All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2022 Abdul Aziz Mahammud Sayed Fakih Since Dec Thr His Legal Heirs ....PETITIONER V/S Shripat Kathod Tambde Since Dec Thr Lrs ....RESPONDENT Mr Sanjay S Patil Advocate for Petitioner. { Mentioned at 3.50 p.m. } Ms Kavita N Solunke - AGP for Respondent - State. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHRIRAM MADHUSUDAN MODAK, JJ DATE : 22nd February, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 23/02/2022 ( H. O. B.). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1201 OF 2022 Abdul Aziz Mohd.Sayed Fakih, since deceased through His L.Rs. & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. Shripat K.Tambde, since deceased through His L.Rs. & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Sanjay S. Patil for the Petitioners. Mr.R.S. Pawar, AGP for the Respondent for the State - Respondent Nos.4 and 5. CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA & S.M. MODAK, JJ. DATE : 23RD FEBRUARY, 2022. P.C. :- Mr.Pawar, learned AGP for the State seeks time to take instructions and to file affidavit in reply. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the land of the petitioners is the subject matter of the impugned award, the compensation is awarded in favour of the respondent nos.1 to 3. Statement is accepted. Issue notice upon the respondent nos.1 to 3, returnable on 6 th April, 2022. Hamdast is permitted. In addition to the Court notice the petitioners are permitted to serve the respondent nos.1 to 3 by private service by all permissible modes of services in accordance with law. Learned AGP waives service for the respondent nos.4 and 5. The respondent nos.4 and 5 shall not release any payment of compensation in favour of the respondent nos.1 to 3 till next date. Place the matter on board for admission on 6th April, 2022. (S.M. MODAK, J.) (R.D. DHANUKA, J.) Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2022.02.24 12:13:36 +0530

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2022 Abdul Aziz Mohammud Sayed Fakih Since deceased Through LRs. … Petitioner Versus Shripat Kathod Tambde Since deceased Through LRs. … Respondent Mr. Sanjay S. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. R. S. Pawar, AGP for the Respondents/State. CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA & VINAY JOSHI, JJ. DATED : APRIL 6, 2022 P.C. Await service. Stand over to 4 th May 2022. Interim order passed earlier to continue till then. (VINAY JOSHI, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Digitally signed by RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Date: 2022.04.08 15:20:58 +0530

Order - Status 10: 48-wp1201-22.doc vai VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2022.05.06 15:02:27 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1201 OF 2022 Abdul Mohd.Sy.Fakih, since deceased through his L.Rs. ...Petitioners V/s. Shripat K. Tambde, since deceased through his L.Rs. & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Sanjay Patil for the Petitioners. Mrs.M.S. Bane, AGP for the State - Respondent. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ. DATE : 4TH MAY, 2022. P.C. :- Await service. Returnable date is extended to 12th July, Ad-interim order passed by this Court to continue till then. (M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2022 Abdul Aziz Mahammud Sayed Fakih Since Dec Thr His Legal Heirs ....PETITIONER V/S Shripat Kathod Tambde Since Dec Thr Lrs ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ DATE : 12th July, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 12/09/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2022 Abdul Aziz Mahammud Sayed Fakih Since Dec Thr His Legal Heirs ....PETITIONER V/S Shripat Kathod Tambde Since Dec Thr Lrs ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NITIN JAMDAR & HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ DATE : 12th September, 2022 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 28/09/2022 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 16: BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Digitally signed by BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Date: 2022.09.29 14:57:41 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2022 Abdul Aziz Mahammud Sayed Fakih … Petitioner Versus Shripat Kathod Tambde & Ors. … Respondents ****** Mr. Sanjay Patil for the Petitioner. Mr. Prithviraj Gole for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for the State. ****** CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA & R. N. LADDHA, JJ. DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2022 P.C. :- . The matter is mentioned in the morning. The matter as per the roster would be before the coordinate bench. The coordinate bench is not available. The petitioner seeks continuation of the interim order passed earlier. The learned advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 is present and the learned AGP is also present. At the request of parties, place the matter on 11th October, 2022. Interim order passed earlier shall continue till then. [R. N. LADDHA, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2022 Abdul Azia Mahammud Sayed Fakih (Since deceased through his LRs) Vazir Begam Aziz Mahammud Sayed Fakih (Since deceased through her LRs) 1 Tahera Mahammud Yousuf Hendade and Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Shripat Kathod Tambde (Since deceased through his LRs) 1 Vasant Shripat Tambde and Ors. .. Respondents …... Mr.Sanjay Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.Sandesh Patil i/b. Mr.Chintan Shaha, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr.R.S. Pawar, AGP for the Respondent – State. …... CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : 11 October 2022. RAJESHRI PRAKASH AHER Digitally signed by RAJESHRI PRAKASH AHER Date: 2022.10.15 16:37:07 +0530 P.C. : The learned counsel for Respondents raised a preliminary objection that the Petitioners have an alternate remedy under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, where the Petitioners can make a reference to the concerned authority. 2 Learned counsel for the Petitioner accepts and states that the Petitioners will approach the concerned authority and prays that the ad–interim order granted in this Petition be continued for some time to enable the Petitioners to approach the concerned authority. Considering the above submissions, and the fact that ad–interim order is operating since February 2022, while we dispose of the Petition, we continue the position under ad–interim order dated 23 February 2022, for a period of four weeks. 3 The contentions of the parties are kept open and continuation of ad–interim order will not be construed as reflection on the merits of the rival contentions. 4 Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. NITIN JAMDAR, J.

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1580 OF 2004. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or Judge's orders. orders or directions and Registrar's orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Nitin Pradhan for the Petitioner. Ms.M.H.Mhatre, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.2-State. CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED : 16th June, 2005. P.C.: Issue notice to the Respondent returnable on 5th August 2005. The learned A.P.P. waives service for Respondent No.2. In addition to service through Court the Advocate for the Petitioner to serve private notice. Judge.

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1580 OF 2004 Nasari Dairy Products Ltd. ...Petitioner vs. Smt.Shobhadevi ...Respondents Shinde & anr. Mr.Prakash Nail for the petitioner Mr.Y.S.Shinde A.P.P. for State None for the Respondent No.1. CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JULY 31,2008 P.C.: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner filed a private complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Gadhinglaj in which process was issued. The process was issued only for two offences under section 323 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. In a petition filed by the petitioner, this court has interfered and directed that the process should be issued against the Respondents for other offences under the Companies Act and Indian Penal Code. By order dated 8th July 2002, the learned Magistrate passed an order of discharge by exercising power under sub section 2 of section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. The order of discharge was passed as the Petitioner failed to appear and adduce evidence. A revision application preferred by the petitioner against the said order was rejected by the learned Magistrate. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was diligently prosecuting the complaint and in fact the petitioner was in a position to adduce evidence. He submitted that if an opportunity is granted, the petitioner is in a position to adduce evidence to substantiate the charges. He, therefore, submitted that by setting aside the impugned order, the complaint be remanded. I have considered the submissions. The order dated 21st July 2000 passed by the learned Magistrate shows that the Petitioner was seeking adjournment. When the complaint appeared on board on 20th June 2002, neither the petitioner nor his Advocate were present. The learned Judge passed an order recording that if on the next date the petitioner failed to lead evidence before charge, necessary order will be passed on the complaint. On 8th July 2002, when the complaint came up before the court, the learned Magistrate noted that no evidence has been adduced by the petitioner. The learned Judge referred to his earlier order passed on an application at Exh.42 in which he had observed that the averments made in the complaint and verification recorded therein was not sufficient to frame the charges in absence of any further evidence adduced by the petitioner. As the evidence was not adduced by the petitioner, the learned Judge proceeded to pass an order of discharge by exercising power under sub section 2 of section 245 of the said Code. I find no reason to 2 - interfere with the said order as well as the order of the Sessions Court by which an order of discharge has been confirmed. The complaint was of the year 1996. After granting sufficient opportunities the petitioner could not adduce the evidence. Considering all the aforesaid factual aspects, now it will be unjust to exercise power under Article 227 of Constitution of India or under section 482 of the said Code to interfere at this stage and to permit the petitioner to adduce the evidence. No case is made out for interference. Hence, petition is rejected. JUDGE

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1538 OF 2004 Kishor @ Lala Chetahmal Lalwani ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mrs.Smita Rajendra Kadu for Petitioner. Mr.A.S.Gadkari, A.P.P. for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. OCTOBER 15, 2004. P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. I find no reason to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction in the fact situation of the present case. While rejecting the application for furlough leave made by the Petitioner, the Authority has taken into account, recent recommendations made from appropriate quarters. The material which was gathered during the enquiry revealed that if Petitioner was to be released, he may be a threat to panch and witnesses of the criminal case, who had deposed against him. That reason qualifies the requirement of Rule 4(4) of the The Prisons (Bombay Furlough & Parole) Rules, 1959. It is not open for this Court to impose its views on the subjective satisfaction reached by the Authority on the basis of material gathered during the enquiry while considering the Application preferred by the Petitioner. There are other good reasons mentioned in the reply affidavit filed, which are supported by the recommendations received by the appropriate authority produced before me. To get over this position, learned Counsel contends that out of six grounds, most of the grounds were non-existing grounds. However, that statement does not commend to me. Indeed, the Petitioner may be right in contending that merely because his earlier application was rejected because of adverse report, the same cannot be the basis to reject his subsequent application, which ought to have been considered on its own merits. However, that is not the only reason on the basis of which the present Application has been rejected. For rejecting the present application, fresh report was called for, and the report received clearly spell out apprehension if the Petitioner was to be released. Taking overall view of the matter, no interference is warranted. Dismissed. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5825 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Coram,appearances,Court's Orders : Court's or Judges order or directions and Registrar Orders : ------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Amit Borkar for the petitioner. CORAM : S.B. MHASE & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : 10th August 2007. P.C:- . Notice returnable after four weeks. Hamdast allowed. (D.G.KARNIK, J) (S.B.MHASE, J)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 243 OF 2015 Samayadurai K. Agamudian. ..Petitioner. Versus The Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Maharashtra and Others. ..Respondents. Mr. S. G. Kudale for the Petitioner. Mr. F. R. Shaikh, learned APP for the State. Mr. S. G. Surana for Respondent No. 5. Mr. Mahesh Vaswani, Mr. Javed Gheewala, Dharini Nagda, Anushree Kulkarni for Respondent No. 6 and 7. Coram : RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. Date : February 2, 2015 . P. C. : Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeks leave to amend the prayer clause. Leave granted. Necessary amendment be carried out within a week. Place the writ petition for admission on 16th February 2015. [SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 243 OF 2015 Samayadurai K. Agamudian. ..Petitioner. Versus The Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. S. G. Kudale for the Petitioner. Mr. S. G. Suvarna for Respondent No. 5. Mr. U. V. Kejriwal, learned APP for the State. Coram : RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. Date : March 17, 2015 . P. C. : By the order dated 2nd February 2015, we granted leave to the Petitioner to amend the prayer clause. The Petitioner, however, not only amended the prayer clause but has also inserted paragraph No.11a to 11j in the main petition without seeking leave of the Court. Besides, the Petitioner without leave of the Court, has annexed Exhibit-F to N. Registry is directed to submit explanation in what circumstances, the Petitioner was allowed to carry out amendment by introducing paragraph 11a to 11j and annexe Exhibit-F to N, without leave of the Court to that effect. [SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 243 OF 2015 Samayadurai K. Agamudian .. Petitioner v/s. The Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S.G. Kudle for the petitioner Mr. S.G. Suvarna for respondent no.5 Ms. Dharini Nagda i/b Javeed Mohd. Gaus Gheewala for respondent nos. 6 and 7 CORAM: RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. DATED: 31st MARCH, 2015. P.C. We have gone through the explanation offered by Mrs. Mali, Section Officer. We accept the explanation, however, Section Officer is directed to be more cautious in future. Mr. Kudale, learned Counsel for the petitioner has carried out amendment contrary to the order dated 02.02.2015 hence, the paragraphs, which are inserted contrary to the order of amendment, shall be removed. Stand over to 6th April, 2015. (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) ( RANJIT MORE, J.)

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.243 OF 2015 Samayadurai K. Agamudian ..Petitioner. V/s. The Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.S.G.Kudle for the petitioner. Mrs.U.V.kejriwal, APP for respondent-State. Mr.M.S.Surana for respondent No.5. Mr.Mahesh Vaswani i/b. Mr.Javeed Mohd. Gaus Gheewala for respondent Nos.6 and 7. CORAM : RANJIT MORE AND V.L.ACHLIYA, JJ. DATED : 17TH DECEMBER, 2015 P.C. :- Heard learned counsel for the parties. At the outset, Mr.Kudle, learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his petition to the relief claimed in prayer (c). Statement is accepted. Mr.Kudale in this regard relies upon his application dated 29th November, 2013 (annexed at Exhibit-L, page 80 of the petition) seeking police protection, which is pending since last two years. Learned APP having taken instructions states that said application will be decided by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Protection Branch), Mumbai as expeditiously as possible. In the above circumstances, we direct the Deputy Commissioner (Protection Branch), Mumbai to dispose of the petitioner's application within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Order accordingly. Petition is disposed of accordingly. (V.L.ACHLIYA, J.) ( RANJIT MORE, J.)

Order - Status 5: Digitally signed by Mandira Salgaonkar Date: 2021.03.02 17:16:24 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1001 OF 2021 Srinivasan Ravindran Sarma ] Residing at A/105, Supernal Gardens, ] Dhokali Naka, Kolshet Road, ] Thane (West) – 400 607 ] Petitioner VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra ] ] 2. Mrs.Neeta Srinivasan Sarma ] Residing at 1st Floor, 'B' Wing, ] 101, Violet Apartment, Near Janta ] Sahakari Bank, Murbad Road ] Syndicate, Kalyan (West)-421301 ] Respondents Ms.Priyanka S. Sangare for the Petitioner. Ms.Sana Hakim for Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 present in Court. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1/State. PSI Manjusha V. Shelar, MFC Police Station present. CORAM : S.S.SHINDE & MANISH PITALE, JJ. DATED : 01st MARCH, 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.S.SHINDE, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally. It is common contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondent No.2 that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and to that effect, consent terms are placed on record before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 had tendered across the bar, affidavit of respondent No.2. Same is taken on record. In the said affidavit, details of the settlement are averred. Respondent No.2 is present before the Court. She has been identified by her counsel. She has stated that it is her voluntary act to enter into such settlement and pray for quashing of the impugned FIR and proceedings arising out of the said FIR, in view of the consent terms filed before the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another 1 has held that, the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and 1 2012 (10) SCC 303 extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. It has also held that inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute, respondent No.2 is not going to participate in the said proceedings and chances of the conviction of the petitioner would be bleak and remote and, therefore, further continuation of the proceedings in RCC No.730 of 2017 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalyan for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 495, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, would be an exercise in futility and would tantamount to abuse of process of the Court. In that view of the matter, to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the court, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the proceedings bearing RCC No.730 of 2017 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalyan for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 495, 504 of the Indian Penal Code are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in above terms. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.) M.M.Salgaonkar

Order - Status 5: spb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4379 OF 2011 Zilla Parishad Pune ... Petitioner. V/s. Shir Ganesh Kisan Adsare & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Shekhar i/by J. Shekhar & Co. for the Petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 11th July 2011 P.C. 1 Issue notice to the respondents returnable at the end of eight weeks. Notice to indicate that the petition may be heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 2 In addition to the court service, the petitioner is directed to serve the respondents by a private notice by hand delivery or by speed post registered AD and file affidavit of service on or before the next date. 3 In the meanwhile, it is clarified and ordered that the order of injunction granted by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court shall not in any prevent the petitioner from initiating any proceedings in accordance with the law. The petitioner, however, shall not disturb the possession of the respondents nor evict them except by due process of law. (D.G.KARNIK, J) .....

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4379 OF 2011 Zilla Parishad Pune .. Petitioners v/s. Ganesh Kisan Adsare & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. J. Shekhar for the petitioners Mr. Abhijit B. Kadam for respondent no.3 Mr. S.R. Agarkar for respondent nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 26th MARCH, 2012. P.C. : Respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed R.C. Suit No.99 of 2010. In the said suit, learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Junnar passed order on 30th November, 2010 thereby restraining present petitioners from demolishing the suit property and from constructing the compound wall till the final disposal of the suit. The said Judge also issued an order of injunction restraining the petitioner nos.1 and 2 from disturbing peaceful possession and enjoyment of respondent nos. 1 and 2 from the suit property till the disposal of the suit. This order was challenged by the petitioners in Misc. Civil Appeal No.369 of 2010. The said appeal has been dismissed by learned District Judge14, Pune by order dated 19th April,l 2011. Hence, this writ petition is filed. After having perused the impugned order, it is clear that the learned trial Judge accepted the case of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and issued an order of injunction. The order passed by the learned trial Judge was confirmed by the appellate Court i.e. District Court. In such a situation, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below. The learned advocate for the petitioners states that the petitioners shall adopt appropriate proceedings to redress their grievances so far as respondent nos. 1 and 2 in a competent Court. Statement made by learned advocate for the petitioners is recorded. As and when such proceedings are filed, the petitioners are free to apply to the Court of learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Junnar, Dist. Pune for vacation the order passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Junnar on 30th November, 2010 on the ground that no purpose will be served by continuing the order of injunction on account of the proceedings, which would be filed by the petitioners. With the aforesaid observation, petition stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5339 OF 2013 Shri Bartol Degin Farnat and Ors ..Petitioners Vs. Shri Pascol Manvel Gonsalves and Ors ..Respondents Ms. Neeta Karnik,for the Petitioners. Mr. P. B. Shah i/b Mr. Kayval P. Shah,for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : RAVI K. DESHPANDE *,* J. DATE : JULY 1, 2013. P. C.: 1 Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2 The learned counsel for the PetitionersPlaintiffs submits that it is the case of the Plaintiffs that the road in question is of 20 feet wide and it has been reduced to 2.8 feet because of the obstruction created by the Defendants in the way. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have gone through the orders passed by both the Courts below. Both the Courts below have taken into consideration the report of the Commissioner. However, there is no finding recorded, on prima facie assessment of the case on the question whether there existed 20 feet road and that it was reduced to 2.8 feet by the Aswale 1/2 5339.13.wp Defendants by creating obstruction. In the absence of any such finding, the orders impugned cannot be sustained. The same needs to be quashed and set aside. The orders are required to be remanded back to the Trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with law. 3 In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. 4 The order dated 28.09.2011 passed by the Trial court and also by the Appellate Court dated 12.04.2013 are hereby quashed and set aside. 5 The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court to decide Exhibit5 filed in Regular Civil Suit No. 159 OF 2009, afresh within a period of three months from the date of first appearance of the parties before it. 6 Parties to appear before the Trial Court on 15.07.2013. 7 The Trial Court is at liberty to grant adinterim relief, if such is claimed by the parties. ( RAVI K. DESHPANDE *,* J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2019 Aniket Anand Pawar ...Petitioner Versus Ruchita Aniket Pawar & Ors. ...Respondents …… Mrs. Veena J. Kamble, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. Ruchita Pawar, Respondent No. 1 in person. Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for State. CORAM : S. S. Shinde J. DATED : 12th June, 2019 P.C . Respondents No. 1 is present in Court. Learned APP Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar interacted with Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 has made request to appoint advocate to represent her. Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority to appoint senior advocate from the panel within a period of one week to represent Respondent No. 1. At the request of Respondent No. 1 stand over to 4th July 2019. [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

Order - Status 7: 48-wp-2531-2019.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2019 Mr.Aniket Anand Pawar ...Petitioner Versus Mrs.Ruchita Aniket Pawar & Ors. ...Respondents …... Mrs.Veena J. Kamble for the Petitioner. Mr.Ajit M. Savagave for the Respondents. Mrs.G.P.Mulekar, APP for the Respondent -State. CORAM : S.S.SHINDE J. DATE : 4 JULY 2019 P.C.: The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this matter does not pertain to the assignment of this Court. Hence, remove from board. …... (S.S.SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 9: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2019 Office Notes, Office Memorandam of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- Ms. Veena J. Kamble for the Petitioner. CORAM: SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATE : 22nd OCTOBER 2019. P.C. : 1 Liberty to move before Vacation Court. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)

Order - Status 11: Dond IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2019 Aniket Anand Pawar ..Petitioner Vs Ruchita Aniket Pawar And Ors. ..Respondents Ms. Veena Kamble for the Petitioner. Mr. A.M. Savagave for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 15th November 2019. P.C.: 1] At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that, there is an arrears of Rs.1,42,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent No.1. 2] Before the petitioner be heard on merits, the petitioner is directed to either deposit the said amount of arrears in the Registry of this Court or to pay to the respondent No.1 directly within a period of one month from today. 3] Stand over to 7th January 2020. (A.S.GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2019 Aniket Anand Pawar ....Petitioner V/S Ruchita Aniket Pawar And Ors. ....Respondent None for Petitioner Mr. Ajit M. Savagave a/w Jyotsna Kamble For Respondent Adv.S.S.Hulke APP for State CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J DATE : 22nd January, 2020 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the Respondent No. , Stand over to 29/01/2020 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: Bharat D. Pandit by Bharat D. 13:17:49 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2019 Mr. Aniket Anand Pawar …. Petitioner. V/s Mrs. Ruchita Aniket Pawar and Ors. ….. Respondents. ---- None for the Petitioner. Mr. Ajit M. Savagave for Respondents. Mr. S.S. Hulke, APP for the State. CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE: JANUARY 29, 2020 P.C.:- Stand over to 30/1/2020 for dismissal. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2019 Mr. Aniket Anand Pawar .... Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Ruchita Aniket Pawar & Ors. .... Respondents Smt. Veena J. Kamble for Petitioner Mr. Ajit M. Savagave for Respondents. Ms. P.N. Dabholkar, APP for State. Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. Date : 30th January, 2020 P.C.: The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that in compliance with the last order, the petitioner is willing to deposit an amount of Rs.90,000/- in this Court by tomorrow. The petitioner is present in the Court. Since the statement is made on instructions, the same is accepted as an undertaking. The petitioner is permitted to deposit an amount of Rs.90,000/- as undertaken. The respondent-wife will be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited. The learned Magistrate in a proceeding initiated by the respondent-wife under the provisions of D.V. Act ordered maintenance of Rs.4,000/- and additional Rs.4,000/- towards accommodation expenses, which was modified in appeal under Section 23 of the D.V. Act by reducing the amount of accommodation expenses to Rs.2,000/-. The petitioner-husband feeling aggrieved preferred this petition. The contention of the counsel of the petitioner is, the petitioner is a self employed and though he earns very meager income, he is ready and willing to maintain his wife. According to him, the respondent-wife is resident of Mumbai and presently staying with her parents. He would further urge that there is independent source of income, as the respondent is practising profession of beautician. While countering aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife would urge that the petitioner has neglected to maintain the respondent as the petitioner is in habit of not Dusane 3/4 905 wp 2531.2019.doc attending family duties his routine conduct creates serious doubt that the petitioner has some extra marital affair. According to the respondent, even if the respondent has taken training of beautician, still her earning from such profession is not sufficient to maintain herself. As such, she is forced to stay with her parents. Having appreciated rival submissions, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is self employed person, as such his average income is around Rs.12,000/- to Rs.16,000/- per month i.e. Rs.300/- to Rs.400/- per day. In the aforesaid background order of award of interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month is very much justified. As the respondent-wife is staying with her parents and it is not her case that she intend to stay independently or her parents are incurring expenses towards the rent, the order of award of accommodation charges, in my opinion, is not justified. As such, the order of maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month is confirmed, whereas, the order of award of accommodation charges of Rs.2,000/- per month is quashed and set aside. It is, however, clarified that the petitioner will be liable to pay accommodation charges till this date of the order. In response to the Court query, the petitioner submits that he shall clear entire arrears of maintenance within a period of four weeks from today, which statement is accepted as an undertaking. Let the entire amount be deposited in the Court of Magistrate within four weeks from today, to which the respondent-wife will be entitled to withdraw. The petition is partly allowed. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

Order - Status 19: Dusane 1/1 906.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2019 Mr. Aniket Anand Pawar .... Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Ruchita Aniket Pawar & Ors. .... Respondents Smt. Veena J. Kamble for Petitioner. Shri. Ajit M. Savagave for Respondent Shri. N.B. Patil, APP for State. Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. Date : 5th February, 2020 P.C.: Time to deposit the amount is extended till tomorrow, i.e. 6th February, 2020. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )