All Cases

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16 OF 2014 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2013 Mr.Kobad Dorabji Davierwalla ...Applicant / Orig.Respondent No.1 In the matter between Mrs.Perin Hoshang Davierwalla & Anr. ...Appellants vs. Mr.Kobad Dorabji Davierwalla & Ors. ...Respondents AND REVIEW PETITION (STAMP) NO. 19448 OF 2014 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2013 WITH CIVIL APPLIATION NO. 171 OF 2014 Mrs.Perin Hoshang Davierwalla & Anr. vs. Petitioners / Orig.Appellants Mr.A.V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Prathamesh Bhargav i/b. Mr.S.B. Deshmukh for Applicant (Original Respondent No.1). Mr.Darius Khambata, Senior Advocate with Mr.J.B. Sen, Senior Advocate, Mr.Akshay Patil i/b. M/s.Federal & Rashmikant for Respondent No.1 and 2 (Original Appellants). Mr.Priyanka Vegad for Respondent No.2 in Review Petition No**.**19448/2014, Arb.Appeal No.42/2013, Respondent No.3 in CA 16/2014. Mr.B.K. Bali i/b. M/s.Bali Associates for Respondent No.3. CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J. 01 SEPTEMBER 2014 P.C. : The delay of fourty-five days in taking out the review petition is condoned, and the review petition is taken up for hearing. 2 The review petition is filed by the original Appellants seeking a review of paragraphs 16 and 17(ii) of the order passed by this Court on 7 May 2014 and modification of the same by directing Respondent No.1 to vacate the two rooms in the hotel premises, currently in occupation of Respondent No.1 as agent of the Court Receiver without payment of royalty and security. The application is made in the following facts. 3 The Appellants and Respondents are partners in a partnership firm called IL Palazzo Hotel running a business of lodging and boarding house at Panchgani in Maharashtra. During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings between the parties for adjudication of disputes arising out of dissolution of this partnership firm by the Appellants, by an order passed by this Court on 7 May 2014, Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay has been appointed as a receiver of the assets and business of the partnership firm. The Appellants have been appointed as agents of the Court Receiver for conducting the business of IL Palazzo Hotel on payment of royalty. Paragraph 15 of this order inter alia records that Respondent No.1, who was carrying on business on the date of this order, not only had the suit business as the only source of livelihood, but even lived in two rooms within the building where the partnership business of lodging and boarding house was carried on. The order records the plea of Respondent No.1 that the residence of Respondent No.1 inter alia needs to be protected since he was actually using the two rooms. Accordingly, paragraph 17(ii) of the order provides that Respondent No.1 would be entitled to retain these two rooms presently in his personal use for the residence of himself and his family as agent of the Court Receiver without payment of any royalty or security. 4 It is a case of the Appellants in the present review petition that on or about 20 April 2014, after the conclusion of the hearings in the appeal, the Appellants came to know that Respondent No.1 has been in possession of a two storied apartment bungalow with a workable basement in Khinger village (about 3 to 4 km from IL Palazzo Hotel) admeasuring an area of more than 2000 sq.ft.; that this bungalow was in the name of Respondent No.1 and his wife; that the bungalow has a telephone installed therein; that the Respondent has been paying telephone and electricity charges; that this bungalow has been used by Respondent No.1 for the residence of himself and his family since much before the passing of the order dated 7 May 2014 and till today; that in the premises, Respondent No.1 has never actually resided in the hotel premises even once after the charge of the hotel was handed over to the Appellants, as agents of the Court Receiver and that, on the other hand, Respondent No.1 and his wife have only visited the two rooms occasionally during all this period; that the wife of Respondent No.1 had been interfering with the administration and functioning of the hotel and ordering around the staff and interacting with the hotel guests; and that in the premises, it is necessary and in the interests of justice that the directions in the order dated 7 May 2014 be modified and Respondent No.1 and his family be directed to vacate the rooms occupied by them in the hotel premises. 4 Along with the review petition, there is an application filed by Respondent No.1 himself inter alia for certain modifications to the order of 7 May 2014. It is prayed by Respondent No.1 that he should be allowed to use all common facilities, services, amenities, etc. provided in the hotel such as common hot and cold water, appliances, common generators and other infrastructure and utility services without any charge. Respondent No.1 has also applied for use of boarding facilities and services provided by the hotel at a charge of Rs.10,000/ per month. By an amendment proposed in the affidavit dated 22 June 2014, Respondent No.1 sought to amend the prayer inter alia providing for payment of charges in the sum of Rs.3500/- per month for use of the common and shared amenities and services provided in the hotel. Respondent No.1 does not press his prayer for provision of boarding facilities against payment of Rs.10,000/- per month, as originally proposed in his civil application. Thus, the application is now for permission to use all common amenities and facilities provided by the hotel on payment of a charge of Rs.3500/- per month. 5 It is obvious that the original application for permission to retain the two rooms claimed to be in occupation of Respondent No.1, as agent of the Court Receiver and without payment of royalty or security, was on the express footing that Respondent No.1 had all along been using, and even now requires, the two rooms for residence of himself and his family. At no stage in the pending appeal, before the order was passed on 7 May 2014, had the Respondent indicated that he was in possession of, and using, a bungalow of more than 2000 sq.ft. at Khinger village near IL Palazzo Hotel. In fact, in his reply filed in the review petition, Respondent No.1 has not disputed his residence in the bungalow at Khinger. All that the Respondent mentions in his reply to the review petition is that the two rooms in the hotel are his permanent residence; that all official documents, fax documents and administrative documents have the address of the hotel as his permanent residence; and that it would cause great difficulty to Respondent No.1 if this permanent address has to be changed temporarily. It is also submitted by Respondent No.1 that the bungalow at Khinger is not habitable round the year; that residence at this bungalow is not practicable due to its distant location, extreme weather conditions, etc. However, Respondent No.1 has not said that he does not actually use the bungalow as his residence. 6 Secondly, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 that photographs of this bungalow were shown to the Court by the Appellants, before this Court passed its order on 7 May 2014. Since these photographs were before the Court, it is submitted that the attention of the Court was invited to the existence of this bungalow and that therefore, the facts narrated before the Court in the review petition are neither new nor brought for the first time before the Court to enable the Appellants to apply for review of the order. It may be that the photographs were shown to the Court when this Court passed its order on 7 May 2013. The photographs were, however, not shown by Respondent No.1. The contest as to whether this bungalow was actually used as residence by Respondent No.1 throughout the relevant period was not before the Court when the order of 7 May 2014 was passed. The Appellants have claimed in the review petition that this fact came to light after the hearing of the matter concluded on 23 April 2014 and the order was reserved. On the basis of their knowledge acquired subsequently, the Appellants have averred in the review petition that Respondent No.1 and his family have been residing in the bungalow at Khinger and have not used the two rooms for residence at any time during the period of pendency of the arbitration appeal. There is no effective denial of this fact in the reply of Respondent No.1. Secondly, it is submitted that right from inception, four rooms have been kept for three groups of partners of the firm for their residence and that these rooms have been kept for residence of the parties in spite of the fact that even the Appellants have their bungalow at Panchgani, not very far from IL Palazzo hotel. It is submitted that even today, two rooms are in occupation of the Appellants. Whether or not the two rooms are in occupation of the Appellants, it is a fact that these two rooms have been treated to be a part of the hotel premises under the order of 7 May 2014 and the compensation payable by the Appellants as agents of the Court Receiver has been worked out on that basis. Whether the rooms are, in fact, used as guest rooms to be rented out for the hotel business or whether they are actually used for occupation of the Appellants, is immaterial as long as these two rooms are in occupation of the Appellants as agents of the Court Receiver for conducting the hotel business and the Appellants are paying compensation for the same as agents of the Court Receiver. In fact, the fact that two rooms in occupation of the Appellants for their residence have been made part of the hotel premises, in occupation of the agents of the Court Receiver and for which compensation is payable by the agents, supports the Appellants' case that the two rooms which are in occupation of Respondent No.1 and which are not actually used for his residence ought to be made over to the Court Receiver for conducting the hotel business. The Appellants have offered to pay an additional royalty of Rs.6 lakhs per annum for the two rooms to be vacated by Respondent No.1 and allowed to be used for the hotel. This additional royalty is offered with a view to account for the additional revenue that may accrue to the agents, if these two rooms are allowed to be used for the hotel. 7 Lastly, it is submitted that the Court Receiver has not been appointed of the four rooms which were in occupation of the partners for their respective residence. This submission is made on the basis of the licence issued by the authorities, which is in respect of 17 rooms only. It may be that the licence for renting out room to the guests exists in respect of 17 rooms for the lodging business of the hotel, but there is nothing to indicate that these two rooms are not part of the assets of the partnership firm of which Court Receiver is appointed. In fact, it is on the basis that the Court Receiver is appointed also of these four rooms that the two rooms in occupation of the Appellants have been made part of the agency business and for which the Appellants have been asked to pay compensation. So also, it is on the same basis that Respondent No.1 is directed to be appointed as agent of the Court Receiver without any royalty for the two rooms purportedly in his occupation. There is no substance in the plea that the Court Receiver is not appointed of these four rooms. 8 In the premises, the review petition filed by the Appellants deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the order of 7 May 2014 is modified by directing Respondent No.1 to vacate the two rooms in his occupation and make over the same to the Court Receiver for being used as part of the hotel premises. With effect from the expiry of a period of 45 days after the rooms are vacated and possession thereof is handed over to the Court Receiver by Respondent No.1, the Appellants shall pay an additional royalty of Rs.6 lakhs per annum for use of these two rooms as part of the agency agreement. This amount shall be paid on a quarterly basis as in the case of royalty of Rs.70 lakhs payable per annum for the agency of the hotel. 9 At the time of handing over of the two rooms by Respondent No.1 to the Court Receiver, the Court Receiver shall prepare an inventory of the furnitures and fixtures lying within the premises. Respondent No.1 shall be at liberty to make a claim in respect of these furnitures and fixtures at the hearing before the District Court or before the Arbitrator, as the case may be. The Court Receiver will, of course, permit Respondent No.1 to take away his movables lying within the two rooms. 10 Having regard to the order passed on the review petition, the civil application of Respondent No.1 for use of additional amenities and facilities provided by the hotel in connection with the two rooms in his occupation as agent of the Receiver, does not survive and is disposed of. 11 There shall be no order as to costs. 12 On the application of the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, this order is stayed for a period of five weeks from today. (S.C. Gupte, J.)

Order - Status 5: ata IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.785 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST)NO.574 OF 2011 Devendra @ Bittya Bhausaheb Padale and ors ..Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent None for the Applicants. Adv. P. S. Hingorani, A. P. P. for State. CORAM : NARESH. H. PATIL, & K. U. CHANDIWAL, J J. DATE : JULY 8, 2011 P.C. The Applications were called out twice. None appears for Applicants. S.O to 18.07.2011. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) ( NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 785 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST) NO. 574 OF 2011 Devendra @ Bittya Bhausaheb Padale and Ors... Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondents Mr. Abhaykumar Apte i/by Mr. Avinash Kamkhedkar for the applicants. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATED : JULY 18, 2011 P.C. Heard. Perused the application. Delay is condoned. Application disposed off. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.374 OF 2004 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL ST.NO.21588 OF 2004 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5247 OF 1989 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd.,& ors. ..Applicants V/s. Engineering Workers' Association & Anr..Respondents Mr.G.B.Shetty i/by Crawford Bayley & Co. for the applicants. Ms.Bina Dholakia for Respondents. Coram : R.M.LODHA & R.S.MOHITE,JJ Date : 30.3.2005. PC . Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1. The Respondent no.2 is the formal party. There is delay of 18 days in filing Letters Patent Appeal. The cause for delay is set out in paragraph-1(c) of the application. The respondent no.1 has not objection if delay is condoned. We accordingly, grant Civil application in terms of prayer clause-(a). : 2 : Prayer clause-(a) reads thus :- That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to condone the delay of 18 days in filing the present Appeal. Civil application stands disposed of. (R.M.LODHA,J) (R.S.MOHITE,J)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO.960 of 2005. IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.22648 OF 2004. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or Judge's orders. orders or directions and Registrar's orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED : 7th June, 2006. P.C.: 1.Rule returnable on 14th February 2007. 2.In addition to the notice through Court, the Advocate for the Applicant is directed to serve private notice to the Respondents. Affidavit of service to be filed one week before the returnable date. Judge.

Order - Status 12: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CA 1861/1986 IN FAST 22928/1985 2) CA 4255/1989 IN FAST 8216/1989 3) FA 552/1991 4) FA 1061/1991 WITH FA 192/1992 5) FA 236/1992 6) FA 337/1992 7) CA 3360/1992 IN FAST 18335/1991 8) CA 1385/1993 IN FAST 29681/1992 9) CA 1717/1993 IN FAST 12333/1992 10) FA 796/1994 11) FA 641/1996 12) FA 1221/1996 13) CA 7311/1997 IN FA 737/1995 WITH CA 642/1996 IN FA 737/1995 14) CA 8063/1997 IN FA 862/1997 15) FA 533/1998 WITH CA 4997/1998 IN FA 533/1998 WITH CA 4998/1998 IN FA 533/1998 WITH CA 4338/1998 IN FA 533/1998 16) CA 2875/1998 IN RC 319/2001 17) FA 326/1999 18) CA 4424/1999 IN FA 273/1998 19) FA 1079/2000 WITH CA 8652/2000 IN FA 1079/2000 WITH CAST 14947/2002 IN FA 1079/2000 WITH CAF 3942/2003 IN FA 1079/2000 WITH CAF 746/2004 IN FA 1079/2000 WITH CAF 745/2004 IN FA 1079/2000 20) CA 3214/2000 IN FA 1224/1996 21) CA 6762/2000 IN FA 958/1998 22) CAF 141/2001 IN FA 589/1995 23) FA 1234/2001 WITH CAF 2432/2001 IN FA 1234/2001 WITH CAF 4338/2002 IN FA 1234/2001 24) CAF 2726/2001 IN FA 1866/2006 25) CAF 5089/2001 IN FAST 15292/1992 26) FA 159/2002 27) FA 384/2002 28) FA 393/2002 WITH CAF 1733/2002 IN FA 393/2002 29) FA 967/2002 WITH CAF 906/2007 IN FA 967/2002 30) FA 977/2002 31) FA 1096/2002 WITH CAF 3107/2002 IN FA 1096/2002 WITH CAF 2085/2006 IN FA 1096/2002 32) FA 1405/2002 WITH CAF 2829/2007 IN FA 1405/2002 33) CAF 1916/2002 IN FAST 3422/2000 34) CAF 2610/2002 IN FAST 6736/2002 WITH CAF 2769/2007 IN FAST 6736/2002 35) CAF 3117/2002 IN FA 1053/2002 36) CAF 3841/2002 IN FA 1432/2002 37) CAF 3908/2002 IN FA 1428/2002 38) CAF 4312/2002 IN FAST 10304/2002 39) CAF 4445/2002 IN FAST 39300/2002 40) CAF 4735/2002 IN FA 261/1998 41) FA 1110/2003 WITH CAF 1373/2002 TO CAF 1402 42) CAF 1150/2003 IN FAST 4611/2003 43) CAF 1204/2003 IN FA/752/1997 44) FA 1955/2003 45) FA 1970/2003 46) CAF 2000/2003 IN FA 1886/2006 47) CAF 2291/2003 WITH CAF 2293/2003 WITH CAF 2295/2003 WITH CAF 2297/2003 48) CAF 3232/2003 IN FA 1272/1998 49) CAF 3249/2003 IN FA 2035/2006 50) CAF 3655/2003 WITH 4567/2002 IN FAST 8663/1998 51) CAF 3890/2003 IN FA 1020/2000 52) CAF 3971/2003 IN FAST 43504/2002 53) CAF 4319/2003 IN FAST 46534/2001 54) CAF 4586/2003 IN FA 1715/2003 55) CAF 4813/2003 IN FA 446/2007 56) CAF 5104/2002 IN FAST 43846/2003 57) CAF 88/2004 WITH 89/2004 IN FAST 433/2004 58) CAF 122/2004 IN FA 133/2004 59) CAF 260/2004 IN FA 435/2007 60) FA 396/2004 61) CAF 427/2004 IN FA 847/2004 62) FA 444/2004 WITH CAF 1122/2004 63) CAF 461/2004 WITH CAF 1910/2007 IN FA 192/2004 64) CAF 498/2004 IN FAST 3176/2004 65) CAF 515/2004 WITH 4189/2006 WITH 5034/2005 IN FAST 25895/2003 66) CAF 519/2004 WITH 520/2004 IN FAST 5937/2004 67) CAF 525/2004 WITH 526/2004 IN AST 8156/2003 68) FA 570/2004 WITH 1612/2004 IN FA 570/2004 69) CAF 676/2004 IN FA 296/2004 70) CAF 771/2004 WITH 772/2004 IN FAST 5639/2004 71) CAF 851/2004 WITH 852/2004 IN FAST 9207/2004 72) FA 1143/2004 73) CAF 1151/2004 IN FA 84/2004 74) CAF 1170/2004 IN FA 304/2004 75) FA 1395/2004 WITH 1314/2004 IN FA 1395/2004 76) CAF 1402/2004 IN FAST 25707/2003 77) FA 1410/2004 WITH 4376/2004 IN FA 1410/2004 78) CAF 1606/2004 IN FAST 34772/2002 79) CAF 2007/2004 WITH CAF 1543/2006 IN FA 698/2004 80) CAF 2301/2004 WITH 2302/2004 IN FAST 42821/2001 81) CAF 2512/2004 WITH 2765/2001 IN FA 503/2000 82) CAF 2554/2004 IN FA 59/1991 83) CAF 2602/2004 WITH 5729/1999 IN FA 1205/1998 84) CAF 2617/2004 IN FA 861/2004 85) CAF 3232/2004 IN FAST 24010/2004 86) CAF 3252/2004 WITH 3253 IN FAST 23421/2004 87) CAF 3417/2004 WITH 3418/2004 IN FAST 23749/2003 88) CAF 3686/2004 TO 3691/2004 IN FAST 11358/2004 89) CAF 3752/2004 IN FA 167/2007 90) CAF 3994/2004 IN FAST 17115/2004 91) CAF 4217/2004 IN FAST 17236/2004 92) CAF 4431/2004 IN FA 48/2005 93) CAF 34/2005 IN FA 1734/2006 94) FA 136/2005 95) CAF 288/2005 IN FAST 32236/2004 96) FA 417/2005 97) FA 487/2005 98) CAF 922/2005 IN FAST 19578/2001 99) CAF 960/2005 WITH 961/2005 IN FAST 22648/2004 100) CAF 977/2005 WITH 978/2005 IN FAST 5498/2005 FA 1208/2005 WITH 5503/2005 IN FA 1208/2005 102) CAF 617/2007 WITH 618/2007 IN FAST 1723/2007 (SERIAL NOS.187 TO 288) ------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders ------------------------------------------------------- Coram : Anoop V.Mohta,J Date : 4th August, 2007. PC All these matters are under the caption of "UNSERVED NOTICE". Parties to take steps for serving notices. Private service if not already issued, is also permitted. Affidavit of service if respondents/defendants are served, may be filed. Ad-interim orders if any, to continue for a period of further four weeks. The matters stand dismissed without reference to Court's order if above compliances are not made as notified. (Anoop V.Mohta,J)

Order - Status 6: srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1874 OF 2011 Jogindar Rikai Paswan Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents Mr.D.G.Khamkar for petitioner. Dr.F.R.Shaikh, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. July 27, 2011. P.C. Heard. The learned APP seeks further time of two weeks. Time granted by way of last chance. S.O. for two weeks. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)

Order - Status 11: 10WP.1874-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1874 OF 2011 Jogindara Rikai Paswan. ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another. ..Respondents. .......... Mr.D.G. Khamkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs.M.H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR AND P. D. KODE, JJ. .......... DATED : 22nd AUGUST, 2011. P.C. Learned APP, on instructions, states that the petitioner's case for premature release was duly considered by the appropriate authority and the petitioner has been categorized under Category No.4(d). That decision has been taken on 4th August, 2011. If the said decision is not communicated to the petitioner, we hope and trust that the appropriate authority will do the needful in that behalf. In view of the above, nothing survives for consideration in the matter. Accordingly, Petition is disposed of. (P. D. KODE, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.) 1

Order - Status 5: RUPALI RAJESH WAKODIKAR Digitally signed by RUPALI RAJESH WAKODIKAR Date: 2022.01.25 16:14:33 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 63 OF 2022 Ganesh Milind Todkari ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr. Ritesh M. Thobde for the Applicant. Mr. S.S.Pednekar, A.P.P for the Respondent-State. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 21ST JANUARY, 2022 (Through Video Conferencing) P.C. : Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The applicant has impugned the order dated 29th December, 2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, by which, the learned Judge was pleased to issue non-bailable warrant as against the applicant. The applicant has also impugned another order of the same date i.e. 29th December, 2021, by which, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, rejected the applicant's application seeking anticipatory bail, on the ground, that the said application was not maintainable. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there were sufficient grounds made out by the applicant for cancellation of the nonbailable warrant as well as for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. Learned APP vehemently opposes the application. He submitted that the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant, pursuant to the issuance of non-bailable warrant was not maintainable and as such, was rightly rejected by the Trial Court. He submits that it was always open for the applicant to file an appropriate application seeking cancellation of the non-bailable warrant, issued by the Trial Court, as against the applicant. Perused the papers. From the order dated 29th December, 2021, it appears that on the said date, despite repeated calls, neither the accused nor his Advocate is present. The learned Judge observed that the evidence cannot be recorded in the absence of the applicant/accused and as such, issued non-bailable warrant to the applicant/accused and notice to the surety. After the non-bailable warrant was issued, another application was filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail application. Learned Judge, after observing that the bail bond has been forfeited and non-bailable warrant has already been issued and hence, the application seeking anticipatory bail was not maintainable and accordingly, rejected the same. As far as the order dated 29th December, 2021 is concerned, the observation of the learned Judge in the said order that, an anticipatory bail application was not maintainable, cannot be faulted with, inasmuch as, the applicant ought to have filed an application seeking cancellation of the non-bailable warrant instead of filing an application seeking anticipatory bail. Without going into the merits, for the reasons for nonappearance of the applicant/accused on the said date i.e. on 29th December, 2021, liberty is granted to the applicant to file an appropriate application before the Trial Court seeking cancellation of the non-bailable warrant issued to the applicant. If an application is filed seeking cancellation of the nonbailable warrant issued by the Trial Court on 29th December, 2021, the learned Judge to consider the same on its own merits after hearing the parties. Leaned APP also has no objection if the applicant is permitted to file an appropriate application seeking cancellation of his non-bailable warrant before the Trial Court. The application is accordingly disposed of on the aforesaid terms. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the application and as such, all contentions of the applicant are kept open. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.