All Writ Appeal

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 95 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6112 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 : 21 APRIL 2017 As per order passed by Registrar (JudicialI) on 19.01.2017, W.P. stands dismissed without further reference to the Court. Hence, this Civil Application filed for bringing legal heirs of deceased Petitioner, become infractous as does not survive. REGISTRAR (JUDLI) RJ I gpj / 21.04.2017

Order - Status 9: Vidya Amin FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 95 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6112 OF 2016 Eknath Yeshwant Bondre (Decd) through LRs Mrs. Sharvari S. Mirashi & Ors. … Applicants Versus Madhav Prakash Joglekar & Ors. … Respondents Mr. S.C. Wakankar, Advocate for the applicants. CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE: 2 nd August, 2018. P.C.: This Application is moved for bringing legal heirs of deceased applicant/petitioner no. 1-Ekanth Yeshwant Bondre. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that petitioner-Eknath Bondre died on 17th October, 2016 and Civil Application was filed on 11th January, 2017, i.e., within 90 days, hence the legal heirs of petitioner no. 1 are to be brought on record. In view of this submissions, the legal heirs of deceased petitioner no. 1 is brought on record. Civil Application is allowed. Amendment to be carried out till 7th August, 2018. The amended copy of the petition is to be served on the other side. In Writ Petition, issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 18th September, 2018. Additionally private service allowed. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : 9 JULY 2015. P.C . :- On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on Supplementary/ Daily Boards stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 2, 3, 4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 27/07/2015 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28 28/07/2015 31, 33, 34, 35, 36 30/07/2015 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 31/07/2015 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 03/08/2015 If in any of the above matters, ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If ad-interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (M. S. SONAK, J.)

Order - Status 6: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1858 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 47 OF 2015 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearance, Court's Court's or orders or directions & Judge's orders. Registrar's orders. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh for Applicants. Mr. K. S. Pillai - C. A. of Respondent No.1 present CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : 27 JULY 2015 P.C. :- 1] Mr. K. S. Pillai, constituted attorney for the respondent no.1 files reply opposing the application seeking amendment of the petition. However, since the petition is yet to be admitted, in my judgment, there is no reason to deny leave to amend. The objections of the respondent no. 1, mainly, are directed against the merits of the contentions and reliefs raised by way of amendment. Accordingly, the respondent no. 1 shall be at liberty to raise all such objections once the amendment is carried out and the petition is taken up for admission. 2] With liberty, as aforesaid, civil application is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). Necessary amendment to be carried out within two weeks from today and within one week thereafter, copy of the amended petition be furnished to the respondents. 3] Place the main petition for admission on 24 August 2015. In the meanwhile, if any of the respondents, including the respondent no. 1, desire to file any reply, they shall be at liberty to do so. (M. S. SONAK, J.) Chandka

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 47 OF 2015 Smt. Maulanbee Jiyavuddin Shaikh And Anr. ....PETITIONER V/S Dr. (smt.) Chitra Kanagasabapathy And Ors. ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 1858 OF 2015 In Writ Petition 47 OF 2015 Smt. Maulanbee Jiyavuddin Shaikh And Anr. ....APPLICANT V/S Dr. (smt.) Chitra Kanagasabapathy And Ors. ....RESPONDENT Mr.Piyush A. Singh a/w. Krishnakant Singh i/b.AJAY KUMAR SINGH for Petitioner Mr.Surya Das i/b. R.R. Sharma for R.Nos.4 to 7. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 12th January, 2023 P.C. : S. O. to 02/02/2023 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 1784 OF 2017 In WRIT PETITION 6942 OF 2016 Rajani Arvind Parchure ....Applicant V/S Shri. Narhari Mahadev Gole @ Badekar ....Respondent CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI, J DATE : 22nd December, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned as per CMIS date. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: Shailaja IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1784 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6942 OF 2016 Rajani Arvind Parchure ] Applicant Vs. Shri Narhari Mahadev Gole @ Bedekar ] Respondent ….. Mr. Sandesh Shukla a/w Mr. Amit Singh i/b Santosh Sawant, for Applicant. ….. CORAM : R.G. KETKAR, J. DATE : 22ND MARCH, 2018. P.C. Heard Mr. Shukla, learned Counsel for the applicant. This is an application for bringing heirs and legal representatives of the petitioner on record. Office remark shows that the Civil Application is filed in time. For the reasons stated in the application, Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) with no order as to costs. Leave to convert Writ Petition into Civil Revision Application is granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. At the request of Mr. Shukla, Writ Petition is taken up for admission. By this application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioner hereinafter referred to 'plaintiff' has challenged the judgment and decree dated 28th October, 2013 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge, Sangli in Regular Civil Appeal No.197 of 2009. By that order, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant and dismissed the suit. The learned District Judge held that the defendant is in possession of the suit premises on the basis of oral agreement of sale of the year 2002. He submitted that Section 17 (1A) of the Registration Act, 1908 lays down that the documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for the purpose of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, shall be registered, if they have been executed on or after 24th September, 2001 and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement then, they shall have no effect for the purpose of Section 53A of the Act. He submitted that the learned District Judge, therefore, was not justified in holding that the defendant is in possession of the suit premises on the basis of oral agreement of sale of 2002. In view of this submission, issue notice to the respondent returnable on 19th April, 2018. Parties are put to the notice that subject to the time constraint and convenience of the Court, Petition will be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. Notice shall further indicate that despite service if the respondents fail to appear, the Court will proceed to decide the petition on its own merits. In the meantime, call for record and proceedings. [R.G. KETKAR, J.]

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2095 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1327 OF 2001 Mr.Ramchandra Mr.Ramchandra Dhondi Sawant Applicant V/s State of Maha State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents Mr.P.S.Dani i/by M/s.Kiran Jain & Co.for the Applicant. Mr.Vinay Sonpal, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & NARESH H.PATIL, JJ. DATE : 13th September, 2006. P.C.: Before we proceed to hear this application which has been filed for restoration of Writ Petition No.1327 of 2001 after four years and four months, it is necessary to find out from Respondent No.2 the present position in respect of the Petitioner's land which has been acquired and in respect of which the award has been passed on 1.8.1985. We therefore direct the Respondent No.2 to file reply within a period of three weeks from today. The learned AGP to communicate this order to Respondent No.2 forthwith. Stand over for three weeks. (NARESH H.PATIL,J.) ( B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2049 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1330 OF 2001 Mr.Dnyandeo ...Applicant Laxman Sawant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2095 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1327 OF 2001 Mr.Ramchandra ...Applicant Dhondi Sawant Vs. State...Respondents of Maharashtra & Ors. Mr.P.S.Dani i/b.M/s.Kiran Jain & Co. for the Applicants. Mr.Vinay Sonpal, A.G.P. for the Respondents. CORAM :- B.H.MARLAPALLE & NARESH H.PATIL,JJ. DATE : 7TH OCTOBER, 2006 P.C. 1.Mr.Sonpal,A.G.P. seeks one week's further time to file reply. Time granted. Matter to stand over for one week. (NARESH H.PATIL,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2049 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1330 OF 2001 Mr. Dnyandeo Laxman Sawant ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2095 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1327 OF 2001 Mr. Ramchandra Dhondi Sawant ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents Mr. P.S. Dani i/by M/s. Kiran Jain & Co. for applicant in both the matters. Ms. M.P. Thakur, AGP for State in both the matters. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & J. H. BHATIA,JJ. Dated: December 8, 2006. P.C.: These are the applications filed for restoration of Writ Petition Nos.1330 and 1327 of 2001 respectively which came to be dismissed for default on 6/2/2002 i.e. before about four years and four months. Consequent to the order passed by us on 13/9/2006 the respondent no.2 has filed affidavit in reply and clearly stated that the award was passed on 1/8/1985 and possession was taken over of the subject land on 13/8/1985. The challenge in the original petitions is to the notice dated 12/3/1983 issued by the respondent no.2 and the award dated 1/8/1985. Obviously, the challenge was raised after more than 15 years and the petitions came to be dismissed in default. We do not see any reason to allow these applications at this stage and restore the petitions which by itself were highly belatedly filed. Mr. Dani then stated that the land from the applicants possession has been taken over beyond or in excess of the land stated in the Section 4 notice from the respective survey numbers. Therefore, while rejecting these applications we make it clear that the acquisition of the land must be to the extent of the area mentioned in the notification under Section 4, the declaration under Section 6 and the award passed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. If the area of land acquired is in excess of the land for which the award has been passed, we direct the Land Acquisition Officer to pay the compensation as per the award already passed for such excess land as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today. (J.H. Bhatia, J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)

Order - Status 13: dik IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1388 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3098 OF 1995 Namdeo Rao Patil & Anr. ... Applicants. Vs. Smt.Leela d/o Maruti Shankore Kedare & Ors. ... Respondents. Ms.Rohini H.DesaiKalgutkar i/by Smt.B.P.Jakhade, Advocate for the Applicants Mr. Tushar Dahibavkar a/w Ms. Janhavi Naik i/by M/s Dahibavkar & Co., for the Respondent Nos.3,4. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2012. P.C. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants and learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.3,4. Application is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4. Prayer is for restoration of the Writ Petition filed by the present Applicants which was dismissed for nonprosecution by order dated 17th August, 2009. Reasons have been set out in the Application as to why Advocate appointed by the Applicants remained absent. Writ Petition was dismissed only because Advocate appointed by the Applicants remained absent. Hence, case for restoration is made out. Accordingly, the Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b) [ A. S. OKA, J. ]

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2096 OF 2004 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5204 OF 2004 Subhan Mohamed Yusuf Parkar and another ... Petitioners versus Dastgir Mohamed Sathe and ors. ... Respondents ... Mr. H.A. Solkar, for the Petitioners. Mr. S.S. Pakale, for Respondents Nos. 1 to 5. Mr. M.A. Solkar, for Respondents Nos. 6 and 10. Mr. A.H. Palekar, for Respondents Nos. 25 and 26. ... CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. 3rd September 2004 P.C.: . Preliminary objection is raised on behalf of the Respondents that the main writ petition is finally disposed of. It is contended that if the grievance of the Petitioners is about the correctness of the order passed by the Inspector of the office of the Charity Commissioner, appointed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, the appropriate remedy is to question that decision by substantive proceedings and not by way of civil application in a disposed of writ petition. To over come this objection, Mr. Solkar, for the applicants, contends that the grievance of the applicants is about the inappropriate understanding and misapplication of the directions given by this Court in the disposed of writ petition. Even so, to my mind, there is substance in the preliminary objection taken on behalf of the Respondents about the maintainability of the civil application. The appropriate course is to permit the applicants to withdraw this application with liberty to resort to such other substantive remedy as may be available and permissible by law. That be done within one week from today. In the meantime, the parties shall maintain status quo as of today. Civil Application disposed of accordingly. . Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.)