All Cases

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 500 OF 2015 Jyotsana Kiran kale. ..Applicant. Versus Shravani Santosh Ambekar and Another. ..Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 501 OF 2015 Santosh R. Ambekar & Ors. ..Applicants. Versus Shravani Santosh Ambekar and Another. ..Respondents. Ms. Shivangi J. Rajak for the Applicants. Mr. Mayur D. Sapkale for Respondent No.1. Mr. J. P. Yagnik, learned APP for the State. Coram : RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. Date : June 15, 2015 . P. C. : The Applicants are seeking to quash FIR against them bearing CR No.72 of 2015 registered with Vikroli Police Station at the instance of Respondent No.1 for the offence punishable under sections 498A and 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Applicants are the accused in the said CR, who have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the said FIR by consent of the original complainant Respondent No.1 herein. Applicant No.1 in APL No. 501 is the husband of Respondent No.1 and rest of the Applicants are his family members. The Applicant in APL is the sister-in-law of Respondent No. 1. Matrimonial disputes between the parties gave rise to the filing of above FIR. The learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties submitted that during the pendency of investigation into above FIR, with the help and intervention of family members, friends and well-wishers, the parties amicably settled their differences by way of mutual settlement. Pursuant to the same, present applications are filed for quashing the above FIR, by consent of Respondent No.1 In the present applications filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Respondent No.1 has filed separate affidavits dated 27th May 2015 wherein she has stated that she is not interested in continuing with the said FIR. She has solemnly affirmed that she is withdrawing all the allegations made against the Petitioner in the said FIR and that she has no objection for quashing the proceedings of FIR bearing No. 72 of 2015 registered by her with Vikhroli Police Station against the Applicants. Respondent No.1 is personally present before the Court. On specific query made by us, she submitted that she has made the said affidavits on her own free will, without there being any pressure or undue influence. She has further confirmed that she has no objection for quashing the FIR in question lodged by her against the Applicants for the offence punishable under sections 498A and 406 read with of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Apex Court in B. S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana reported [AIR 2003 SC 1386] has held that in the event of settlement of matrimonial dispute, the FIR under Section 498A can be quashed, even though the said offence is not compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. The relevant observations of the Apex Court are contained in Paras 14 and 15 which are reproduced herein below: "14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code." Similar view has been taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Abasaheb Yadav Honmane vs. State of Maharashtra [2008(5) LJ.Soft 46]. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of complaint, it transpires that the allegations are totally personal in nature. There is no element of public law involved in the crime. The offence alleged cannot be said to have any impact on the society. In these circumstances, and especially, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, [(2008) 4 SCC 582], we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision as well as in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014 AIR SCW 2065] we are of the considered view that there is no impediment in quashing the FIR in question. In the circumstances, applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 sought directions to the police to return the jewellery recovered or attached by the police during the course of investigation into above FIR. The learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants in both the applications, after taking instructions from her clients, states that the Applicants have no objection for return of the said jewellery to Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 shall make a proper application to the police for return of jewellery. Upon such application, police will take appropriate decision within a week of its filing. [SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

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 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3258 OF 2021 D.T.Ed., B.Ed.Students' Association of the State of Maharashtra ….. Petitioner VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….. Respondents Mr.S.A.Rajeshirke for the Petitioner. Mrs.P.J.Gavhane, A.G.P. for the State. CORAM: R. D. DHANUKA AND R.I.CHAGLA, JJ. DATE : 26th JULY, 2021 (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) P.C:- The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that there are about 180 vacant posts for teachers to be filled up in the nigh school. The Government however is appointing the teachers on temporary basis in violation of the Government Resolution dated 17th May, 2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to serve the respondents through the Office of the Government Pleader during the course of the day. Affidavit in reply, if any, shall be filed within three weeks from 28 - WP 3258 OF 2021.doc today with a copy to be served upon the petitioner's advocate simultaneously. Rejoinder, if any, shall be filed within one week from the date of service of the affidavit in reply with a copy to be served upon the respondents' advocates simultaneously. Place the matter on board on 20th August, 2021 . [R.I.CHAGLA, J.] [R. D. DHANUKA, J.]

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 WRIT PETITION NO. 3258 OF 2021 D.T.Ed, B.Ed. Students through President Shri Santosh A. Magar … Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent ****** Mr. S. A. Rajeshirke for the Petitioners. Ms. Sushma S. Bhende, AGP for the State-Respondent. ****** CORAM: R. D. DHANUKA AND ABHAY AHUJA, JJ. DATE : 24th NOVEMBER, 2021. P.C. :- . The grievance of the petitioners' association is that though by Government Resolution dated 17th May, 2017, the State Government had withdrawn permission to Day School teachers to work in Night School and the validity of the said Government Resolution is upheld by the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5989 of 2017 and Writ Petition (L) No. 1541 of 2017, which judgment was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 17th April, 2018, the State Government is still continuing to appoint teachers in the Night School on temporary basis thereby affecting the studies of large number of students. It is the case of the petitioners that teachers shall be appointed on permanent basis in the Night School. Ms. Bhende, learned AGP seeks time to take instruction and to file affidavit within four weeks from today. As and by way of last indulgence, respondents are granted four weeks' time to file affidavitin-reply with a copy to be served upon the petitioners' advocate simultaneously. Rejoinder, if any shall be filed within one week thereafter with a copy to be served upon the respondents' advocate simultaneously. In the meanwhile, in view of the serious allegations made by the petitioners that contrary to the Government Resolution dated 17th May, 2017, the Night Schools are appointing the teachers and staff on temporary basis, the Director of Education shall look into these allegations seriously and to assess the situation in the Night Schools and shall indicate in the affidavit about the correctness of the allegations made by the petitioners in this petition. If it is found that the Night Schools are appointing the teachers and staff on temporary basis and not complying with the Government Resolution issued by the State Government, an appropriate action in that regard shall be taken before the next date. The action that would be taken by the State Government, shall also indicate in the affidavit-in-reply. Place the matter on board for admission on 5th January, 2022. If there are any other connected matters, parties are at liberty to furnish the list of such matters to the Sheristedar of this Court to include those matters also on board on the next date. If the said list is furnished within one week from today, those matters also shall be placed on board on the assigned date. [ABHAY AHUJA, J.] [R. D. DHANUKA, J.]

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3258 OF 2021 D.T. Ed., B.Ed. Students' Association of the State of Maharashtra …..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. …..Respondents. Mr. S.A. Rajeshirke for the Petitioner. Mrs. S.S. Bhende, AGP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ. DATE : 5 JANUARY 2022. (THROUGH- VIDEO CONFERENCING) P.C.:- The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that, the Petitioner is seeking implementation of the Government Resolution dated 17 May 2017 more particularly clauses 4(1) and 4(2) thereof. He states that, certain teachers are working as full time and day time teachers, as well as, in the night schools thereby, reducing the chances of unemployed teachers to be appointed. He states that, subsequently permanent appointment of these teachers in the night schools has been cancelled but they are continuing on a temporary basis. The prayer is sought that, these teachers who are working in the night schools on temporary basis, should be removed and the teachers on permanent basis should be appointed (not on double post). As an interim relief, it is also sought that their salary be stopped. The first relief sought for is directly affected these persons. 2 The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that, as per his knowledge, there are around 180 such teachers/persons and will join them either through their organization and/or 10 to 12 of such teachers as a representatives in this Petition. Leave granted to the Petitioner to amend the Petition to join party Respondents as above. Amendment to be carried out within a period of one week from today. After the amendment is carried out, the Petitioner will give notice to the newly added Respondents and file affidavit of service. 3 As regards the oral argument made on malafides based on interference of a political person, we do not find any pleadings in the Petition nor such person is made party Respondent, therefore this argument cannot be considered. 4 Stand over to 27 January 2022. 5 In the meanwhile, the State will file its response as to why it is not implementing its own Government Resolution dated 17 May 2017, which has been upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Affidavit shall be filed by the Secretary School Education Department, State of Maharashtra either by himself or vetted by him. (AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 13: Arun IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3258 OF 2021 DT Ed, B Ed Students through President Santosh A Magar …Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, School Education and Sports Department …Respondent Mr SA Rajeshirke *, for the Petitioner.* Mr SB Kalel, AGP *, for the Respondent-State.* CORAM G.S. Patel & Neela Gokhale, JJ. DATED: 27th March 2023 PC:- 1. We are not inclined to interfere at the instance of this Petitioner. It claims to be an association of DT.Ed and B.Ed students. ARUN RAMCHNDRA SANKPAL Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHNDRA SANKPAL Date: 2023.03.28 09:44:42 +0530 2. Prayer clause (c) of this Petition seeks inter alia a direction to the State Government to withhold the government salary grants in respect of teachers on a temporary basis and to direct "the management" to make payments of such salaries. 3. No management is joined. None of the teachers who would undoubtedly be affected by such an order are joined. 4. It is impossible to entertain such a Petition where persons who are directly affected are not even joined or given notice. Whatever may be the case regarding day schools or night schools, it is not possible to grant or consider relief in the absence of the joinder of persons directly affected. Given the ambit of the relief sought, it is not even possible to join individual persons. 5. The Petition is rejected. There will be no order as to costs. It is, however, open to an individual affected to file a petition in her or his own name, and the rejection of this Petition will not be read adversely to such a petitioner. (Neela Gokhale, J) (G. S. Patel, J)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7120 OF 2018 Mrs. Usha Shantaram Wadkar ....Petitioner V/S Saraswati Ganpatrao Yadav (decd) Thro. Lr. Raghunath Yadav (decd) Through Lrs. And Ors ....Respondent Indrajeet Anandrao Bhosale For Petitioner V.S.Talkute i/b. Jayprakash Shridhar Kapre Resp No. 2a To 2e, 3a To 3e, 4a To 4c, 6 To 8 For Respondent CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J DATE : 5th July, 2018 P.C. : Not on board. Taken on production board, by way of praecipe. No orders. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: VRJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7120 OF 2018 VAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV Date: 2024.12.04 16:54:31 +0530 Usha Shantaram Wadkar … Petitioner V/s. Saraswati Ganpatrao Yadav (Since Deceased) & Ors. … Respondents None for the petitioner. Ms. Rupika Narkar i/by Mr. Vishwanth Talkute for respondent No.7. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : DECEMBER 4, 2024 P.C.: None for the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (AMIT BORKAR, J.)

Order - Status 4: NITIN DINKAR JAGTAP Digitally signed by NITIN DINKAR JAGTAP Date: 2021.10.09 12:06:01 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel … Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents Mr.S.G.Kudle for the Petitioner. Mr.S.B.Kalel, AGP for the State. Mr.Saurabh Oka for Respondent No. 8. CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 8TH OCTOBER, 2021 P.C. : The Respondents shall file their respective Affidavits-in-Reply within a period of one week from today. Stand over to 18th October, 2021. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ) ( S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. )

Order - Status 6: 69.6555-21-wp.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel ….. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….. Respondents Mr. S.G.Kudale for the petitioner Mr.Prashant Suryawansh i/b Mr.G.M.Savagave for the respondents Smt.A.A.Purav, A.G.P. for the State Mr.Saurabh Oak for the respondent no.1 CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA & VINAY JOSHI, JJ. DATED : APRIL 12, 2022 P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner was apprised of the fact that the order that is sought to be challenged is passed in Second Appeal. The proper procedure is to move the second appellate court if the petitioner feels that fraud is being played by the respondents. The order passed in Second Appeal i.e. Civil Court cannot be challenged by way of Writ Petition. The Second Appeal is under the Civil Jurisdiction. The order is passed below Exhibit 1 in Regular TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Digitally signed by TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2022.04.18 15:14:04 +0530 Darkhast also. If the petitioner contends that the fraud has been played by the respondents then the proper procedure is to challenge the said order obtained by fraud before the appropriate forum and not in Writ Petition. Provisions of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure would come into play. The learned counsel for the petitioner may consider this aspect. Stand over to 07.06.2022. (VINAY JOSHI, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel Thr Her Att Nasir Nuruddin Patel ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....RESPONDENT Mr. Shikur Gafur Kudle for Petitioner Mr. N.K.Rajpurohit, AGP for Respondent-State Mr. Prashant R. Suryawanshi i/b Mr. G.M.Savagave, Advocate for R.No.6 & 7 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ DATE : 7th June, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 28/06/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel Thr Her Att Nasir Nuruddin Patel ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ DATE : 28th June, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 03/08/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel Thr Her Att Nasir Nuruddin Patel ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. M. SATHAYE, JJ DATE : 13th February, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 27/03/2023 . 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 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 6555 OF 2021 VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Shankerabanu Afsar Patel ….Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ….Respondents Digitally signed by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date: 2023.03.10 14:32:26 +0530 Mr. S.K. Kudle, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. N.K. Rajpurohit, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 Mr. P.r. Suryawanshi i/by Mr. G.M. Savagave for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 Mr. Ketan Dhavle i/by Mr. Saurabh Oka, Advocate for Respondent No.8 Mr. T.J. Pandian, Advocate for Respondent No.5 Mr. S.S. Aradhye, Advocate for Respondent No.6 CORAM:- R.D. DHANUKA & GAURI GODSE, JJ. DATE :- 6TH MARCH, 2023. P. C.: The Petitioner has impugned the order passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 690 of 2014 in this Writ Petition, on the ground that fraud is committed by some of the Respondents in obtaining the order in Second Appeal No. 690/2014. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 raises an issue regarding maintainability of this Writ Petition. Our attention is invited to the order dated 12th April, 2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. By the said order, dated 12th April, 2022, this Court has already observed; if the Petitioner contends that the fraud has been played by the Respondents then the proper procedure is to be challenge the said order obtained by fraud before the appropriate forum and not in Writ Petition. Provisions of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure would come into play. This Court after making these observations, directed the learned counsel for the Petitioner to consider this aspect. Mr. Kudale, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that since the fraud is committed in obtaining the order in Second Appeal, this Court can set aside the order passed in Second Appeal, in Writ Petition. We are afraid, we cannot accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner . Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the correctness of the order passed in Second Appeal for want of jurisdiction. If any appropriate proceedings are filed by the Petitioner, the same shall be decided on its own merits. All contentions of the parties are kept open. (GAURI GODSE, J.) ( R.D.DHANUKA, J. )

Order - Status 8: CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1141 OF 2016 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1142 OF 2016 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 16356 OF 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .. Applicant Vs. 1. Shri Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Devendranath S. Joshi, Advocate for applicant. CORAM : N.J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 13TH MARCH 2019 P.C. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1141 OF 2016 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 4th June 2019. Hamdast granted. Private service is permitted. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1142 OF 2016 1 The learned counsel for the applicantinsurer makes a statement that that the applicantinsurer will deposit the entire amount of compensation along with interest and costs as awarded by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mumbai by the impugned order dated 6th February 2015 in Application (ECA) No. 4/C3/2009. 2 The statement made by the learned counsel for the applicantinsurer is accepted. The applicantinsurer shall deposit the entire amount of compensation along with interest till date and costs as awarded by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mumbai within a period of four weeks from today, before the learned Commissioner. 3 In the meanwhile, there shall be adinterim stay to the execution and operation of the impugned order. It is, however, made clear that in the event, the applicantinsurer fails to deposit the aforesaid amount as directed above, the adinterim stay shall stand vacated automatically. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Regional Office-i ....APPELLANT V/S Shri. Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole And Anr....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7046 OF 2024 In First Appeal STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole ....PETITIONER V/S The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Region Office-no.2 ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 1142 OF 2016 In First Appeal STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Regional Office-i ....APPLICANT V/S Shri. Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole And Anr....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 1141 OF 2016 In First Appeal STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Regional Office-i ....APPLICANT V/S Shri. Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole And Anr....RESPONDENT None for the appellant VISHWAMBHAR MAHADEV PARKAR for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE KISHORE C. SANT J DATE : 27th March, 2024 P.C. : At the request of learned counsel for the Respondent , stand over to 24/04/2024 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Regional Office-i ....APPELLANT V/S Shri. Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole And Anr....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 1142 OF 2016 In First Appeal STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Regional Office-i ....APPLICANT V/S Shri. Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole And Anr....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 1141 OF 2016 In First Appeal STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Regional Office-i ....APPLICANT V/S Shri. Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole And Anr....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7046 OF 2024 In First Appeal STAMP NO. 16356 OF 2015 Sandeep Ramchandra Chandole ....PETITIONER V/S The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Mumbai Region Office-no.2 ....RESPONDENT Adv. V. M. Parkar for Appellant. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE KISHORE C. SANT J DATE : 2nd May, 2024 P.C. : S. O. to 09/05/2024 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5870 OF 2018 Sunanda Suresh Bhandalkar Petitioner Vs. Deputy Charity Commissioner & Ors. Respondents --- Ms.Manjiri S. Parasnis for the petitioner. Mr.R.P. Kadam, AGP for the respondent no.1. CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. DATE : 31st October 2018 P.C.: . Issue notice upon the respondent nos.2 to 6, returnable on 10th December 2018. Learned counsel waives service for the respondent no.1. In addition to the Court notice, the petitioner is permitted to serve the respondent nos.2 to 6 by private notice through Registered A.D./Speed post/ Fax/Courier/hand delivery in advance and file affidavit of service before the returnable date. Humdust is permitted. There shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (c) and (d). The petitioner is directed to convey this order to the respondent nos.2 to 6. Parties as well as the District Judge to act on the authenticated copy of this order. R.D. DHANUKA, J.

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5870 OF 2018 Sunanda Suresh Bhandalkar ....Petitioner V/S Deputy Charity Commissioner And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : K.K. TATED, J DATE : 23rd January, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, S. O. to 28/02/2019. Interim protection, if any, granted earlier and in force as on today, to continue till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5870 OF 2018 Sunanda Suresh Bhandalkar ....Petitioner V/S Deputy Charity Commissioner And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : K.K. TATED, J DATE : 28th February, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, S. O. to 01/04/2019. Interim protection, if any, granted earlier and in force as on today, to continue till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5870 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12574 OF 2018 Sunanda Suresh Bhandalkar ...Petitioner vs. Deputy Charity Commissioner and ors. ...Respondents. Ms. Manjiri S. Parasnis for the Petitioner. Ms. M.S. Bane, AGP. For Respondent No.1. Mr. Pratap Patil for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. ---- CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J. DATE : 16th DECEMBER, 2019 P.C. Both these petitions are between the same parties and involve connected questions and as such, they are being disposed off by this common order. Ramrajya Shikshan Sanstha is a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act ("Act" for short). On 5.4.2001 the lenared Deputy Charity Commissioner, Pune in C.R. No.700 of 2000 had directed the parties to apply for settlement of a scheme for the said trust and accordingly, an Application No.77 of 2002 was filed. The 1st respondent by an order dated 4.4.2005 framed a scheme for the said trust. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed Misc. Civil Application No.353 of 2005 purportedly under Seciton 72 of the Act challenging the said scheme. A similar application was filed by Sambhaji Ganpat Shirsat and others being Misc. Civil Application No.1039 of 2017. The learned District Judge, Pune by a common Judgment dated 28.6.2011 allowed both these applications and while setting aside the order dated 4.4.2005 remitted the matter back for fresh enquiry and decision under Section 50(A) of the Act to the 1st respondent. That was challenged by the trust along with Sambhaji Ganpat Shirsat in First Appeal No.1796 of 2011. Suresh Jagannath Bhandalkar also challenged the said order in a separate Appeal being First Appeal No.1797 of 2011 before this Court. This court by a common Judgment and Order dated 26.2.2014 allowed both these appeals placing reliance on the decision of this court in the case of Vasantrao Vishwanathrao Mane and others 2008(3) Mah.L.J. 242 and Gaffar Sattarkhan Pathan and others vs. Marutirao Tatyaba Sarpate and anr. 2012 (3) Mah.L.J. 211 holding that the District Judge acting under Section 72 of the Act had no power of remand. Consequently, M.C.A. No. 353/2005 and M.C.A.No.1039 of 2007 were restored to the file of the learned District Judge, for deciding the same within the confines of Section 72 of the Act. The said applications are pending before the learned District Judge at Pune. The applicants before the learned District Judge filed an application Exh.64 purportedly under Section 72(1)(A) of the Act, for production of additional evidence. It is contended that the main ground of challenge to the order dated 4.4.2005 is that a fraud has been played when the scheme was framed. In short, it was contended before the learned District Judge that except the first and last page of the scheme which was submitted before the first respondent, other pages were changed. By a result of which, an altogether different scheme, than what was proposed and envisaged came to be framed on 4.4.2005. In short, it was claimed that it is necessary to afford an opportunity to lead evidence to bring out the said alleged fraud. The application was opposed on behalf of the present petitioner on the ground that the same is not maintainable and no such claim for leading of additional evidence was made in the first round of litigation, prior to the order of remand. The first respondent by impugned order dated 6.1.2018 has allowed the application Exh.64 which order is subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.5870 of 2018. In pursuance of the said order, an affidavit in evidence of Mr. Dattatraya Bhosale came to be filed before the learned District Judge at Exh.95. The said witness was orally examined on 22.10.2018 and the cross examination of the said witness on behalf of the petitioner has been closed and by a separate order of even date the matter is fixed for final arguments. These orders are subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.12574 of 2018. I have heard Ms. Manjiri Parasnis, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. I have also heard Ms. Bane,AGP. for the 1st respondent. Perused record. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable, inasmuch as the applicant in M.C.A. No.353 of 2005 and 1039 of 2007 had never made any request for leading additional evidence in the first round i.e. prior to the order of remand dated 28.6.2011. It is submitted that, in any event, the respondents (applicants) in the aforesaid two applications cannot now enlarge scope of challenge and permission to lead evidence in two applications would enlarge the scope of challenge. The learned counsel strenuously urged that, the impugned order is in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon the District Judge particularly when order in First Appeal No.1796/2018 does not contemplate or envisage the leanred District Judge allowing any further/additional evidence. It is submitted that this court has restored the aforesaid two applications on the file of the lenared District Judge only on the ground that the learned District Judge had no power to remand, while entertaining a challenge under Section 72 of the Act. It is thus, submitted that the impugned order dated 6.1.2018 (below Exh.64) cannot be sustained. In so far as W.P. No.12574/2018 is concerned, it is submitted that if the order permitting additional evidence is set aside, there is no occasion for further evidence of Mr. Dattatraya Bhosale being led. In the alternative, it is submitted that if this court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 6.1.2018 (below Exh.64) which is subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.5870/2018 then permission be granted to the petitioner to cross examine Mr. Dattatraya Bhosale. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has supported the impugned order. It is submitted that, it has all along been the case made out by these respondents that there has been fraud played wherein except the first and last page, other pages of the scheme were changed, as a result of which the scheme different than the one which was envisaged came to be approved by order dated 4.4.2005 He submitted that there are wide powers conferred on the District Judge under Section 72 of the Act which includes power to allow additional evidence being led, particularly when District Judge has been held to have no power to remand the matter. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the decision of this court in the case of Vasantrao Vishwanathrao Mane (supra). Ms. Parasnis, the lenared counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of Vasantrao Vishwanathrao Mane (supra) is distinguishable on facts and is not applicable. I have considered the rival circumstances and the submissions made and I do not find that any case for interference is made out in the impugned order dated 6.1.2018, which is subject matter of challenge in W. P. No.5870/2018. It has all along been the case of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that there has been fraud played in the matter of framing of scheme on 4.4.2005 as except first and last page all other pages of the proposed scheme were changed. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to go into the question as to whether the case made out can be accepted or not, inasmuch as the said matter is still subjudise before the learned District Judge. Section 72 of the Act has since been deleted by Maharashgtra Act 55 of 2017 with effect from 10.10.2017. However, Section 33 of the Amending Act provides that nothing in the said amending Act shall affect applications and/or appeals pending before any civil court on the date of commencement of the said Amendment Act, 2017. There is no dispute about the said aspect. This is only mentioned to put the record straight. Section 72(1A) of the Act, as it stood prior to its deletion and which is relelvant for the purpose reads thus:- "(1A) No party to such application shall be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, before the Court, unless the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner or the Charity Commissioner has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted or the Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause the Court thinks if necessary to allow such additional evidence: Provided that whenever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by the Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission. (2) The court after taking evidence if any, may confirm, revoke or modify the deciion or remit the amount of the surcharge and make such orders as to costs as it thinks proper in the circumstances." It can thus be seen that the Deputy or the Assistant Charity Commissioner can in a given case admit evidence including the examination of any witness in the circumstances as set out in Section 72(1A) of the Act. This court in the case of Vasantrao Vishwanathrao Mane (supra) has held that the Deputy Charity Commissioner acting under Section 72 of the Act has specific powers only to confirm, revoke or modify the decision and there is no power of remand. It has been further held in this context that the specific power avaialble to the court under sub section (2) of Section 72 is inclusive of the power to take evidence if any. This court in Para 30 of the Judgemnt has held that, it is implicit that no special case is required to be made out as per the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure in order to adduce additional evidence. It has further been held that this specific inclusion of the power to take evidence, will show that the intention of the Legislature is to avoid remand. As noticed earlier, it has all along been the case of repsondent Nos. 2 to 4 that there has been fraud played when the scheme was framed by order dated 4.4.2005 by change of certain pages and in that view of the matter, the lenared District Judge has thought it fit to allow such additional evidence being led. The record disclosed that, in pursuance of the said order an affidavit in examination-in-chief of Mr. Dattatraya Bhosale is already filed. The impugned order in my considered view is not amenable to interference particularly, when it does not result into any manifest injustice on the petitioner. The contention that such a request was not made prior to the remand, to my mind cannot be accepted. Only because at that point of time request was not made, cannot preclude the first respondent to permit such evidence being led, if a case to that effect is made out, In that view of the matter, W.P.No.5870 of 2018 has to fail. This takes me to WP No.12574/2018 in which the challenge is to the closure of the cross examination on behalf of the petitioner of Mr. Dattatraya Bhosale. In my considered view for a fair trial and in the interest of justice opportunity to cross examine Mr. Dattatraya Bhosale needs to be granted. The possibility of petitioner having failed to cross examine the said witness as petitioner was contemplating challenge to the order dated 6.1.2018 cannot be ruled out, However, once that challnge has failed, I find that such an opportunity needs to be granted. Ms. Parasnis, the lenared counsel for the petitioner at this stage submitted that, taking advantage of the order dated 6.1.2018, the petitioner may lead evidence which may not be strictly relevant for deciding Civil Misc. Application No.353/2005. The apprehension in my considered view is misplaced as the learned District Judge has to ensure that the evidence being led is strictly relevant for deciding the issues arising in Misc. Civil Applciation NO.353/2005 and such additional evidence shall only be restricted to the grounds of challenge as raised in Misc. Civil Application No.353/2005. In the result, following order is passed. ORDER a) Writ Petition No.5870 of 2018 is hereby dismissed. The order dated 6.1.2018 (below Exh.64) permitting to lead additional evidence is hereby confirmed. Needless to mention that such evidence shall be confined to the grounds of challenge as raised in Misc. Civil Application No.353 of 2005. b) Writ Petition No.12574 of 2018 is allowed. The impugned orders dated 22.10.2018 (below Exh.95) and below Exh.109 are herebty set aside. c) The petitioner is permitted to cross examine the witness Dattatraya Bhosale (Exh.95). d) In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. e) At this stage Ms. Parasnis, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for extension of interim relief for a period of four weeks. On hearing the lenared counsel for the parties, it is directed that ad-interim relief granted on 31.10.2018 in terms of prayer clause (c) and (d) shall continue to operate for a period of four weeks from today. [C.V. BHADANG, J.]

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5870 OF 2018 ….. Sunanda Suresh Bhandalkar Petitioner vs. Deputy Charity Commissioner & Ors. Respondents Ms. M. S. Parasnis, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A. R. Metkari, AGP for Respondent No.1 / State. Mr. Pratap Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J. DATE : 13th JANUARY, 2020 P.C. . Not on board. Taken on board. This is mentioned for extension of the ad-interim relief which was continued for a period of four weeks on 16/12/2019. On hearing learned counsel for the parties, ad-interim relief shall continue to operate for period of three weeks as a last chance. No further extension shall be granted. Stand over to 3/2/2020. C.V. BHADANG, J.

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5870 OF 2018 ….. Sunanda Suresh Bhandalkar Petitioner vs. Deputy Charity Commissioner & Ors. Respondents Ms. Priya Shetty i/b. Ms. M. S. Parasnis, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A. R. Metkari, AGP for Respondent No.1 / State. Mr. Pratap Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J. DATE : 3rd FEBRUARY, 2020 P.C. . The petition is already disposed of on 16/12/2019. Hence, removed from board. C.V. BHADANG, J. Mamta Kale

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5870 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12574 OF 2018 Sunanda Suresh Bhandalkar ..Petitioner vs. Deputy Charity Commissioner & Ors. ..Respondents Ms. Priya Shetty i/b. Ms. M. S. Parasnis, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A. R. Metkari, AGP for Respondent No.1 / State. Mr. Pratap Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. ….. CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J. DATE : 3rd FEBRUARY, 2020 P.C. . The petition is already disposed of on 16/12/2019. Hence, removed from board. C.V. BHADANG, J.

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1063 OF 2008 IN S.C.SUIT NO.313 OF 2008 ....................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda . of Coram, appearances, Court's . Orders or directions and . Registrar's Order Court's or Judge's Order ....................................................... Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b.L.J.Law for the Appellant. Mr.G.S.Godbole for Respondents. CORAM : S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 17TH OCTOBER, 2008. P.C. :- . Leave to the Appellant to make an application for removal of the debri alone before the Trial Court. (S.J.VAZIFDAR, J.)

Order - Status 8: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1063 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1304 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, appearances, Court's . orders or directions and . Registrar's orders . -------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Sanjay Jain for the Appellant. Mr.G.S. Godbole i/b Ms.J.V. Kanade for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J . DATED : 10TH NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C. : Admit. 2.The impugned order does not warrant any interference. Prima-facie, it does appear that the Plaintiff had some right in the suit structure purchased from the predecessor-in-title of the Appellant. There is nothing at this stage which indicates that the agreement dated 10.10.1988 is of no effect. Added to this is the fact that the Appellant issued the bills in respect of the Plaintiff's structure after they acquired rights in respect of the suit property. 3.It further appears that the confusion regarding the identity of the structure and co-relation thereof with the municipal numbers is on account of certain construction activity/demolition which has taken place recently. Unless these aspects are considered at the final hearing of this Appeal from Order, it would not be correct to grant interlocutory order virtually allowing the Appeal at this stage. 4.In the circumstances, no interim orders staying the operation of the impugned order. The pendency of this Appeal from Order will not be a reason for the trial Court not to proceed with the trial.

Order - Status 12: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE DISTRICT : APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1063 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1304 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's of Coram, appearances, Court's orders orders or directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b.M/s.L.J.Law for the Appellant. Mr.Girish Godbole i/b.Mr.J.V.Kanade for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 17TH DECEMBER, 2008 P.C : Order in terms of the consent terms/Minutes of the Order, tendered in Court and marked 'X' and 'X1' respectively. The consent terms have been signed by he parties and their Advocates. The compliance regarding registration shall be informed to the Court. ***