All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO. 6159 OF 2009 Deccan Education Society, Pune and Anr. ..Petitioners Vs. Shri.Ashutosh Nandkishore Ranade and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr. V.D.Borwankar Adv. for Petitioners Mr. A.I.Khemani AGP for Respondent No.2 CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 25, 2009 .... P.C.: Notice to respondent no.1 returnable on 9th September, 2009. In addition to that, the learned advocate for the petitioner to serve respondent no.1 by private service and file affidavit of service. Learned AGP waives service of notice for respondent no.2. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO.6159 OF 2009 Deccan Education Society Fergusson CollegeMr. and Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Shri.Ashutosh Nandkishore Ranade and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr.V.D.Borwankar Adv. for Petitioners Mr.A.I.Khemani AGP for Respondent No.2. Mr.S.M.Joshi Adv. for Respondent No.3. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 09, 2009 P.C.: The learned advocate for the Petitioner states that he will file affidavit of service by 17.9.2009. Time to complete the inquiry, is extended upto 30.9.2009. S.O. 23.9.2009. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6159 OF 2009 .... Deccan Education Society & Anr. ...Petitioners V/s. Ashutosh Nandkishore Ranade & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr.V.D.Borwankar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.A.M.Joshi, Advocate, for respondent no.1. CORAM : R.S.MOHITE, J. DATE : 13th NOVEMBER, 2009. P.C. The employee has filed a cross petition bearing Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 20904 of 2009, which is not on board today. By consent, these two writ petitions to be kept together for admission. Stand over to 19th November 2009. (R.S.MOHITE, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT Petition No. 1360 OF 2008 KailasPetitioner Balkrishna Patil (Through Jail) Vs. TheRespondent State of Magistrate & Ors. Mrs. S. D. Shinde, for the Respondent. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI, & A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J. DATE : AUGUST 4, 2008. PC :- 1.The petitioner has filed the petition, seeking his release after serving sentence of 14 years, as life convict. Earlier he had moved an application which was rejected by the respondents on 12th April, 2006. On the last occasion, we had asked the learned Public Prosecutor to file a reply, stating as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be released in terms of the policy framed in April 2008. The reply has not been filed. Further time was sought to file the reply. 2.In the circumstances, we direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his release in terms of the policy framed in April 2008 and pass the speaking order within two weeks from today. 3.After passing of any such order, pursuant to above direction, such order be placed before us. S.O. to 20th August, 2008. Sd/- [ BILAL NAZKI, J.] Sd/- [ A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.]

Order - Status 11: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 1360 OF 2008 l -1- - Office Notes, Office Memoranda l of Coram, appearances, Court's l Orders or directions and l Registrar's orders. l Court's or Judges' Order i -i- - Mrs. P.H.Kantharia A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: S. B. MHASE & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATE: October 8, 2008. P.C. Mr. Ashutosh Gole is hereby appointed as an advocate to conduct the petition on behalf of the accused who is in jail. Office is directed to furnish copy of the petition to the appointed advocate. S.O. to 14th October 2008. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1360 OF 2008 Kailas..Petitioner Balkrishna Patil V/s The..Respondents State of Maharashtra & Ors. Mr.Ashutosh Gole for the Petitioner Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP for the State CORAM : S.B.MHASE & A.A. SAYED JJ. DATE : 17TH NOVEMBER, 2008 P.C. 1.Heard. 2.Rule. Rule returnable immediately with the consent of the parties. 3.The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for release from the jail in view of the provisions of Section 432, 433 of Criminal Procedure Code, remitting the entire portion of the sentence for his premature release under 14 years rule. The petitioner is in jail for a period as follows:- (a)Under trial period two years, 6 months, 20 days. (b)Actual sentence under gone 13 years, 7 months, 15 months. (c)Ordinary remissions and other remissions including State remissions 6 years, 1 month, 29 days. Total period with remissions is 22 years, 4 months, 4 days. 4.This was the position on the date when the return was filed by the State on 21st October, 2008. At that time the petitioner was classified under category 3(b) of the guide-lines dated 11/5/1992. But with new guide-lines introduced on 11th April 2008, this Court directed the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner under new guide-lines. The respondents accordingly considered the case of the petitioner under new guide-lines and passed an order dated 26th August, 2008 classifying him under category 4(c) of Annexure-1 and directed that he should be released after completion of the 24 years with remission subject to 14 years of actual imprisonment. 5.It is admitted position that the petitioner has undergone actual imprisonment for more than 14 years. The only question which requires to be considered is as to how the petitioner is to be categorised and after completion of how many years with remission the petitioner is to be released. 6.Under new guide-lines of 2008 the petitioner has been categorised in category 4 viz. "for other reasons" and in sub-category, he has been categorised in 4(c) viz. "crime committed (a) above but with the premeditation or by gang or by a person having criminal history" and the punishment is shown to be 24 years in the said Annexure-1. What is important to be taken into consideration is that the classification of the accused under category 4 is basically incorrect, because from the final noting which have been prepared by the State, it appears that the deceased Ramesh was involved in criminal cases and as against him there were several offences registered and chapter cases were also filed. 7.From the facts of the case it transpires that some persons from the Mumbai desired to purchase agricultural property at Madhi and it is alleged that in order to see that those transaction are cleared, the deceased Ramesh was indulging in gundagiri and therefore the accused persons have come together and have committed the murder of the deceased. Thus, the act of murder has taken place as a result of land dispute. When the murder is committed in relation to land dispute, the same has been categorised in category 3 viz " murder arising out of land dispute, family feuds, family prestige and superstition". Thus the categorisation by the respondents into category 4 is not just and proper. 8.The offence committed by the accused thus falls in category 3 as stated above. Since many persons have come together and have indulged in the said murder we further find the offence falls in sub-category (b) viz. "the crime committed as above with premeditation either individual or by gang". Therefore, assuming that the crime has been committed with premeditation still offence will fall under category 3(b) and not category 4(c) and thus we find that the order which has been passed by the respondents categorising the petitioner into category 4(c) by order dated 26th August, 2008 is not just and proper and we set aside the said order. 9It is also equally admitted position that with the remission the petitioner has completed more than 22 years imprisonment. Both the conditions are therefore satisfied i.e the petitioner has undergone actual punishment for 14 years and he has undergone 22 years with all remissions at his credit. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released from the jail. 10.We therefore direct the respondents that giving benefit of sections 432 and 433 of Cr.P.C. and petitioner being classified into category 3(b),of the guide-lines dated 11-04-2008, he should be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 11.Rule is made absolute in terms above and the petition is disposed of. ( A.A. SAYED, J.) (S.B. MHASE, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6610 OF 2004 Prakashanand Rupadevi Trust ... Petitioner versus Narottamananda Guru ... ... Gopalanandaji Brahmchari ... Respondent Mr. G.S. Godbole for Mr. P.R. Arjunwadkar, for the Petitioner. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. 19th August 2004 P.C.: . Issue notice before admission returnable six weeks. Petitioner to serve the Respondent. That be done either personally or by speed post/courier/e-mail/fax and file affidavit of service on or before the returnable date, failing which the petition to stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court. . Status quo as of today be maintained till further orders. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.6610 OF 2004 Mr.G.S.Godbole i/b P.R.Arjunwadkar for the Petitioner. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's order or directions Court's or Judge's orders ¦ ¦ ¦ CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. ¦ DATED: 6TH JULY,2005 P.C.: ... Both the courts below have concurrently found that the Plaintiff is not entitled to temporary injunction that he was seeking. In any case, perusal of the application shows that the temporary injunction was sought in such wide terms that no court should pass an order in favour of the Plaintiff. Petition has no substance. It is rejected.

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2592 OF 2019 Hema Manoj Date And Anr. ....Petitioner V/S M/s. Eashkrupa Shiping And Logistics (i) Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. ....Respondent Mr.Akshay Prakash Shinde for Petitioners. Mr.A.R.Kapadnis- APP for the State. CORAM : SURENDRA PANDHARINATH TAVADE, J DATE : 2nd January, 2020 P.C. : Stand over to 30/01/2020 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2592 OF 2019 Petitioners Respondents Mr. Manoj Badgujar i/b Mr. Akshay Prakash Shinde for the Petitioners None for the Respondent No.1 Mr. A. R. Patil, A.P.P for the Respondent No.2–State CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. (THROUGH VIDEO-CONFERENCING) THURSDAY, 6th JANUARY 2022 P.C. : 1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2 By this petition, the petitioners have impugned the order issuing process as against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1 is the wife of Manoj Date, the proprietor of M/s. Anuj Textiles and the petitioner No. 2 is the mother of Manoj Date. He submits that both the petitioners are not concerned with the proprietary concern i.e. M/s. Anuj Textiles. He further submits that Manoj Date, as a proprietor of M/s. Anuj Textiles, had issued the cheques in question, which are dishonoured and that the petitioners have been arraigned as accused by virtue of their relations with Manoj Date and that they are not concerned with the said transaction. 3 Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 3rd February 2022. Learned A.P.P waives notice on behalf of the respondent No. 2-State. In addition to Court notice, petitioners to serve the respondent No.1 by Advocate's notice and file an affidavit of service before the returnable date. 4 In the meantime, till the next date, the proceedings qua the petitioners, is stayed. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2592 OF 2019 Hema Manoj Date And Anr. ...Petitioners Versus M/s. Eashkrupa Shiping And Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Manoj Badgujar i/by Mr. Akshay Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioners. …. Mr. Govinda S. Gupta h/f Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate for Respondent No.1. …. Mr. A. R. Patil, APP for the Respondent – State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2022. PER COURT : The petition was circulated at the instance of respondent No.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Govind Gupta submits that the arguing counsel appearing for respondent No.1 is in difficulty and hence the petition may be adjourned. Stand over to 14th November, 2022. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2592 OF 2019 Hema Manoj Date And Anr. ...Petitioner Versus M/s.. Eashkrupa Shiping And Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. ...Respondents …. Mr. Manoj Badgujar i/by Mr. Akshay P. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner. None for respondent No.1. Mr. A. R. Patil, APP for the Respondent – State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2022. PER COURT : Not on Board. Taken on Board. Papers are produced for extension of interim relief granted by this Court. By order dated 06.01.2022, the proceedings before the trial Court were stayed qua the petitioner till the next date of hearing. Thereafter, the petition was listed on 28.09.2022 at the instance of the respondent and it was adjourned to 14.11.2022 but interim order dated 06.01.2022 has not been extended. Hence, the interim order is extended till the next date of hearing i.e. on 14.11.2022. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) Sajakali Jamadar 1 of 1

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2592 OF 2019 Hema Manoj Date & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. Eashkrupa Shiping & Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. … Respondents Mr. Manoj Badgujar i/by Mr. Akshay Shinde for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Verma for the respondent No.1. Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for the State. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 14, 2022 P.C.: Stand over to 2nd December, 2022. Ad-interim relief granted earlier is extended till 5th December, 2022. (AMIT BORKAR, J.)

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2592 OF 2019 Hema Manoj Date & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. Eashkrupa Shipping & Logistics (I) Pvt Ltd. & Anr. … Respondents Mr. Manoj Badgujar i/by Mr. Akshay P. Shide for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Kumar Verma for respondent no.1. Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for the respondent no.2/State. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : DECEMBER 2, 2022 P.C.: The petitioners are accused nos.3 and 4. From the averments in the complaint, it is clear that accused no.1 is a proprietary firm of which accused no.2 is the sole proprietor. As per averments in the complaint, accused no.3 is the wife of accused no.2 and accused no.4 is the mother of accused no.2. In relation to the proprietary firm, it is stated in the complaint that accused nos.2, 3 and 4 jointly handled the day-to-day business affairs of respondent no.1 firm and, therefore, accused nos.3 and 4 are vicariously liable for the cheque issued by the accused no.1. Since accused no.1 is neither a firm nor a company, the provisions of section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are not attracted. Arguable questions are raised. Rule. There shall be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) qua the petitioners only. (AMIT BORKAR, J.)

Order - Status 18: Ghuge IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2592 OF 2019 Hema Manoj Date and Anr … Petitioners V/s. M/s. Eashkrupa Shipping and Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd and Anr … Respondents Mr. Manoj Badgujar i/b Mr. Akshay Shinde for the petitioners. Mr. Ashwinkumar Verma for the respondent No.1. Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for the State/respondent No.2. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : APRIL 26, 2023 P.C.: Learned advocate for the respondent No.1, on instructions, of the complainant the complainant has no objection to set aside the order dated 19th January, 2019. The order order dated 16th June, 2017 passed against the petitioners. He states that the complainant has no objection to quash the complaint against the petitioners. In view of consent of the complainant/respondent No.1, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). (AMIT BORKAR, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1621 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1622 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1623 OF 2011 Global Trade Finance Limited ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. ... Respondents Mr. Yashpal Thakur i/by M/s. Paras Kuhad & Associates, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Pednekar, A.P.P. for State in Cri.W.P. No. 1621 of 2011. Mr. A.S. Shitole, A.P.P. for State in Cri.W.P. No. 1622 of 2011. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, A.P.P. for State in Cri.W.P. No. 1623 of 2011. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 P.C. Heard. Issue notice to respondents returnable on 17.11.2011. The learned A.P.P. waives service on behalf of State. To be heard finally at admission stage along with W.P. No. 1620 of 2011. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)

Order - Status 12: WP 1620-G OF 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1620 OF 2011. WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1622 OF 2011. WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1623 OF 2011. Global Trade Finance Limited .. Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra and anr .. Respondents. Mr. Yashpal Thakur i/by M/s Paras Kuhad & Associates, for the petitioners in all the petitions. . Mrs. U. V. Kejariwal, APP for the Respondent – State Ms. K. R. Davierwala i/by M/s Mulla & Mulla C.B.C. for Respondent No.2. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 22nd November, 2012 P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has instructions from his client to withdraw the petitions. Petitions are disposed of as withdrawn. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 1651 OF 2009 Javed Nihal Ahmad Nihal Ansari ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Through jail Mr. Rajesh More, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : DATE: OCTOBER 5, 2009 P.C. : The Jail Superintendent shall file his affidavit personally by next Monday. List on 12th October, 2009. BILAL NAZKI, J. A.R. JOSHI, J.

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1651 OF 2009 Javed Nihal Ahmad Nihal Ansari .... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Through Jail Shri Rajesh More, APP, for the State. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED: OCTOBER 12, 2009 P.C: It appears that the petitioner was punished when he was lodged in the Thane Jail. Now the petitioner is lodged in Nashik Road Central Prison. Let an affidavit be filed by the Superintendent of the Thane Jail disclosing the details of the work allotted to the petitioner which he allegedly refused to do. S.O. to 9-11-2009. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE 1 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1651 OF 2009 Javed Nihal Ahmad Nihal Ansari .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for State. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & R.Y. GANOO, JJ. November 09, 2009. P.C. This petition was received through Jail and challenges the order dated 7/1/2008 passed by the Superintendent of Central Prison at Thane, thereby removing the name of the petitioner from the remission register for one year. The petitioner himself has admitted that he was called upon to join the work allotted to him in the Jail premises and he made representation to the effect that he should be given a suitable work in view of his qualifications. He claims that he has passed B.Com. and, therefore, the work allotted to him in the factory was not suitable to him. It is his case that though he was called upon to work in the factory section, he was not informed as to which section and what kind of work he was required to do. Show cause notice was issued to him on 8/11/2007 and he had submitted his reply. On 7/1/2008 the impugned order was passed and the same has been approved by the learned District and Sessions Judge. We have perused the affidavits filed by Smt. Swati Madhav Sathe, Superintendent of Nasik Central Prison, as at present and the affidavit filed by Shri Yogesh Desai, who is presently the Superintendent of Central Prison at Thane and as per the said affidavit the petitioner was allotted work in the factory section on 20/8/2007 and he ought to have reported there. Instead, he did not report to the factory section where there are number of trades i.e. carpentry, power looms, stitching, bakery etc. and this was refused by the petitioner. We do not see any procedural error in passing the impugned order and in any case we are informed that the petitioner is likely to be released towards the end of December, 2009. No case is made out to cause interference in the order passed by the Superintendent, Central Prison at Thane and hence the petition is rejected. This order be communicated to the petitioner in the concerned jail. (R.Y. GANOO,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.5912 of 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Ms.Mamta Sharma i/b Lalit Jain for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 10th August 2010. P.C. : Colleague of Mr.Jain, advocate for the petitioner states that Mr.Jain is not well and prays for an adjournment. S.O for two weeks. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 20: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5912 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. L.V. Jain for the Petitioner. Mr. Amet Shete for Respondent No.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 28th JUNE, 2011 P.C.: Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the writ petition unconditionally. The petition is disposed of as withdrawn. ..... (D.G.KARNIK, J.)