Tag: Election Co-Operative Societies

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9881 OF 2016 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9880 OF 2016 Dipak Anandrao Jadhav & Ors. Petitioners Versus Assistant Registrar Co­operative Society Respondents Koregaon & Ors. Mr. Vaibhav R. Gaikwad for petitioners. Mr. S.B.Kolel, AGP for respondent no.1. CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 P.C. . Not on board. At the request of Advocate for the petitioners, the matter is taken on board for extension of time to remove all office objections as per earlier order dated 22nd August, 2016. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and the earlier order dated 22nd August, 2016, time is extended till 30th September, 2016 to remove all office objections, failing which writ petition shall stand dismissed without referring back to the Court. Office is directed to place the matter on board on 3rd October, 2016. (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 8: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9881 OF 2016 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9880 OF 2016 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 : R. M. JOSHI REGISTRAR (JUDLI) Date : 05 OCTOBER 2016 Await service to Respondent No. 3 for five weeks i.e. 16.11.2016. REGISTRAR (JUDLI)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9880 OF 2016 Mahadeo Anandrao Jadhav And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Assistant Registrar, Co.operative Society And ....Respondent WITH Ors WRIT PETITION NO. 9881 OF 2016 Dipak Anandrao Jadhav And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Assistant Registrar, Co.operative Society And Ors ....Respondent Shri Vaibhav Ramchandra Gaikwad, Adv For Petitioner Shri Sachin Kankal, AGP for Respondent/ State CORAM : R.M. SAVANT., J DATE : 16th November, 2016 P.C. : Stand over to 23/11/2016. To be listed alongwith W P No.9881/2016. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9880 OF 2016 Mahadeo Anandrao Jadhav And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Assistant Registrar, Co.operative Society And ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9881 OF 2016 Dipak Anandrao Jadhav And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Assistant Registrar, Co.operative Society And Ors ....Respondent Vaibhav Ramchandra Gaikwad Petitioner no. 1 To 3 Mr. Bodke For Respondent S.D. Rayrikar AGP For State CORAM : SMT. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 5th September, 2018 P.C. : Ors Stand Over to 27/09/2018 on Supplementary Board. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6065 OF 2014 Bhalchandra Mohiniraj Pathak and anr. .. Petitioners Versus Madhyam Varigye Sarvodaya Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Maryadit through Chairman and ors. .. Respondents Mr. S. S. Patwardhan, advocate for petitioner. Mr. Bhadrashetti with S. D. Chawan i/by Rahul Sopanrao Kate for respondent. --- CORAM : SMT. R. P. SONDURBALDOTA DATED : 24th JULY, 2014. --- P.C. : 1). Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned advocates, the petition is taken on board for final hearing. 2). The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the correspondence between the Chief Promoter of Society, Madhyam Vargye Sarvodaya Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Maryadit, Pune and the Additional Secretary to Government of Maharashtra, Housing Development and Special Assistance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, annexed to the order of exemption under Section 19(1)(v) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976, can be said to be public document. 3). There is a dispute pending in the Cooperative Court between the petitioner and the respondents in which one of the disputed facts is the total strength of membership of respondent no.1, Society. According to the respondents, the membership is restricted to 11 persons and the petitioners, on the other hand contend that, there are as many as 141 members of the Society. During the course of the trial, the petitioners sought to produce photocopies of the letter dated 30th August, 1989 from the Additional Secretary to Government of Maharashtra, Housing Development and Special Assistance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai to one Shri G. H. Kulkarni, Chief Promoter of respondent no.1, Society and the reply sent by Mr. Kulkarni to the letter alongwith annexures to the letter, in evidence in support of their claim of the membership of the Society by 141 persons. The production of the photocopies as secondary evidence was objected to by the respondents. The objection was upheld by the trial Court and also the lower appellate Court. It was held by the Courts below that, the petitioners have not established the circumstances prescribed for production of secondary evidence and also that the photocopies cannot be said to be secondary evidence. The petitioners had carried the order to this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 6350 of 2011. By the order dated 23rd August, 2012, this court dismissed the petition without going into its merits, with an observation that, since the orders under challenge in the petition were interlocutory in nature, interest of the justice would be served if the writ petition was disposed off with a clarification that in the event the final order in the dispute is adverse to the petitioners, they can, while challenging the final order, raise appropriate pleas and in particular in regard to the rejection by the trial court and the lower appellate court of leave to lead secondary evidence. The petitioners then carried the orders further to the Apex Court. However, the Apex Court also did not interfere with the order of this court. 4). It appears that thereafter one out of 141 members, died and his son, found certified copies of the two documents described above in the papers maintained by the deceased member. The certified copies have been obtained from the Tahashil Office, Pune, where apparently the same were produced in connection with the land dealing. The petitioners, then filed another application for tendering in evidence, the certified copies as the secondary evidence. The trial Court, allowed the application by its order dated 12th March, 2014. Being aggrieved by the order, the respondents had preferred revision to the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai Bench at Pune. The Appellate Court allowed the revision by its order dated 19th April, 2014 which order is challenged by the petitioners in the present petition. 5). The reasons set out in the impugned order by the Appellate Court, for allowing the revision, read as follows :- "29. After perusal of documents, which the respondent no.1 and 2 produce on record at Sr. no.1 to 3, it is evidence that, 'these documents are the annexure attached with the order issued by the public officer'. Even though presuming for the sake of argument that, these documents were attached with the order passed by the public officer, such documents cannot be terms as public documents, the provisions of Section 74 and 76 of Evidence Act doesn't apply in the present set of facts. At the most, said document is termed as the part and parcel of the record maintained by the public officer. Thus, doesn't cover within the meaning of the term public document. After perusing these documents, it is also evident that, the certified copies allegedly availed from the Tahasil Office, Pune whereas as per pleadings of the respondent no.1 & 2, the record is maintained by the Housing Development and Special Assistance Department, Mumbai. It was also responsibility of applicant to explain the proper custody, which the applicants, failed. Thus, on merits also this application deserves to be dismissed. So far as the fourth document is concerned, admittedly same is part and parcel of court record, which can be directly referred. So also it is not explained as to why the fourth document needs to be brought on record, and it is not related to subject matter of dispute." 6). Mr. Bhadrashetti, the learned advocate for the respondent, in seeking to justify the impugned order, submits that the documents in question are essentially correspondence by a private individual with the government department. Therefore, the same cannot fall within the domain of public document as defined in Section 74 of The Indian Evidence Act. His second objection is that, certification of the documents ought to be by the same department that received the document and not by any other department of the Government. The third argument advanced by him is, of the bar by the principle analogous to res-judicata to the second application for production of secondary evidence by the petitioner, the first application having already been decided in the earlier round of proceedings mentioned above. The order in respect thereof has reached finality with the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Apex Court. He submits that, the observation by the Co-operative Tribunal, that application is filed solely for the purpose of delaying the trial is justified and he presses for dismissal of the petition. 7). The respondent cannot be allowed to contend that, the second application by the petitioner was barred by, res-judicata, as both the Courts below have negatived the contention and there is no challenge to the finding. The Co-operative Appellate Tribunal at para-23 of the impugned order, has held that the earlier application had been moved under Section 75(a)(b) of The Indian Evidence Act, whereas, the second application is moved under Section 75(e) of The Indian Evidence Act. The two applications being different applications, there was no applicability of principle analogous to res-judicata. 8). The question, therefore, to be considered now is, can the certified copies issued by one department of the Government i.e. Tahasil Office, Pune in respect of the order issued by another office of the Government i.e. Housing Development and Special Assistance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai alongwith its' annexures, be said to be the public document for the purpose of production in the Court of law. The description of the three documents in question, annexed to the order of exemption, is as follows :- "(a). Letter dated 30/8/1989 issued by Shri. S.V. Yadgikar (Additional Secretary) to Late G.H. Kulkarni. (b). Letter dated 29/9/1989 issued by late G.H. Kulkarni to Housing Development Department. (c). List of Members of Madhaymvargiya Sahakari Griharachna Sanstha Mydt. sent by Late G.H. Kulkarni alongwith his letter dated 29/9/1989." Section 74 of The Indian Evidence Act, which defines the term "public document" reads as under :- "74. Public documents.- The following documents are public documents:- (1) documents forming the acts or records of the acts- (i) of the sovereign authority, (ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, [of any part of India or of the Commonwealth], or of a foreign country; (2) public records kept [in any State] of private documents." 9). It appears that the Society had earlier filed application under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 seeking exemption under Section 19(1)(v). The three documents sought to be now produced, relate to the application for exemption. It is the correspondence consisting of a letter received from Housing Development and Special Assistance Department, Mantralaya and reply sent by Chief Promoter, Society to the said Department alongwith the annexure to the letter. The correspondence, therefore, is with a public officer in connection with his office duties. This correspondence is maintained as record for the purpose of grant of exemption under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. This record forms the basis of grant of exemption. As such, it will have to be treated as part of the documents forming records of the acts of public officer. Further, as noted by the Appellate Court, the three documents are annexures to the order passed by the public officer. Once a certified copy of order of a public officer passed in connection with his public duty is produced, it cannot be severed from its annexures because the document, then would become incomplete. Therefore, the annexures to the order will also have to be held admissible in evidence only to the extent of their existence. The truth of the contents of the documents needs to be separately established. Mr. Patwardhan, the learned Advocate for the petitioner does not dispute this position. 10). As regards the certification of the documents by the department different from the department with whom the correspondence had taken place, in my view the same should not create any difficulty. The document had apparently been produced before the office of Tahashil, Pune in connection with the very land and the document filed with the Tahashil Office has been certified by that office and given to the petitioner. Therefore, custody of the document has been established for the purpose of issuing certified copies. In any case, this aspect is always subject to cross examination. The petition is hence allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 11). At the request of the advocate for the respondent, the order is stayed for a period of four weeks. He makes the statement that the respondent shall not proceed with the trial in the dispute pending before the Cooperative Court during the period of four weeks. (SMT. R. P. SONDURBALDOTA, J)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6628 OF 2022 Sudhir Sadashiv Jawale ••• Petitioner Versus District Collect, Pune & Ors. ••• Respondents Mr. Manoj Badgujar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA & MADHAV J. JAMDAR,JJ. DATED : JUNE 8, 2022 P.C. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is armed with a decree of civil Court. The suit for partition and separate possession was filed and the suit is decreed. The petitioner is awarded 1/5th share. The petitioner is not concerned with the loan availed by the present respondent No.6. The property in respect of which the decree is passed in favour of the petitioner is sought to be attached under the impugned order passed under Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. Notice to respondents returnable on 6 th July 2022. The learned AGP waives notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Till next date, the respondent shall not take further coercive steps regarding the share of the petitioner in CTS No.672 i.e. the suit property of Special Civil Suit No. 1727 of 1997 and decree dated $2^{nd}$ May 2008. (MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) Gaikwad RD

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6628 OF 2022 Sudhir Sadashiv Jawale ....PETITIONER V/S District Collector, Collectorate Office, Pune And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ DATE : 6th July, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 25/08/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6628 OF 2022 Sudhir Sadashiv Jawale ....PETITIONER V/S District Collector, Collectorate Office, Pune And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ DATE : 6th July, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 25/08/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: Amol IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6628 OF 2022 Sudhir Sadashiv Jawale V/s.PetitionerDistrict Collector, Collectorate Office, Pune & Ors.Respondent. .... Mr. Manoj Badgujar a/w. Sagar Kukreja for petitioner. Mr. A. I. Patel, AGP a/w. A. P. Vanarse, AGP for respondent-State. .... Mr. Hemnat Ghadigaonkar for respondent nos. 3 and 4. CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & RAJESH S PATIL, JJ. DATED : 23 rd FEBRUARY 2023 P.C.: Petition be listed on $15^{th}$ March, 2023. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)

Order - Status 10: Amol IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6628 OF 2022 Sudhir Sadashiv Jawale Petitioner V/s. District Collector, Collectorate Office, Pune & Ors. Respondent. Mr. Manoj Badgujar a/w. Sagar Kukreja for petitioner. Mr. A. I. Patel, AGP a/w. A. P. Vanarse, AGP for respondent-State. .... Mr. Hemnat Ghadigaonkar for respondent nos. 3 and 4. CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & RAJESH S PATIL, JJ. DATED : 23 rd FEBRUARY 2023 P.C.: Petition be listed on $15^{th}$ March, 2023. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)

Order - Status 11: Amol 1/5 suo moto IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3053 OF 1999 Union of India & Anr Appellants V/s. Shri. L. P. Netare and 8 Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 202 OF 2010 IN LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO.144 OF 2010 Union of India & Anr Appellants V/s. Shri. L. P. Netare and 8 Ors. Respondents WITH LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO. 158 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3061 OF 1997 Union of India & Anr Appellants V/s. A. V. Bonde & Others Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 201 OF 2010 IN LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO. 158 OF 2010 Union of India & Anr Appellants V/s. A. V. Bonde & Others Respondents AND Amol 2/5 suo moto WRIT PETITION NO. 3146 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1301 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3146 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 4655 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3146 OF 2022 Miss Rekha Premchand Safari & Anr. Petitioners V/s. Upnibandha Sahakari Sanstha & Anr Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO. 6628 OF 2022 Sudhir Sadashiv Jawale Petitioner V/s. District Collector, Collectorate Office, Pune & Ors. Respondent. AND LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO. 203 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4647 OF 2011 Mahapalika Kamgar Sabha Appellant V/s. Sangli Miraj Kupwad Cities Municipal Corporation Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1805 OF 2017 Shri Sunil Shankar More & Ors. Petitioners V/s. Amol 3/5 suo moto The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12373 OF 2019 Shri. Arvind Kashinath Kore Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondent. WITH LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO. 316 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4647 OF 2011 Sangli Miraj Kupwad Cities Municipal Corporation Appellant V/s. Mahapalika Kamgar Sabha Respondent. AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 19542 OF 2022 In FIRST APPEAL 78 OF 2014 Thane Municipal Corporation Through Its Commissioner,Thane ....PETITIONER V/S Dr. Dilip Mansukhlal Shah And Ors. ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 246 of 2014 in FIRST APPEAL NO. 78 of 2014 Shri. Dilip Mansukhlals Shah And Ors. ....APPLICANT V/S Shri. Chandrakant Kantilal Shah And Ors. ....RESPONDENT 4/5 suo moto WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1132 of 2019 in FIRST APPEAL NO. 78 of 2014 .... Shri. Sebastian J. Sequeiraand Ors. ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Dilip Mahasukhlal Shah And Ors. ....RESPONDENT AND LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO. 337 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6216 OF 2011 .... Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Appellant V/s. Petroleum Employees Union & 24 Ors. Respondents. CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & RAJESH S PATIL, JJ. (In Chamber) DATED : 2 nd March 2023 P.C.: Suo moto called for Speaking to the Minutes of orders dated 23 rd February 2023. 2 In the cause title of orders dated 23 rd February 2023 the words "ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION" be substituted with "CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION" . Amol Amol 5/5 suo moto 3 Rest of the orders remain unaltered. 4 Original orders to be corrected accordingly. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6628 OF 2022 ALONGWITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17606 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6628 OF 2022 Sudhir Sadashiv Jawale ….Petitioner V/s. District Collector, Collectorate Office, Pune and Ors. …Respondents Mr. Manoj Badgujar a/w Mr. Sagar Kursija for Petitioner. Mr. Hemant Ghadigaonkar for Respondent No.3. Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl. G.P. a/w Mr. A.P. Vanarse, AGP for State. CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ. DATED : 15 th MARCH 2023 P.C. : At the outset Mr. Ghadigaonkar appearing for Respondent No.3 submitted that Rule 107 (19) of The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 provides for an alternative remedy in the sense if any objection is to be made by any party to the attachment to any property, the party may apply to the Recovery Officer who in this case is Respondent No.4 and Recovery Officer shall investigate the claim or objection and dispose it on merits. Mr. Badgujar for petitioner states that petitioner will file objection before Respondent No.4 within one week to the order of attachment. Mr. Ghadigaonkar states that the Recovery Officer will pass appropriate order within four weeks of receiving the objections and if petitioner requests for a personal hearing, a personal hearing can also be granted. In view of the statement made by Mr. Badgujar and Mr.Ghadigaonkar as above, we dispose the petition. We clarify that we have not made any observations on the merits of the matter. Petition disposed. Mr. Ghadigaonkar states until the objections are decided, it is quite obvious Respondent No.4 will not take any further coercive steps. Consequently, all Interim Applications also stand disposed. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8830 OF 2016 Shri Vithal Namdeo Magar ....Petitioner V/S Shri N. B. Pawar, Authorised Enq.officer/asst.registrar, Co.op. Societies And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : K.K. TATED, J DATE : 30th August, 2016 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 04/01/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8830 OF 2016 Shri Vithal Namdeo Magar ....Petitioner V/S Shri N. B. Pawar, Authorised Enq.officer/asst.registrar, Co.op. Societies And Ors ....Respondent None for Petitioner. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP, for R.No.1. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT., J DATE : 4th January, 2017 P.C. : S.O. to 18th January 2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8830 OF 2016 Shri Vithal Namdeo Magar ....Petitioner V/S Shri N. B. Pawar, Authorised Enq.officer/asst.registrar, Co.op. Societies And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J DATE : 18th January, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned as per CMIS date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8830 OF 2016 Shri Vithal Namdeo Magar ....Petitioner V/S Shri N. B. Pawar, Authorised Enq.officer/asst.registrar, Co.op. Societies And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA, J DATE : 7th November, 2017 P.C. : Due to shortage of time, matter is adjourned to CMIS Date i.e. 28/11/2017, till then, interim relief, if any, to continue. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8830 OF 2016 Shri Vithal Namdeo Magar ....Petitioner V/S Shri N. B. Pawar, Authorised Enq.officer/asst.registrar, Co.op. Societies And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA, J DATE : 7th November, 2017 P.C. : Due to shortage of time, matter is adjourned to CMIS Date i.e. 28/11/2017, till then, interim relief, if any, to continue. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8830 OF 2016 Shri Vithal Namdeo Magar ....Petitioner V/S Shri N. B. Pawar, Authorised Enq.officer/asst.registrar, Co.op. Societies And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA, J DATE : 28th November, 2017 P.C. : Due to shortage of time, matter is adjourned to CMIS Date i.e 18/01/2018, till then, interim relief if any, to continue. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8830 OF 2016 Shri Vithal Namdeo Magar ....Petitioner V/S Shri N. B. Pawar, Authorised Enq.officer/asst.registrar, Co.op. Societies And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J DATE : 21st June, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned 23.07.2018. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8830 OF 2016 Vithal Namdeo Magar .. Petitioner Vs. Shri N. B. Pawar & Ors. .. Respondents None for the Petitioner. CORAM : V. L. ACHLIYA, J. DATE : 21st FEBRUARY, 2019. P. C. : None present for the Petitioner. Record reveals that the Petition is filed in the year 2016. The Petitioner has not appeared and prosecuted the Petition. The Petition is dismissed in default to appear and prosecute the Petition. [V. L. ACHLIYA, J.]