All Cases

Order - Status 5: APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 579 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 3907 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Indrajeet R. Kulkarni for the Applicant/ Appellant. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 28th FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C.: Issue notice to the respondents returnable at the end of ten weeks. Notice is issued subject to the condition that irrespective of the result of the application, the applicant/appellant shall be required to pay costs of the application to the respondents which are quantified at Rs. 5000/. In addition to the court's notice the applicant shall serve the respondents by a private notice and file affidavit of service within nine weeks. S.O. for 10 weeks. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 9: CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 579 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL (stamp) NO. 3907 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. Indrajeet R. Kulkarni for the Applicant. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 06th June, 2011. P.C. 1 Office remark shows that the cost amount of Rs. 5,000/ has not been deposited. The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant is unable to make a statement that the amount has been deposited. 2 Hence, in view of noncompliance with the order dated 28th February, 2011, the application stands dismissed for nonprosecution. 3 Civil Application No.580 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. [ A.S.OKA, J ]

Order - Status 6: KVM Digitally signed by KANCHAN VINOD MAYEKAR Date: 2022.06.10 10:39:16 +0530 1/1 55 - WP 1645 OF 2013.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION 1645 OF 2013 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION 1804 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION 1645 OF 2013 Pandurang Laxman Karambalkar ….. Petitioner VERSUS Vasant Janaba Narvekar ….. Respondent Mr.Sushant A.Khatake, i/b. Mr.Prashant S.Bhavake for the Petitioner. Ms.Pramila S.Bhaingade, i/b. M.Janardhanan for the Respondent. CORAM : ROHIT B.DEO, J. DATE : 8TH JUNE, 2022 P.C:- It is common ground that the civil suit from which the petition emanates is disposed of and the petition is rendered infructuous. Writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. In view of disposal of the writ petition, civil application is also disposed of. [ROHIT B.DEO, J.] KANCHAN VINOD MAYEKAR

Order - Status 6: Shephali IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL ST NO. 16008 OF 2014 The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay …Appellant Versus Madanlal Shah & Co & Anr …Respondents Mr UJ Makhija *, i/b Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe, for the Appellant.* Ms Naseem Sumnani *, for Respondent No. 2.* CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 12th July 2017 PC:- 1. Admit. 2. The First Appeal will have to be allowed immediately. The Suit was of 1990. The Plaintiffs sought, by filing an application Exhibit-5, for an adjournment to find documents. The case itself was old and was taken to the City Civil Court from the Bombay High Court where it was originally filed upon a change in the limits of the pecuniary jurisdiction of Courts. The order said that the case was old. Sufficient chances had been given. The suit was dismissed. 3. This was unnecessary. An order of costs would have sufficed. A final opportunity could have been given, making it clear that in default the matter would be dismissed. None of this was done. 4. It is not possible to sustain the impugned order of 18th January 2014. It is set aside. Suit No. 109955 of 1990 (High Court Suit No. 2307 of 1990) is restored to file. 5. Mr Makhija on behalf of the original Plaintiffs states that the Plaintiffs will by 31st August 2017 file all their evidence and documents. They will not seek any adjournment. 6. The First Appeal is disposed of in these terms. There will be no order as to costs. (G. S. PATEL, J)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4746 OF 2005 Miss Neha Achrekar. ... ... Petitioner v/s. Directorate of Technical Education. ... Respondent Mr.Mihir Desai with Mr.R.A.Rodrigues and Mr.B.V.Phadnis for petitioner. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, AGP for respondent. ----- CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & SMT.R.S.DALVI, JJ. DATE : 20th July 2005 ORAL ORDER : (Per H.L.Gokhale, J.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner herein is seeking an admission to the management course either for MBA or MMS for the academic year 2005-2006 though the examination under the State Government. She has appeared for the Central Entrance Test (CET) held by the State Government and has passed the CET. Her only problem is that though she claims to belong to an Other Backward Class (OBC), she did not have the Non-creamy layer certificate when she filled up the form. She has obtained it now and before the allotment of students to the colleges starts. That process is to be held tomorrow i.e. on 21st July 2005. Hence, urgency in the matter. -1- Considering the urgency of the matter, we issue Rule and make it returnable forthwith. Mr.Nargolkar, learned AGP, has fairly proceeded with the matter on instructions of one Mr.S.V. Kolla, Assistant Director (Technical), who is present in Court. He has opposed the reliefs in the petition without filing a reply. He has drawn our attention to the relevant rules in this behalf, which according to us, is sufficient by way of defence of the respondent. As stated above, the petitioner appeared for the CET held in February 2005. While filling the form, she did not have the Non-creamy layer certificate. The instructions contained in the rules for admission to this course are annexed at Exhibit-A to the petition. In the rule on confirmation of submission of application forms at Application Receipt Centre (ARC), it is provided as under:- "If the ARC officer finds that the supporting documents are not enough to claim for a valid candidature then the submitted application form will not be accepted for any further processing. " -2- The petitioner, therefore, formed an impression that since she did not have the Non-creamy layer certificate and if she applies in the O.B.C. category, her application will be rejected. She, therefore, filled up the form in the open category. It has so transpired that subsequently she did get the Non-creamy layer certificate on 15th June 2005. She did not have the caste certificate which was issued way back in the year 1994. As per the brochure of admissions in Annexure-4, it is provided in Clause-10 that confirmation of submission of online option forms of all types of candidates is permissible until 12th July 2005. The petitioner, therefore, gave a letter to the Authorities concerned on 12th July 2005 itself and produced her Non-Creamy Layer certificate and requested that her application be considered in the O.B.C. category. She was told orally that such an application would not be entertained. The petitioner's case is that if she claims through OBC, undoubtedly she has better chances of securing the admission. Mr.Desai, learned Counsel appearing for -3- the petitioner, submitted that when one reads the above-referred rule along with a subsequent Notification dated 4th July 2005, it will be clear that the approach of the respondent was too technical. He relied upon the subsequent Notification dated 4th July 2005 which provided as under:- " Those candidates who have submitted the application form in reserved category and were unable to submit the Non-creamy layer Certificate, Caste Certificate and hence converted to open category can submit the same at the time of confirmation of option form at ARCs for availing the benefits of reservation. " He submitted that this particular rule will have to be read to mean that those who have the documents in support showing the Non-creamy layer certificate status should be permitted to submit such documents at the time of confirmation of option which means up to 12th July 2005. Mr.Nargolkar, learned AGP appearing for the respondent, submitted that this relaxation of 4th July 2005 will apply to only those candidates -5 who have submitted the application forms in reserved category. It is only in case of such candidates who fail to give the Non-creamy layer certificates that they have been given this option to submit the same later-on until the confirmation of option. He further submitted that the petitioner has not stated in the application form that she belongs to the OBC and, therefore, now she cannot be permitted to produce the Non-creamy layer certificate. That facility could have been availed of only if she had applied originally for the OBC community. Mr.Desai countered his submission by pointing out that as per the rule which is included in the instructions to fill the form and which we have quoted earlier, if one did not have the necessary document at the relevant time, the application was liable to be rejected. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner had no option but to apply in open category. She has very fairly stated her position in her letter dated 12th July 2005. In his submission, a candidate like the petitioner herein should be entertained under the Notification of relaxation dated 4th July 2005. We have noted the submissions of both the Counsel. If a strict view is taken perhaps Mr.Nargolkar would be right in making the submission that he has made. However, while looking to this provision of relaxation, one has certainly to look to other instructions which are given while filling up the form. The petitioner herein honestly filled the form in the open category since she did not have the Non-creamy layer certificate at the relevant time. A fact that she had been issued the caste certificate way back in the year 1994 is clear from the record. It is not an after-thought. Only the Non-creamy layer certificate remained to be obtained and on obtaining the same, she approached the Authorities within the limitation i.e. up to 12th July 2005. No prejudice is being caused to anybody inasmuch as she does have the certificate and she is making the same available to the Authorities within the time limit. It is not the case that she is giving the certificate any time thereafter. In a matter like this, a highly technical and rigid attitude is not expected from the Authorities as held by the Apex Court in the case of Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE & ors. reported in AIR 2004 S.C. 5043. In that matter, -6- the petitioner claimed an admission to a medical course on the footing that her father was in the armed forces and was a permanently disabled person. There was a slight delay in giving the relevant certificate. What the Apex Court observed in para-7 thereof is quite relevant. This para-7 reads as under:- " 7. The general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the country. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or marksheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement for benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature. " Thus, as stated by the Apex Court, one must have the qualification at the relevant time, though the proof in support thereof may, in some cases, be made available a little later. In the present case, the petitioner did have the original documents of belonging to the OBC community and she also has the Non-creamy layer certificate. Both these documents are being made available before the cut off date. Surely, this will be a case which will be stronger than the one which was before the Apex Court as referred to hereinabove. In the circumstances, we allow this petition and direct the respondent to treat the petitioner's case as belonging to the reserved category and her application will be considered -8- -9 when the options and colleges are decided i.e. on 21st July 2005. Rule is made absolute as above. (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (SMT. R.S.DALVI, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO.7046 OF 2004 Khimjibhai Keshavji Patel, .. Petitioner Vs Jaswant Kumar Hassanand Bhatia & ors. Respondents Mr Rajiv Patil, for the petitioner. Mr P.D.gharge, for respondent no.1. Mr Uday Warunjikar, for respondent no.3. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 4th November, 2004. PC: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.7.2004 by which the warrant of possession was issued in respect of shop no.16 in dispute in the suit. I am informed that the warrant of possession has already been executed and respondent no.3 has taken possession thereof. In view thereof, respondent no.3 has filed the undertaking stating that he will not create third party interest nor will part with possession of shop no.16 and that he will hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the decree holder within a period of 30 days from the date of decree subject to his right of appeal. Similarly respondent no.1 - Builder has also filed an undertaking stating that shop no. 6 which, according to him was allotted to respondent no.3, is still vacant and he will keep it vacant till the disposal of the suit. The undertakings given by respondent no.3 and respondent no.1 are taken on record and marked "X-I" and "X-II" for identification. The undertakings are accepted. Keeping that in view, in my opinion, I need not examine the merits of the case and the proper course would be to dispose of this petition with directions to the trial Court to dispose of the suit within timeframe. Hence, the following order. (i) The trial Court shall dispose of Spl.Civil Suit No.27 of 2004 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today. (ii) The petitioner to communicate this order to the learned Judge within four weeks from today. (iii) The trial Court will decide the suit uninfluenced by the observations made in the orders passed at interlocutory stage. The writ petition is disposed of. . An authenticated copy of this order may be made available to the parties. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7046 OF 2004 Khimjibhai Keshavji Patel .. Petitioner Vs. Jaswant Kumar Hassanand Bhatia & Ors. ..Respondent None for the parties CORAM : S.U.KAMDAR, J DATED : 2ND DECEMBER, 2005 P.C.: . Time to dispose of the matter pending before the Civil Judge, S.D.Panvel, Dist; Raigad is extended by 4 months. Civil Judge, S.D.Panvel, Dist: Raigad is directed to ensure that the matter is disposed of within the said time.

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. 1 Writ Petition No.5259 Of 2013. Niles Dinubhai Patel & Ors. .. Petitioners. Versus Jamnadas Khimji Jethwa & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Vaibhav Mehta i/by V. Mehta & Associates, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Haresh Lulia, Advocate for Resp.Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM => S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE => 22nd JULY, 2013. P.C. :- The petitioners are assailing the order granting interim compensation @ Rs.15,000/- per month. (2) The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that the courts below have not considered all the relevant factors while arriving at the conclusion that the petitioners (original defendants) have to pay Rs.15,000/- per month as compensation at a time of granting stay to the decree of the trial court. (3) The learned counsel submits that there are various factors which are required to considered while passing an order about compensation. The learned counsel relied on following reported cases :- (i) Chandrakant Dhanu & Ors., Versus Sharmila Inder Kumar Kapur & Ors., reported in 2009(1) BOM.C.R. 698. (ii) Marjorie Passanah & Ors., Versus Mumtaz Iqbal Shaikh, reported in 2008(6) BOM.C.R. 72. (4) The learned counsel submits that the building is constructed in the year 1971. Lift facility is not available to the said building. Averment of the present petitioners that it will not possible for them to pay said amount, has not been considered. It is also not considered that the respondent is not required to spend for the building as the tenants have formed an Association and they are taking care of the management and expenses. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, leave & license agreement relied upon is not in respect of the similarly situated property. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the fact the adjacent premises has been taken up for redevelopment and the occupiers therein are relocated in another locality and for that Rs.40/- per sq.fts. is being paid by the developer. Said agreement did not have any nexus with the present matter and would be in respect of the altogether different property and in altogether different situation. (5) The learned counsel for the respondent supports the order. The respondent has produced on record leave and licence agreement, which is in respect of the property situated in the same locality. It shows that, rent was @ Rs.40/- per sq.fts. The petitioners have not produced on record any agreement showing that similar property is given at lesser rate. (6) No doubt, while considering an application for stay and imposing conditions about the payment of the amount more than the contractual one, the court is required to consider various facets of the matter and is not required to be guided only by other agreement. However, the court is required to have some material on record to arrive at just conclusion. Agreement produced on record is registered agreement. Even if I consider case of the petitioners that building is constructed in the year 1971 to which, lift facility is not available, so also tenants are expending the amount; still the courts have awarded the amount as per the leave & licence agreement produced on the record, which is of the year 2010. The petitioners claims to be in possession of 900 Sq.Fts. of the area where-as respondents contend that same is more. The court has directed payment @ Rs.15,000/- per month as compensation amount, which would be approximately @ Rs.15/- per sq.fts. Order is passed on 26th April, 2013. The property is situated in the Goregaon, Mumbai locality. (7) Considering the area occupied by the petitioners, the court has directed the payment @ Rs.15,000/- per month towards the compensation. Considering the above, discretion exercised by the court cannot be said to be unreasonable one. Discretion has been exercised in plausible manner. In the light of above, the impugned order does not suffer from an error on the face of record, warranting interference of this court. Therefore, in the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. (8) The petitioners shall pay arrears of compensation as directed by the courts below by 31st December, 2013 and shall thereafter pay the amount regularly on or before 10th day of each calender month. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

#VALUE!

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 998 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.16135 OF 2017 Balu Waman Alhat …Applicant Versus Union of India through the General Manager …Respondents Mr.Kuldip Singh for the applicant. CORAM : PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J. DATE : 7 th MARCH 2019. P.C. : Issue notice to respondents, returnable on 22nd March 2019. In addition to the regular mode, the applicant is permitted to serve through other modes as are permissible in law and file affidavit of service accordingly. [PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.]

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.998 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.16135 OF 2017 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders None Present. CORAM : V.R. KACHARE REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 19th March, 2019 Returnable date is extended by 6 weeks. sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 19.03.19

Order - Status 9: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.998 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.16135 OF 2017 Mr. Balu Waman Alhat ...Applicant Versus Union of India Through The General Manager ...Respondent ...... None for the Applicant. ...... CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATED : AUGUST 29th, 2019 P.C. 1 None for the Applicant. By this Civil Application, Applicant/Claimant is seeking condonation of 647 days delay in filing First Appeal, challenging the Judgment and Award dated 16th April 2015 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal Mumbai in Original Application No. OA 1044 of 2010. When the matter is called out, no one appeared on behalf of the Applicant hence, dismissed for non prosecution. (K.K.TATED, J.) 1/1

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6025 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Order or Directions and Registrar's Orders ------------------------------------------------------------------- ¦ Court's or Judge's ¦ Orders ¦ ¦ Mr.Arshad Shaikh with Mr.R.M.Pethe for the petitioner. Mr.N.M. Ganaji for Respondent No.2. Mr.Farhan Dubash i/by Naik Naik Iyer & Co. for Respondent No.3. Mr.Vishal Kanade i/by M/s. V. Deshpande for Resp.No.4. CORAM: SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 21ST SEPT., 2007. P.C.: 1. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are represented by their respective advocates. 2. The advocate for the petitioner to take steps to serve respondent No.1 within four weeks from today. 3. S.O. for four weeks. $ldots ldots$

Order - Status 8: vss : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6025 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda¦ Court's or Judge's of Coram, appearances, Court's¦ Orders Order or Directions and ¦ Registrar's Orders ¦ ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Arshad Shaikh with R.M. Pethe for the Petitioner Mr.Vishal Kanade for Respondent No.4 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: OCTOBER 19, 2007 P.C.: . Mr.Pethe for the petitioner seeks leave to amend the cause title by substituting the address of Respondent No.1. Leave granted. Amendments to be carried out within a week from today. Issue fresh notice to Respondent NO.1 on the amended address returnable in four weeks.

Order - Status 11: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6025 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3063 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's Memoranda of Coram, orders appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders ------------------------------------------------------ Mr. R.M. Pethe for petitioner. Mr.N.M. Ganaji for respondent no.2. Mr. Farhan Dubash i/by Naik Naik Iyer and co. for respondent no.3. Mr. Vishal Kanade i/by M/s.V. Deshpande for respondent no.4. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. 10/12/2007. P.C.: . Rule. . Respondent nos.2 to 4 waive service. . The learned Advocate for the petitioner is at liberty to serve the respondent no.1 by publishing a notice in an English daily published from Calcutta. The proof of such court within eight weeks. publication shall be placed before this . Rule be made returnable in the week commencing from 3rd March, 2008. . Civil Application No. 3063 of 2007 is disposed off accordingly. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)

Order - Status 14: ISM 1.wp.6025.07.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6025 OF 2007 Saifuddin Karachiwala ….PETITIONER V/s. The Indian Standard Metal Company Limited, & others …..RESPONDENTS Mr. R.M. Pethe, Advocate for the Petitioner. None for Respondent. CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE: JUNE 17, 2022. P.C.: On instructions, a motion is made by the Counsel for the petitioner for withdrawal of the Petition. Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. If the prayer for withdrawal of the amount is made, same be considered in accordance with law. [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]