All Cases

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2853 OF 2010 Suresh Sitaram Dolas ...Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. &..Respondents ----- Ms.A.Ashtivhar i/b. Mr.R. Sathyanarayanan for Applicant Mrs.R.V. Newton -APP for State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 1ST JULY, 2010 P.C. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that after the complaint was dismissed by the Learned Magistrate by his order dated 6.11.2006, the Learned Magistrate has thereafter passed a second order in the said complaint referring the matter for enquiry under section 202 of the Cr.P.C. to the Byculla Police Station. It is submitted that the complaint having been dismissed, a subsequent order in the same complaint could not have been passed by the Learned Magistrate. In my view, prima facie case is made out for grant of ad-interim relief. Issue notice to the Respondent No.2, returnable after four weeks. In the meantime, there shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b). (V.M. KANADE J.)

Order - Status 20: 1 Cri-A-2853-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2853 OF 2010 Suresh Sitaram Dolas ... Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. R.Sathyanarayanan, Advocate, for the applicant Ms. M.R.Tidke,Advocate for the respondent No.1 - State. Mr. R.A.Shelke, i/b. Shri Gautam Kanchanpurkar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 29th April, 2011. P.C. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused both the orders passed by the Magistrate. By first order dated 6.11.2006, he had rejected the complaint as premature with liberty to the complainant to file fresh complaint as and when cause of action arose. However, by second order dated 17.2.2007, he allowed the same old complaint to be revived and issued the process. The second order is challenged in the present application. After some discussion, with consent of the learned Counsel, the order dated 17.2.2007 is hereby set aside with liberty to the respondent No.2 Mhi 2 Cri-A-2853-10.sxw complainant to file fresh complaint, if he so desires. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2135 OF 2015 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders None present for petitioner. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for State. CORAM :SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J DATE :OCTOBER 8, 2015 P.C.: 1 None present. Learned APP submits that copy of this petition alongwith annexures has not been served upon the office of the prosecution. In the eventuality that it is served within one week from today, the learned APP shall waive service and seek instructions. Stand over to 19/11/2015. ( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J) CERTIFICATE Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed Judgment/order.

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2135 OF 2015 Mr. Vikash Singh s/o. Prakash Singh…. Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra …. Respondents Mr. P.V.Dhopatkar i/b. Mr. Santosh S. Vhatkar,Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.A.A.Mane, APP, for the State. CORAM: SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV, J. DATE : 9 th August, 2016. P.C . Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. The petitioner happens to be the original complainant in Crime No.285 of 2012 dated 20.7.2012, wherein he had initiated criminal proceedings against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused therein had filed an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 3.8.2012. At the time of granting pre-arrest bail, this Court had directed the accused to be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the same amount. The accused was further directed to deposit a sum of Rs.52,00,000/- in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 26th court, Borivli within a period of four weeks. The learned Magistrate was directed to invest the said amount in the interest earning deposit schemes in the State Bank of India and was further directed to deal with the same at the end of the trial as per the result of the trial. Pursuant to the said order, the accused had deposited an amount of Rs.52,00,000/- in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate. The complainant herein had filed an application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., being C.C. No.1631/PW/2013, contending that the petitioner was cheated for an amount of Rs.22,49,500/-. He had sought return of the said property i.e. the cash amount of Rs.22,49,500/-. The said application was rejected by the Metropolitan magistrate by an order dated 25.9.2014. The learned Magistrate had rightly observed that there are specific directions from the Hon'ble High Court that the said issue shall be dealt with in accordance with law at the end of the trial. The learned Magistrate has rightly considered that the said amount, which is being solicited to be returned, is neither an incriminating article which was seized in the course of investigation nor it is recovered at the instance of the accused. Upon a query made by this Court as to how the application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. would be maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes a statement that since the property is in the custody of the Magistrate, the application would be maintainable under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. Section 451 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows :- "451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases. When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of." The opening line of Section 451 is "when any property is produced before any Criminal Court". In the present case, the property was not recovered nor discovered nor seized at the best of the accused and not produced before the trial Court by the Investigating agency. The property was deposited in the custody of the Magistrate pursuant to an order passed by this Court while granting an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and there was a specific order that the said amount be dealt with in accordance with law at the conclusion of the trial. In view of the above observations, the petition being sans merits, deserves to be dismissed. Petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. (SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8302 OF 2024 In Writ Petition STAMP NO. 95499 OF 2020 M/s Mantech Counting And Systems Llp ....PETITIONER V/S Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NITIN JAMDAR & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. M. SATHAYE, JJ DATE : 25th July, 2024 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 04/09/2024 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 7: 30-as-ia-8302-2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.8302 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.95499 OF 2020 M/s. Mantech Counting and Systems LLP …Applicant / Petitioner Versus Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and ors …Respondents *** Mr. E.A. Sasi for the Applicant / Petitioner. Mr. K. S. Thorat, 'B' Panel Advocate for the Respondent No.4 - State *** CORAM: NITIN JAMDAR & M.M. SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 6 SEPTEMBER 2024 P.C.: . Registry to examine the subject matter and place the Application before the appropriate bench as per roster. ( M.M. SATHAYE, J.) ( NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.8302 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION (L) NO.95499 OF 2020 M/s. Mantech Counting & Systems LLP .. Applicant Versus Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. E.A. Sasi a/w. Mr. Arnav Rane, Mr. Tejas Shinde & Mr. Bijoy Chacko, Advocates for the Applicant. Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl.G.P. a/w. Mr. Karan Thorat, B Panel for Respondent No.4-State. CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 19, 2024 P. C. The above Interim Application is filed seeking condonation of delay and to restore the above Writ Petition to file, which was dismissed pursuant to the Order passed by the Registrar (Judicial-I) for non-removal of office objections. Since the above Interim Application is coming up for the first time, the Registry is directed to issue notice to Respondent Nos.1 to 3, returnable on 17th December, 2024. In addition to the Court notice, the Applicant is permitted to serve the papers and proceedings of the above Interim Application, along with the above Writ Petition, and a copy of this Order, on Respondent Nos.1 to 3 by private notice as well. Mr. Patel, learned AGP waives notice on behalf of Respondent No.4. Stand over to 17 th December, 2024. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. [SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8302 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 95499 OF 2020 M/s. Mantech Counting & Systems LLP …Applicant/ Original Petitioner Versus Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation & Ors …Respondents Mr. E.A. Sasi, a/w Arnav Rane & Bijoy Chacko for the Applicant. Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl.GP, a/w K.S. Thorat B Panel, for Respondent No.4. None for Respondent No.1. CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 17, 2024 PC : The above Interim Application is filed seeking a Condonation of Delay of approximately one year and nine months in filing the above Application and to set aside the order passed by the Registrar (Judicial-I) dated 16th June, 2022 under which the above Writ Petition was dismissed for non-removal of office objections. Page 1 of 3 December 17, 2024 Ashwini Vallakati The learned AGP appears on behalf of the State of Maharashtra (Respondent No.4). As far as Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are concerned, we find that they have been duly served by private notice (as directed by our order dated 19th November, 2024) and an affidavit of service (dated 9th December, 2024) to that effect is also filed. Despite service, none have appeared on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3. We have gone through the above Interim Application. Though we are not fully satisfied with the explanation given for the delay, in order to ensure that the Applicant/original Petitioner is not denied an opportunity of redressing their grievances on merits, we condone the delay and set aside the order passed by the Registrar (Judicial-I) dated 16th June, 2022 subject to the condition that the Applicant/original Petitioner pay cost of Rs.50,000/- to the Tata Memorial Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai, within a period of two weeks from today and the receipt evidencing the payment of cost is submitted to the Registry of this Court which shall be kept in the file of the above matter. Once the costs are paid, the above Writ Petition shall be restored to the file and the office objections if any, shall also be removed by the Applicant/original Petitioner within a period of two weeks Page 2 of 3 December 17, 2024 Ashwini Vallakati thereafter. It is made clear that if the costs are not paid as stipulated in this order, the above Interim Application shall automatically stands dismissed without further reference to the Court. The Interim Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. [ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.] [ B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8302 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 95499 OF 2020 M/s Mantech Counting and Systems LLP Petitioner Versus Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation & Ors. Respondents Ms. Bhagyashri Mangale i/b E.A. Sasi for the Petitioner/Applicant. CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: JANUARY 3, 2025 P. C. Not on Board. At the request of the Applicant/Petitioner, taken on Board. The time to pay the cost of Rs. 50,000 to the Tata Memorial Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai (pursuant to the Order dated 17th December 2024) is extended by a period of one week from today. Page 1 of 2 JANUARY 3, 2025 3. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. [FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.703 OF 2014 Sheikh Mahmud Aalam ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Ms.Anjali Awasthi for the Applicant Mr.Y.M. Nakhawa APP, for Respondent – State CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE: JUNE 10, 2014 P.C.: The application is moved for transit anticipatory bail as the applicant/accused is prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as the offence is registered at C.R. No.2 of 2014. The learned Counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that the applicant/accused is not aware of the prosecution as he is a permanent resident of Mumbai. When the proceedings have been initiated under section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the concerned Court, his father came to know about the involvement of the accused in the said crime and, therefore, he was informed accordingly. The Learned Counsel has submitted that if the applicant/accused is protected temporarily for eight days, he would go before the appropriate Court and obtain anticipatory bail. He submitted that the applicant/accused is falsely implicated. Learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He has pointed out that the FIR is registered on 3.1.2014 at Shahganj police station, District Jaunpur in Uttar Pradesh. The name of the applicant/accused is appearing in the FIR. He submitted that it is a case of murder and hence, no anticipatory bail should be granted. In view of the submissions of the learned Counsel and the complaint, I am not inclined to grant transit anticipatory bail to the applicant/accused. The applicant/accused to take proper recourse before the appropriate forum. Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected accordingly. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

Order - Status 8: Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3097 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20874 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Surendra Dhanji Shah & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3099 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20878 OF 2004 Vima Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Hansa Hansa Jayendra Shah & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3101 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21020 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Bindu Kiran Sampat & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3103 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20891 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Pramila Dhirajlal Parekh & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3105 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20881 OF 2004 V Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ant Shah & C Applicants 3 V/s. Sı Surendra Dhanji Shah & Ors. i Shah & Ors Respondents ΞS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3109 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21002 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Tersih Keshavji Raigoga & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3116 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21007 OF 2004 Vima Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Bind Bindu Kiran Sampat & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3118 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21013 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Kumud Tersih Raigoga & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3120 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21016 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Sangeet Vinay Raigoga & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3122 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20869 OF 2004 V imal Cha Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. . Shah & Or s. Applicants V/s. J ayendra Jayendra Dhanji Shah & Ors. hah & Ors. Respondents Mr.Vimal Chandrakant Shah, Applicant, present in person. . Mr.Ramesh Jain, Advocate, for the Respondents. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 21ST JANUARY, 2008. P.C.: Heard applicant appearing in person and Advocate for the original plaintiff. The impugned decree is a money decree passed in a Summary Suit. Hence, execution of the said decree cannot be stayed unless the entire decretal amount is deposited by the applicant. Hence, Application is disposed of by passing following order:- "O R D E R" (a). There will be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to condition of applicant depositing the entire decretal amount with the Trial Court within a period of six weeks from today. (b). If the entire decretal amount is not deposited with the Trial Court within stipulated time, the interim stay will stand vacated without further reference to the Court. (c). If decretal amount is deposited within stipulated time, the Trial Court will permit the original plaintiff to withdraw the said amount on furnishing adequate security. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

Order - Status 5: 924 wp 1885.16.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1885 OF 2016 M/s. N. F. Construction … Petitioner Vs State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent Mr. Subhas Jha a/w Mr. S. A. Vaidya i/b. M/s. Law Global Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for State. … CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKARJOSHI, JJ. DATE : 25 MAY, 2016 VACATION COURT P.C. : Issue notice returnable on 8th June 2016. (DR. SHALINI PHANSALKARJOSHI, J.) (B. R. GAVAI, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1885 OF 2016 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1886 OF 2016 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1887 OF 2016 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1888 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memorandam of appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders …... Mr. Subhash Jha i/b. M/s. Law Global, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the Respondent – State in W.P.1885 and 1888 of 2016. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP in W.P. No.1886 of 2016. Mr. J. P. Yagnik, APP in W.P. No.1887 of 2016. …... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND P.D. NAIK, JJ. DATED : JUNE 8, 2016. P.C. : The learned counsel Mr.Jha appearing for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw these petitions with liberty. Leave is granted. Petitions are disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. (P.D. NAIK, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6006 OF 2021 Noman Gulam Haider Shaikh … Petitioner V/s. The State Of Maharashtra … Respondent None for Petitioner. Mr. S. S. Hulke APP, for Respondent-State. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI AND MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. th DATE : 10 NOVEMBER, 2022. P.C. : Learned APP on instructions from Additional Senior Jailor, Mumbai Central Prison, Mumbai submitted that, by an Order dated 22nd March, 2022 passed by City Civil and Sessions Court Mumbai, Appellant has been acquitted from the case and has been released from jail on 23rd March, 2022. In view thereof, present Petition has become infructuous and is accordingly disposed off. [MILIND N. JADHAV, J.] [A.S. GADKARI, J.]

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (ST.)NO.15103 OF 2018 Shyamlal Sampatraj Soni & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. .. Respondent …... Mr.Vijay V. Sonawane, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.Shashank N. Fadia, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. (VACATION COURT) DATED : MAY 30, 2018. …... P.C. : After having heard Mr.Sonawane, learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court was inclined to show indulgence subject to condition that applicant depositing an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- through a Demand Draft in this Court by 1st June, 2018. The petitioner is not agreeable to the said condition. Mr.Fadia, learned counsel for the respondent has informed that the outstanding against the petitioners are to the tune of Rs.57,00,000/-. According to him, the petitioners have already approached DRT Mumbai vide Securitisation Application No.85 of 2018, wherein similar prayer was already rejected on 7th March, 2018. He has tendered copy of the order passed by the DRT Mumbai to that effect. 2 When confronted, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has no instructions on the said issue as to whether the petitioners have approached DRT Mumbai in the matter or not. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the petitioners have already approached the DRT Mumbai and appropriate remedy is available to the petitioners against the order of DRT Mumbai passed on 7th May, 2018, we are not inclined to cause any interference. Writ Petition is dismissed. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)