad-interim/ Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 26: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 184 OF 2020 Jayesh Thokarshi Shah ....APPLICANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Mr.S.S.Karmarkar i/b. KARMARKAR AND ASSOCIATES for Applicant. Mr.A.R.Patil - APP for State. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 17th February, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 18/02/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 28: Diksha Rane IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION DIKSHA DINESH RANE Digitally signed by DIKSHA DINESH RANE Date: 2022.02.18 15:52:51 +0530 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 184/2020 JAYESH THOKARSHI SHAH ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT ------------ Dr. Samarth S. Karmarkar a/w. Nilam Pawar, Mr. V. V. Patil i/ b. Kamalakar & Asso. for the applicant. Mrs. P. P. Shinde, APP for the respondent – State. Mr. Sachin Kotmire, PI, Mira Road Police Station. CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2022. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP. Learned APP, on instructions, submits that earlier investigating officer is transferred and new investigating officer has taken over the investigation. My attention is invited to the order dated January 23, 2020 passed by this Court refusing interim relief. This Court had adjourned the matter as per the CMIS date at the request of learned counsel for the applicant. When the matter came up today, learned APP, on instructions of the investigating officer submitted that as the allegations pertain to the offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 447, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Court, the investigating officer wants to investigate the crime on the basis of the documents which are in possession of the applicant. For the present, it is indicated that, if the applicant presents himself before the investigating officer with the documents required for the purpose of investigation, that would suffice. In this with of the matter, the following order is passed. ORDER In the event of the arrest of the applicant in C. R. No. 59/2019 of the Mira Road Police Station, the applicant shall be released on his executing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount. The applicant shall furnish his residential address and contact details to the investigating officer. The applicant shall not tamper with the witnesses or try to contact them. The applicant to attend the investigating officer on 21st, 22nd and 23rd, February, 2022, between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. and thereafter, as and when necessary. Stand over to March 7, 2022. (M.S.KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 30: Diksha Rane DIKSHA DINESH RANE Digitally signed by DIKSHA DINESH RANE Date: 2022.02.26 16:07:03 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 184 OF 2020 JAYESH THOKARSHI SHAH ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT ------------ Dr. Samarth S. Karmarkar a/w. Ms. Kalyani Virkar I.b, Karmarkar & Associates for the applicant. Smt. Veera Shinde, APP for the respondent – State. Mr. Sachin Kotmire, PI, Mira Road Police Station. ------------ CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 26, 2022. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the applicant. This is an application for grant of pre-arrest bail in respect of C. R. No. 59/2019 registered with the Mira Road Police Station under sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 447, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. In brief, it is the prosecution case that the complainant lodged report at police station that the applicant (original accused no.1) along with accused no.2 executed Power of Attorney and sold out property situated at Mauje Goddeo, Old Survey no. 367, Hissa No. 02A/01, new Survey No.64/2/A/1, admeasuring 0.30.09 to accused no. 3. The accused no. 3 had prepared forged map of land and submitted to Mira Bhaindar Municipal Corporation and made encroachment on the land. On 19/6/2018, the accused had a scuffle with the complainant and his employee and abused them. The dispute is in respect of the land which the complainant claims to be lawfully in occupation of. It is the applicant's case that he was falsely implicated in this crime. According to him, Shri Renald Miranda, Nirmala Miranda, Bibiyan Mure, Reeta Toni Miranda, Linet Menzes, Nelson Mirandam, Tereza Mendosa, Brunadet Kado had executed Power of Attorney in favour of Jayesh Thakarshi Shah (applicant) who was a partner of the company on 25/6/1989. The applicant sold the property to M/s. V. P. Developers, partner Shri Vallabhadas G. Thakkar, Pankaj S. Shah on 10/8/1990. According to learned counsel for the applicant, since then, the applicant has no concern with the said property. On 18/2/2022, the following order came to be passed:- Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP. Learned APP, on instructions, submits that earlier investigating officer is transferred and new investigating officer has taken over the investigation. My attention is invited to the order dated January 23, 2020 passed by this Court refusing interim relief. This Court had adjourned the matter as per the CMIS date at the request of learned counsel for the applicant. When the matter came up today, learned APP, on instructions of the investigating officer submitted that as the allegations pertain to the offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 447, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Court, the investigating officer wants to investigate the crime on the basis of the documents which are in possession of the applicant. For the present, it is indicated that, if the applicant presents himself before the investigating officer with the documents required for the purpose of investigation, that would suffice. In this with of the matter, the following order is passed. ORDER In the event of the arrest of the applicant in C. R. No. 59/2019 of the Mira Road Police Station, the applicant shall be released on his executing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/ with one or more sureties in the like amount. The applicant shall furnish his residential address and contact details to the investigating officer. The applicant shall not tamper with the witnesses or try to contact them. The applicant to attend the investigating officer on 21st, 22nd and 23rd, February, 2022, between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. and thereafter, as and when necessary. Stand over to March 7, 2022." Learned APP, on instructions from the investigating officer who is present in the Court, submits that the applicant co-operated with the investigation and submitted all the original documents which investigating officer needed for the purpose of investigation. The alleged offence is mainly based on documentary evidence. The investigating officer submits that the documents produced are sufficient for the purpose of investigation. As the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required, the application deserves to be allowed in the following terms: - ORDER i. In the event of the arrest of the applicant in connection with C. R. No. 59/2019 of the Mira Road Police Station, the applicant shall be released on his executing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount. ii. The applicant shall furnish his residential address and contact details to the investigating officer. iii. The applicant shall not tamper with the witnesses or try to contact them. iv. The applicant shall report to the investigating officer as and when called. v. The application stands disposed of. (M.S.KARNIK, J.)