All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No. 7900 of 2004 Navi Mumbai Kanda Batata Vyapari Sangh-petitioner vs The APMC Mumbai and ors ..respondents Mr P.M.Khankar for petitioners Mr.Bhadrashetye for respondent no.l Mr. A A Garge for respondent no.2 CORAM: A.P.SHAH & S.U.KAMDAR JJ. lst October, 2004 P.C. . At the request of the learned counsel appearing for the Market Committee S.O to l8.l0.2004. The Market Committee is directed to file affidavit placing on record the report of the IIT and furnish copies of the said report to the parties. To be placed alongwith Writ Petition Stamp Nos. 25884 of 2004 and 24026 of 2004. 1

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO.7909 OF 2004. Kamlakar Krishna Patil : Petitioner. versus Union of India & Anr. : Respondents. CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR & NARESH H. PATIL, JJ. DATED : 19th AUGUST 2006. P.C. Petitioner to ensure service upon Respondent No.2 within two weeks from today. Issue fresh notice to Respondent No.2, to be served also by courier service, returnable on 27th September 2006. [R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J] [NARESH H. PATIL, J]

Order - Status 14: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No. 7909 of 2004 Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders ------------------------------------------------------------ Mr.V.Z.Kankaria with Mr.S.C.More for petitioner. Mr.A.D.Kango for Resp.nos.1 and 2. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & NARESH H.PATIL, JJ. September 27, 2006. P.C. .Heard. Rule. Mr.A.D. Kango waives service for the respondents. Rule expedited. (NARESH H. PATIL,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4652 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, am, Court's or Judgo's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.C.G.Gavnekar for the petitioner. Ms M.P.Thakur, A.G.P. for resp. nos.1 & 2. CORAM : D.D. SINHA & A.R.JOSHI,JJ. DATE : JUNE 27, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice, returnable on 11.7.2011. The learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader waives notice on behalf of the respondent nos.1 & 2. (D.D. SINHA, J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4652 OF 2011 Subhash Prabhakar Patil ..Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. C. G. Gavnekar for Petitioner. Mr. P. M. Palshikar - 'A' Panel Counsel and Mrs. M. P. Thakur - Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. R. JOSHI, JJ. 27 July 2011. P.C. : Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to amend the year of The Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Presiding Authorities) (Removal From Office Due to Misconduct) Rules. It is submitted that inadvertently it is mentioned in the petition that those Rules are of 1994 whereas they are of the year 1995. Leave granted. Appropriate amendment be carried out forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. Rule. Learned counsel for the respondents waives service on behalf of the Respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present petition the petitioner has raised challenge to the validity of sub rule 6 of rule 3 of The Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Presiding Authorities) (Removal from Office Due to Misconduct) Rules 1995. Sub rule 6 reads thus : "On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral and documentary evidence shall be produced by or on behalf of the complainant. The witnesses shall be examined by or on behalf of the complainant and may be crossexamined by the Presiding authority against whom there are charges of misconduct. However no legal practitioner shall be allowed to appear on behalf of the complainant or the Presiding authority." The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Section 50 of The Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 deals with removal of President or a Vice-President. The petitioner is a President of Raigad Zilla Parishad and the proceedings are initiated against him on the ground of misconduct in discharge of his duties and therefore the procedure which the respondents need to follow is stipulated in Section 50 of the Act. It is contended that proviso to Section 50 contemplates that no President or Vice-President shall be removed from office unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity to furnish an explanation. It is further contended that Section 274 of the Act gives powers to the State Government to make rules, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, for the purpose of carrying in to effect the provisions of the Act. It is contended that sub section (2) also empowers the State Government to make rules for all or any of the following matters which are mentioned in sub section (2). It is submitted that Section 274(2) does not clothe State Government to make rule regarding removal of President or Vice President as stipulated in section 50 of the Act nor the State Government is competent to make rule inconsistent with the provisions of section 50 as per sub rule 1 and section 274 of the Act. The counsel for the petitioner therefore contended that to comply with the doctrine of natural justice as contemplated by provisions of section 50 before a President or Vice-President is removed from the office, the request made by the petitioner to permit him to be represented by lawyer at the time of inquiry is just, proper and is consistent with the provisions of Section 50. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the State Government has a power to make rules in view of provisions of section 274 sub sections (1) and (2). It is contended that sub clause (li) gives power to make rules in respect of any other matter under the Act and therefore the State Government is clothe with power to make rules even in respect of contingencies mentioned in section 50 of the Act. Sub rule 6 of rule 3 only prohibits legal practitioner to appear on behalf of the complainant or the presiding authority in the inquiry proceedings undertaken for removal of President or a Vice President as per procedure stipulated under section 50 of the Act, however petitioner will be given full opportunity to participate in the inquiry. It is therefore contended that the challenge raised by the petitioner to sub rule 6 of rule 3 is misconceived and bad in law. We have considered the rival contentions and also considered the relevant rules relied on and cited by the learned respective counsel for the parties. The questions which fall for our consideration are as follows: i. Whether the State Government is clothed with the power to make rules under Section 274(2) pertaining to contingencies stipulated in section 50 of the Act which deals with removal of a President or a Vice President? ii. Proviso 1 to section 50 contemplates that no President or a Vice President shall be removed from the office unless he has been given reasonable opportunity to furnish an explanation and therefore whether the concept of reasonable opportunity to furnish explanation includes such person can be represented by lawyer at the time of such inquiry or proceedings. iii. Even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that the State Government may have a power in respect of the contingency as mentioned in section 50 of the Act, even then whether the State Government can make a rule inconsistent with the provisions of section 50 of the Act such as sub rule 6 of rule 3 of the Rules, which prohibits President or Vice President being represented by lawyer in such inquiry proceedings, whereas section 50 of the Act does not stipulate such prohibition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the circumstances the interim relief in terms of prayer clause (f) may kindly be granted during the pendency of the petition. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. Considered the rival contentions for grant of interim relief and perused the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. Taking the over all view of the matter, though it is not possible to give findings on the issues involved in the present case at this stage, however, we are prima facie of the view that the case is made out for grant of interim relief. If the interim relief is not granted and if the inquiry commenced against the petitioner is permitted to go on the petition will become infructuous. Therefore we grant interim relief in terms of prayer clause (f) of the petition during the pendency of the petition. Considering the issue involved, respective counsel prayed that the hearing of the petition may be expedited. In the circumstances, hearing of the petition is expedited. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (A. R. JOSHI, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO.4980 OF 2006 Bhimrao Vithal Patil, .. Petitioner. Vs Shankar Yashwant Bansode & ors .. Respondents Mr V.B.Naik i/b Mr I.M.Khairdi, for the petitioner. Mr Uday V Warunjikar, for respondent no.1. CORAM : : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 22.08.2006 PC: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Rule. There shall be ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer caluses (c) and (d). Pendency of this petition shall not operate as stay to the proceedings before the Assistant Charity Commissioner in Change Report Nos 1886 of 2005 and 1225 of 2005. The Assistant Charity Commissioner shall endeavour to dispose of both the aforestated change reports, after giving an opportunity of being heard to both sides, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. (D.B.BHOSALE,J.)

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4980 OF 2006 Bhimrao Vitthal Patil ....Petitioner V/S Shankar Yashwant Bansode And Ors. ....Respondent Mr. I. M. Khairdi For Petitioner Mr. P. P. Pujari, AGP for State. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 26th August, 2019 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the Petitioner, Place the petition for final hearing Board week commencing from 23/09/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4980 OF 2006 Bhimrao Vitthal Patil ....Petitioner V/S Shankar Yashwant Bansode And Ors. ....Respondent Mr. I. M. Khairdi For Petitioner Mr. A. R. Metkari, AGP For State. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 23rd September, 2019 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the petitioners / respondent / applicant , Stand over to 18/11/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4980 OF 2006 Bhimrao Vitthal Patil … Petitioner vs. Shankar Yashwant Bansode & Ors. … Respondents Mr.I.M.Khairadi, for the Petitioner. Mr.R.P.Kadam, AGP for the State. CORAM :- G. S. KULKARNI, J. DATE :- APRIL 1, 2021 PC : This petition has been notified as per the list of matters as received from the office of the learned Government Pleader to have become infructuous. As per the office notice dated 16 March 2021, the Advocate for the petitioner/petitioner were called upon to give a praecipe in advance in case the petition has not become infructuous. Such praecipe has been received in regard to this petition. It is informed on behalf of the petitioner that the petition has not become infructuous. List the petition for hearing before the regular Court. (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 269 OF 2019 Hitendra Vadilal Shah And Anr ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ DATE : 25th January, 2019 P.C. : List the matter as per CMIS date. 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 2: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 3: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2414 OF 2024 Baban Undrya Kathara ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....RESPONDENT Mr. Aniket Vagal aw Mr. Sanket Bhavad aw Mr. Kunal Pednekar for Petitioner Mr. Pradip Rajput for Resp 2 Mr. Vinod Chate, APP for the State CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.S. GADKARI & HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE, JJ DATE : 18th June, 2024 P.C. : At the request of the learned APP for the Respondent - State, S.O. to 20/06/2024 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 2: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 757 OF 2025 Beatrice Antony ....PETITIONER V/S M/s Concretech India Through Mr Sagar B ....RESPONDENT Kamble And Anr WITH CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2569 OF 2024 Slesha Ghosh ....PETITIONER V/S M/s Concretech India And Anr ....RESPONDENT WITH CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 5819 OF 2024 Slesha Ghosh ....PETITIONER V/S M/s Concretech India And Anr ....RESPONDENT WITH CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 759 OF 2025 Beatrice Antony ....PETITIONER V/S M/s Concretech India And And ....RESPONDENT WITH CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 758 OF 2025 Slesha Ghosh ....PETITIONER V/S M/s Concretech India And Anr ....RESPONDENT WITH CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 847 OF 2025 Beatrice Antony ....PETITIONER V/S M/s Concretech India And An ....RESPONDENT WITH CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 848 OF 2025 Beatrice Antony ....PETITIONER V/S M/s Concretech India And Anr ....RESPONDENT WITH CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 1114 OF 2025 Slesha Ghosh ....PETITIONER V/S M/s Concretech India And Anr ....RESPONDENT WITH CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 1113 OF 2025 Slesha Ghosh ....PETITIONER V/S M.s Concretech India And Anr ....RESPONDENT WITH CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 1107 OF 2025 Slesha Ghosh ....PETITIONER V/S M/s Concretech India Through Its Autho. Person Sagar B Kamble And Anr ....RESPONDENT WITH CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 1200 OF 2025 Slesha Ghosh ....PETITIONER V/S Concretech India And Anr ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 16th June, 2025 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 07/07/2025. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3387 OF 2017 Shri. Laxman Arjun Hudekar And Ors. ....Petitioner V/S Shri. Shivaji Vithoba Patil And Ors. ....Respondent G. N. Salunke For Petitioner CORAM : RAJESH G. KETKAR, J DATE : 22nd March, 2017 P.C. : Not on board. Taken on production board. Matter to be placed on 29/03/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3387 OF 2017 Shri. Laxman Arjun Hudekar & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Shri. Shivaji Vithoba Patil & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. G.N. Salunkhe for petitioners. CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 28 JANUARY 2019. P.C:- . Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner/original plaintiff is challenging the order dated 27.09.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gadhinglaj below Exhibit-38 in Regular Civil Suit No.14 of 2013 recasting the issues. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the next date before the trial Court is 05.02.2019. He submits that in view of these facts, further proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No.14 of 2013 to be stayed. It is to be noted that though the petition was filed on 21.12.2016, till today the respondents are not served. Therefore, there is no question of granting any ad-interim relief at this stage without hearing the respondent. Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the impugned order, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out case for following order : a) Registry is directed to issue notice before admission to the respondents stating that if time permits matter be decided finally at the stage of admission, returnable on 29.04.2019. b) In addition to the usual mode of service petitioner is permitted to serve the respondents by private notice along with entire proceedings either by RPAD and or by hand delivery and file Affidavit of Service to that effect on or before 18.04.2019. c) Stand over to 29.04.2019. d) At present no ad-interim relief. (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3387 OF 2017 Shri. Laxman Arjun Hudekar And Ors. ....Petitioner V/S Shri. Shivaji Vithoba Patil And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J DATE : 13th September, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 11/11/2019 . 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 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3387 OF 2017 Laxman Arjun Hudekar & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Shivaji Vithoba Patil & Ors. .. Respondents ................... Mr. G.N. Salunke for the Petitioners Mr. Amar Bodke i/by Mr. M.V. Thorat for Respondent No. 1 ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 7, 2020. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Mr. Bodke informs the Court that Advocate Mr. M.V. Thorat representing for respondent No. 1 has taken discharge and given NOC to respondent No. 1. Hence, he seeks time for respondent No. 1 to take necessary steps. 3. Mr. Salunke, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is very old. However, he accedes to the request of Mr. Bodke and does not make any issue out of it. He submits that fair chance is required to be given to the contesting parties to appear before the Court. This stand of Mr. Salunke is appreciated by the Court. 4. Petitioners are directed to serve respondent No. 1 by private notice and to file affidavit to that effect on or before the next date. Hamdust granted. 5. Mr. Salunke submits that prima facie it appears that strategy of respondent No. 1 is to prolong and delay the proceedings of the trial Court which are at the stage of evidence. He, therefore, submits that the Court should consider grant of interim relief and stay the trial Court proceedings. 6. On perusal of order dated 28.1.2019 passed by this Court, I am not inclined to grant ad-interim relief as of today in absence of respondent No. 1 considering that the present advocate of respondent No. 1 has sought discharge. However, this Court shall consider grant of ad-interim relief on the next date subject to Mr. Salunke placing on record the affidavit of service. 2 of 3 7. S.O to 6.3.2020. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ravindra M. Amberkar Digitally signed by Ravindra M. Amberkar Date: 2020.02.10 11:14:51 +0530