All First Appeal

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 1831 OF 2017 In FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 13947 OF 2017 The New India Assurance Co.ltd.through Applicant Centralized Motor Tp Claims Hub V/S Mr. Ashok Dayabji Ramparia And Anr. Respondent CORAM : G.S. PATEL, J DATE : 11th July, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned, Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 19/07/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 1831 OF 2017 In FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 13947 OF 2017 The New India Assurance Co.ltd.through Applicant Centralized Motor Tp Claims Hub V/S Mr. Ashok Dayabji Ramparia And Anr. Respondent CORAM : G.S. PATEL, J DATE : 19th July, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned, Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 23/08/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: Shephali IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 13947 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1831 OF 2017 The New India Assurance Co Ltd …Appellant Versus Ashik Dayabji Ramparia & Ors …Respondents Mr Devendranath S Joshi *, for the Appellant/Applicant.* Mrs Varsha Chavan *, for the Respondents Nos. 1 to 4.* CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 27th July 2017 PC:- 1. The facts are set out in the judgment delivered today in First Appeal No. 1 of 2015. Here the claimant was the rider of the motorcycle. His father, who was riding pillion, died in the same accident. 2. The same issue as regards the permit was taken in this case. I have rejected the submission. The present case is one of injury. The claimant was admitted to the Sanjivani Hospital on 2nd November 2006. He was operated for a fracture and he was an indoor patient till 17th November 2006. He submitted his medical bills. He had a grade II compound fracture of the humerus with rapid nerve palsy, abrasion and other injuries. He says he has difficulty in moving. He has had body implants. He is unable to carry on his effective work as a mason. His permanent partial disability was estimated at 48% based on the evidence of one Dr Naresh Khanna. The Tribunal awarded him Rs. 25,000/- towards future medical expenses and then proceeded to award an amount of Rs. 3,93,000/- as compensation including NFL. 3. In my view, there is really no reason to interfere with any part of the award. The MACT has correctly assessed every aspect of it including taking into account that the fracture was to the right hand and, therefore, taken a slightly higher amount towards the disability compensation. 4. I do not think it is possible to fault the conclusions of the Tribunal. The principles that have been established by the Supreme Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra vs New India Assurance Co Ltd ** 1 ** regarding the duty of the Court to provide reasonable restitution to the claimant have been followed in letter and in spirit. 5. The statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- is to be transferred to the MACT, Mumbai within two weeks from today. 6. The claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount with all accrued interest. The MACT will permit such withdrawal on production of an authenticated copy of this order. 1 (2010) 10 SCC 254. 7. The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 8. The civil application does not survive and is disposed of as infructuous. (G. S. PATEL, J)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL STAMP NO. 9038 OF 2019 Mr. Ritesh Dinanath Patni ....Appellant V/S Mers. Rajvinder Karu Ritesh Patni ....Respondent Mr Uday P Warunjikar for Appellant CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, JJ DATE : 24th April, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 02/05/2019 along with the Civil Appln.(St) No. 12363/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2019 Mr. Ritesh Deenanath Patni ....Appellant V/S Mers. Rajvinder Kaur Ritesh Patni ....Respondent Uday P Warunjikar For Appellant Adv.Sangale a/wRajendrakumar Ramchandra Galange For Respondent CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ DATE : 14th June, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 21/06/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.98 OF 2019 Ritesh Deenanath Patni … Appellant versus Rajvinder Kaur Ritesh Patni … Respondent Mr. Uday Warunjikar, for Appellant. Mr. Sangle i/by R.R.Galange, for Respondent. Mr. Ritesh Patni, appellant present. Ms. Rajvinder Kaur R. Patni, wife present. CORAM: AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE: 21st JUNE, 2019 P.C.: Pursuant to the oral directions, the husband has produced certain documents. Counsel made a statement in his presence that towards arrears of maintenance, he shall pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the wife before 28th June, 2019, directly in her bank account, details of which may be supplied by the Counsel for the wife today itself. Perusal of the documents produced by the husband would show that in his bank account in Indusind Bank, there are sizable credit entries of Rs.10 Lakhs, Rs.30 Lakhs, Rs.1.50 Lakhs, Rs.1.50 Lakhs, Rs.1.60 Lakhs in the recent past all through cheques. This account also shows cash credit of Rs.49,900, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.50,000/-. He shall explain the source and the purpose of the deposit of the said amounts in his account on affidavit. Stand over to 28th June, 2019. ( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ) ( AKIL KURESHI, J. )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2019 Ritesh Deenanath Patni .. Appellant Versus Rajvinder Kaur Ritesh Patni .. Respondent ................... Mr. Uday Warunjikar for the Appellant Mr. A.T. Sangle for the Respondent ................... CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : JUNE 28, 2019. P.C.: 1. The appellant - husband and the respondent - wife are present before the Court along with their respective Advocates. The appellant has handed over a demand draft in the sum of Rs. 1 Lakh drawn in favour of the respondent wife towards arrears of maintenance. 2. S.O to 5th July, 2019. On the next date of hearing, the appellant shall pay a further substantial sum towards the remaining arrears and state before us the time within which the entire arrears will be cleared. [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ] [ AKIL KURESHI, J ]

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.98 OF 2019 Shri Ritesh Deenanath Patni … Appellant Vs Smt.Rajvinder Kaur Ritesh Patni … Respondent Mr.Uday Warunjikar for the Appellant Mr.A.T. Sangle i/b R.R. Galange for the Respondent Appellant present Respondent present CORAM: AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATED: JULY 5, 2019 P.C.: Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we noticed that approximately a sum of Rs.2 lakhs remains to be paid by the husband to the wife as per the judgment of the Family Court by way of maintainance counted upto 31.1.2019. The Respondent husband is present before the Court with his advocate. He has given a demand draft in the sum of Rs.70,000/- in the name of the wife. He states that a further sum of Rs.1,30,000/- would be paid to the wife within 4 weeks from today. The undertaking and the statement are accepted. He shall act accordingly. S.O. to 2.8.2019. (S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.98 OF 2019 Ritesh D. Patni … Appellant Vs Rajvinder Kaur Ritesh Patni … Respondent Mr.U.P. Warunjikar for the Appellant Mr.Rajendrakumar R. Galange for Respondent CORAM: AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATED: AUGUST 2, 2019 P.C.: Pursuant to the order dated 5.7.2019, the advocate appearing for the appellant/husband tenders a demand draft of Rs.1,50,000/- drawn in favour of the respondent – wife. The same is handed over to the respondent/wife. S.O. to 16.8.2019. (S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)

Order - Status 17: 1 / 1 13-FCA-98-2019-A.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2019 Mr.Ritesh Deenanath Patni ... Appellant Versus Mrs.Rajvinder Kaur Ritesh Patni ... Respondent Mr.Uday Warunjikar for the Appellant. Mr.A.T.Sangle i/b. Mr. R.R.Galange for the Respondent. Mr.Ritesh Deenanath Patni - Appellant present in person. Mrs.Rajvinder Kaur Ritesh Patni - Respondent present in person. CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 16TH AUGUST, 2019 P.C.: Appeal is admitted. Counsel for the respondent waives notice of admission of the appeal. ( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ) ( AKIL KURESHI, J.)

Order - Status 18: 1-fca98-19.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.98 OF 2019 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.253 OF 2019 Ritesnh D. Patni ...Appellant V/s. Mrs.Rajvinder Kaur Ritesh Patni ...Respondent Ms.Vaishanavi Gjujarathi i/b Dr.U.P. Warunjikar for the Appellant. Ritesnh D. Patni – Appellant present in Court. Mr.A.T. Sangle for the Respondent. Mrs.Rajvinder Kaur Ritesh Patni – Respondent in Court. CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA & V.G. BISHT, JJ. DATE : 3RD FEBRUARY, 2021. P.C. :- Learned counsel for both the parties on instructions agree to refer the disputes to mediation of Ms.Gitanjali Prabhu Shetty, a counsel of this Court, C/o Room No.57, Second Floor, Bombay Bar Association. Statement is accepted. Ms.Gitanjali Prabhu Shetty is appointed as a Mediator. Both the parties are directed to co-operate with each other and also with the learned Mediator in submitting the report expeditiously. Learned Mediator shall make an endeavour to submit the report within four weeks from today. Both the parties have agreed to bear the fees and expenses of the learned Mediator, if any, equally. Place the matter on board for directions on 8th March, 2021 along with Mediator's report. Ad-interim relief , if any, to continue till next date. (V.G. BISHT, J.) (R.D. DHANUKA, J.)

Order - Status 20: 13.fca.98.2019.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.98 OF 2019 Ritesh Dinanath Patni .. Applicant/Org.Appellant Versus Rajvinder Kaur Ritesh Patni .. Respondent WITH BHALERAO Digitally signed by UTKARSH KAKASAHEB BHALERAO Date: 2023.10.20 15:21:31 +0530 UTKARSH KAKASAHEB INTERIM APPLICATION NO.13698 OF 2023 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.98 OF 2019 Ritesh Dinanath Patni .. Applicant/Org.Appellant Versus Rajvinder Kaur Ritesh Patni .. Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.253 OF 2019 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.98 OF 2019 Ritesh Deenanath Patni .. Applicant Versus Rajvinder Kaur Ritesh Patni .. Respondent Page 1 of 7 OCTOBER 19, 2023 Utkarsh Mr.Uday Warunjikar a/w Sumit Kate, Jenish Jain Advocates for the Appellant-Husband. Mr.Amit Jamsandekar i/b High Court Legal Services Committee by appointment letter dated 06.10.2023, Advocates for the Respondent-Wife. Mr.Ritesh D. Patni , Appellant-Husband is present in Court. Mrs.Rajvinder Kaur Ritesh Patni , Respondent-Wife is present in Court. С CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & LLA & M.M. SATHAYE, JJ. JJ. D DATE : OCTOBER 19, 2023 23 P. C. 1. In the above matter several orders have been passed. We need not to refer all of them. Suffice it to state that on 4th August, 2023 this Court passed an order in Interim Application No.13698 of 2023, wherein we had recorded the statement of the Respondent-Wife that an amount of Rs.11 Lakhs was received by her in full and final settlement of the disputes between the parties. We had also recorded that out of the sum of Rs.11 Lakhs, an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs has already been deposited in the Registry of this Court. We therefore directed the Registry to permit the Respondent-Wife to unconditionally withdraw this amount with accrued interest thereon, if any. As far as the balance Page 2 of 7 OCTOBER 19, 2023 Utkarsh amount of Rs.6 Lakhs was concerned, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Husband sought time to make the aforesaid payment on or before 30th November, 2023. We were of the opinion that this request was unreasonable and therefore, we directed that the balance amount of Rs.6 Lakhs shall be paid on or before 15th September, 2023 through RTGS to the Respondent-Wife. We had accordingly placed the matter for reporting compliance and further directions on 15th September, 2023. 2. When the matter was called out on 15th September, 2023 it was brought to our attention that the balance amount of Rs.6 Lakhs was also paid to the Respondent-Wife. In other words, the entire amount of Rs.11 Lakhs was paid. However, on 15th September, 2023, the Respondent-Wife made, what we can call, only a mercy plea. She submitted that the amount of Rs.11 Lakhs, and which was paid to the Respondent-Wife, is an amount which is not adequate and some additional amount ought to be paid, over and above the sum of Rs.11 Lakhs. Accordingly on 15th September, 2023, Mr.Warunjikar, the learned advocate appearing for the Husband, submitted that though the Wife cannot be allowed to resile from the commitment made to this Court [as recorded in the order dated 4th August, 2023], to put an end to Page 3 of 7 OCTOBER 19, 2023 Utkarsh the entire dispute between the parties, including all proceedings filed under the Domestic Violence Act and all other proceedings, his client is willing to pay an additional sum of Rs.1 Lakh on or before 13th October, 2023. This offer made by Mr.Warunjikar was graciously accepted by the Respondent-Wife. In other words now the total settlement amount was Rs.12 Lakhs out of which Rs.11 Lakhs were already paid and the balance amount of Rs.1 Lakh was to be paid on or before 13th October, 2023. Since this amount was to be paid on 13th October, 2023 we had kept the above matter on board on the said date and had opined that final orders of a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 including orders of withdrawal of all proceedings filed by the parties against each other, would be passed on the said date. 3. On 13th October, 2023 the matter reached and since the advocate for the Respondent-Wife sought some accommodation, the matter was kept today. 4. Today when the matter is called out, the parties have tendered Consent Terms dated 19th October, 2023. The Consent Terms inter alia provide that, since the parties have been residing separately Page 4 of 7 OCTOBER 19, 2023 since 2014 a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 be passed. The Consent Terms also record that the sum of Rs.12 Lakhs has been paid by the Appellant-Husband to the Respondent-Wife. The Consent Terms also provide that the parties agree that they shall withdraw all the claims/contentions/allegations and proceedings against each other and their family members in different Courts and/or before any police authorities, including the Domestic Violence case at Kurla Court, D.V. Case No.-DVC/157/2016. Though no period has been prescribed in the Consent Terms, both parties have agreed that they shall withdraw their respective proceedings against each other within a period of 15 Days from today. The said statement is accepted as an undertakings given to the Court. 5. The Consent Terms have been signed today by the Appellant-Husband as well as the Respondent-Wife in front of their Advocates. Both, the Appellant-Husband and the Respondent-Wife, are present in Court and have stated that they have signed the Consent Terms after reading and understanding the same as well as the implications thereof. 6. The Consent Terms are also signed by the Advocates for the Appellant and the Advocates for the Respondent. 7. In these circumstances, the Consent Terms dated 19th October, 2023 are taken on record and marked ' X ' for identification. 8. All the undertakings given in the Consent Terms are accepted as undertakings given to the Court. There shall be an order and decree in terms of the Consent Terms and as per the Consent Terms we hereby dissolve the marriage between the Appellant-Husband and the Respondent-Wife solemnized on 9th December, 2012 by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 9. This order read with Consent Terms shall be substituted in place of the order passed by the Family Court and which is impugned in the present Appeal. 10. The Family Court Appeal is accordingly disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 11. In light of the dismissal of the above Family Court Appeal, nothing survives in the above Interim Application as well as in the above Civil Application and the same are disposed of accordingly. 12. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. [ M.M. SATHAYE, J.] [ B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] Page 7 of 7 OCTOBER 19, 2023

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.730 OF 2009 IN CIVIL SUIT NO.10 OF 2002 A N D APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.731 OF 2009 IN CIVIL SUIT NO.1 OF 2006 Gold's Gym. Licensing LLC & Ors. ..Appellants V/s M/s.Gold Gym, through its sole proprietor Mr.K.K.Ashar ..Respondents Mr.Ravi Kadam ASG, Mr.V Dhond & Ms.Nisha Wallani, Mr.Manav Shah & Mr.Kamlesh Patel i/by Deven Dwarkadas & partners for the appellants. Mr.Himanshu Kane with Kailas S. Dewal for the respondents. C oram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 7th September, 2009. PC 1 Parties agree that both the appeals may be disposed off in terms of the Minutes of Order. The Minutes of Order duly signed by the Advocates are tendered. The same are taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Both the appeals are disposed off in terms of the Minutes of Order. (R.S.MOHITE,J)

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

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

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1264 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1546 OF 2010 M.C.G.M. ..Applicant v/s. Ganga Timappa & Ors. ..Respondents ALONGWITH CAF/1265/2018 IN FA/1547/2010 CAF/1266/2018 IN FA/1548/2010 CAF/1267/2018 IN FA/1549/2010 CAF/1268/2018 IN FA/1550/2010 CAF/1269/2018 IN FA/1551/2010 CAF/1270/2018 IN FA/1552/2010 CAF/1271/2018 IN FA/1553/2010 CAF/1272/2018 IN FA/1554/2010 CAF/1273/2018 IN FA/1555/2010 CAF/1274/2018 IN FA/1556/2010 CAF/1275/2018 IN FA/1557/2010 CAF/1276/2018 IN FA/1558/2010 CAF/1277/2018 IN FA/1559/2010 CAF/1278/2018 IN FA/1560/2010 CAF/1279/2018 IN FA/1561/2010 CAF/1292/2018 IN FA/1562/2010 Mr. N.V.Walawalkar, Sr. Adv. a/w. Madhuri More for the Applicant-BMC.. CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. DATED : 02 APRIL, 2018. P.C. Not on board. On production, taken on board. Interim relief granted by earlier Order dated 8th February, 2018 to continue till the next date of hearing. Stand over to 11th June, 2018. (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1264 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1546 OF 2010 The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay … Applicant V/s. Ganga Timmappa & Anr. … Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1265 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1547 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1266 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1548 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1267 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1549 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1268 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1550 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1269 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1551 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1270 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1552 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1271 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1553 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1272 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1554 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1273 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1555 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1274 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1556 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1275 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1557 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1276 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1558 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1277 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1559 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1278 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1560 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1279 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1561 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1292 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1562 OF 2010 Mr.N.V. Walawalkar, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms.M.R. Bhoir for the Applicant. Ms.Megha S. Bajoria i/b. Mr.Kuldeep S. Patil for Respondent No.2. CORAM : DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J. DATE : 8th JUNE, 2018. P.C. : 1] All these 17 Civil Applications are filed for condonation of delay of 44 days in taking out the present application for restoration against Respondent No.1. 2] It is submitted that the notice of this application could not be served by regular mode on Respondent No.1, as the structure is demolished and Respondent No.1 has re-shifted his residence and therefore, the permission is sought to serve the notice by way of substituted service by publication thereof in one English as well as one Marathi newspaper namely "Free Press Journal" and "Navshakti" or such other papers as this Court deem fit. 3] Considering the ground made of non service of Respondent No.1 by regular mode, these Applications are allowed in terms of prayer Clause (b) for service of notice on Respondent No.1 by publication in the local newspapers having circulation in the area of Mumbai. 4] Accordingly, the order of ad-interim relief, which is granted by this Court on 2nd April, 2018 and which was continued till 3/4 11th June, 2018 is directed to be continued till 16th August, 2018, in view of the issuance of the notice to Respondent No.1. 5] It is clarified that the matter is adjourned for return of the notice to 7th August, 2018 and the order of ad-interim relief, granted earlier, is extended till 16th August, 2018. 6] Stand over to 7th August, 2018. [DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.]

Order - Status 7: ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4296 OF 2015 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.1089 OF 2015 The National Insurance Co.Ltd. ...Applicant vs. Smt.Anuja Ramachal Patel & Ors. ...Respondents Ms Poonam Mittal for the Applicant CORAM :K.K.TATED,J. DATE : AUGUST 27, 2019 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. By this application the applicant is seeking stay of operation and implementation Judgment and Award dated 2nd August 2014 passed by MACT,Mumbai in Claim Petition No.2370 of 2007 holding that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.11,86,671/ with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. 2 The learned counsel for the applicant submits that they have challenged the impugned Judgment on quantum basis. She submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. She further submits that if the entire amount is recovered by the respondents by filing execution application, then nothing survives in the present application. She submits that the applicant is ready and willing to deposit the entire amount with interest within three weeks from today. Statement is accepted. She submits that pending the final disposal of the present First Appeal, this Court be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned Judgment. 3 It is to be noted that in the present proceedings accident occurred on 3rd July 2007. Claimant No.1 lost her husband and the claimant Nos.2 and 3 lost their father. At the time of accident the age of the deceased was 45 years. He was running the medical shop under the name and style of Ashish Medical and General Stores,Kandivali, Mumbai. He was earning nearby 1,10,943/ p.a from his business. Considering this aspect, the claimant No.1wife and claimant Nos.3 and 4 being minors, I am of the opinion that they can be permitted to withdraw the amount. 4 Hence I pass the following order : (a) The operation and implementation of the impugned Judgment and Award dated 2nd August 2014 passed by MACT,Mumbai in Claim Petition No.2370 of 2007 is stayed during the pendency of the First Appeal with condition that the Applicant to deposit entire compensation amount with interest in MACT, Mumbai on or before 21st September 2019 failing which Civil Application shall stand dismissed. (b) If the entire amount of compensation with interest is deposited within stipulated time, Applicant No.1Smt.Anuja Ramachal Patel and claimant No.2Master Gaurav Ramachal Patel are entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.2 lakh each with accrued interest thereon without furnishing any security subject to final outcome of the First Appeal. (c)The Tribunal is directed to invest remaining amount in Fixed deposit in any nationalised bank initially for a period of one year and to continue till further order. (d)Liberty is granted to the respondents claimants, if they so desire, to apply for withdrawal of the amount, which shall be decided on its own merits. (e)Civil Application is disposed of with no order as to costs. (K.K.TATED,J.)