All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2099 OF 2022 IN BAIL APPLICATION NO. 738 OF 2021 Bhushan Suresh Lad .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent … Mr.Francis A. Caszo for the applicant in IA No.2099/22. Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the State. CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 6th JULY, 2022 P.C:- 1 Application came to be dismissed in default on 29/4/2022 by marking absence of the applicant and his counsel. 2 Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the application. The learned counsel state that he did not attend the matter since he was suffering from High Blood Pressure and viral fever. No certificate to that effect has been placed on record nor is the statement on affidavit. However, since the reasons stated is coming from an Advocate, the same is believed. 3 Resultantly, the impugned order is set aside. The Application is restored to file. ( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 209 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7591 OF 2010 Harsha Rohan Shirdhankar .. Applicant Vs. Rohan Kesarinath Shirdhankar .. Respondent Mr. Anand S. Kulkarni for the Applicant. None for the Respondent. CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date : 8th February, 2011. P.C. The Petition of the husband has been dismissed. The amount of maintenance deposited by the husband in this Court shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the wife. The cheque to be drawn by the Registrar of this Court shall be in the name of Ms. Harsha Ganesh Koparde. Civil Application is disposed of accordingly. ( ROSHAN DALVI, J.) Amk

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.109 OF 2022 Jaya Talakshi Chheda Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Respondents Mr. Taraq Sayed i/b Mr. Ajay Dubey, for the F Petitioner. Ms. M. M. Deshmukh, A.P.P for the Respondents. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 24 th AUGUST 2022 P.C. : The aforesaid petition has been circulated for withdrawal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions of the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this petition. Petition is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. It is made clear that we have not heard the petition on merits. SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 98 OF 2017 Shri Khaldum Mohammed Hasan …. Applicants/Accused Momin & Anr. Versus State of Maharashtra .... Respondent through Bhoiwada Police Station, Mumbai. Mr. M.K.Kocharekar for Applicants/Accused. Mrs.P. P. Shinde, APP for Respondent/State. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATE : 19TH JANUARY, 2017. P.C . . Heard learned Counsel for the applicants. The application seeking prearrest bail was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Thane on 30th July, 2016. The learned APP waives service and seeks time to take instructions. Time as prayed for is granted. Stand over to 6th February, 2017. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 98 OF 2017 Khaldum Mohammed Hasan And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SMT. S.S. JADHAV, J DATE : 6th February, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Stand over to 10/02/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.98 OF 2017 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. M.K. Kocharekar, advocate for the applicant. Mrs. P.P. Shinde, APP for State. CORAM :SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J DATE : FEBRUARY 10, 2017 P.C.: 1 Learned APP submits that the investigating officer is not present. Stand over to 23/2/2017. ( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J) ..... Talwalkar 1/1

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 98 OF 2017 Khaldum Mohammed Hasan And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SMT. S.S. JADHAV, J DATE : 23rd February, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for 09/03/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 09/03/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 15: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 98 OF 2017 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. M.K. Kocharekar, advocate for the applicant. Mr. R.M. Pethe, APP for State. CORAM :SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J DATE : MARCH 16, 2017 P.C.: 1 At the request of the learned Counsel for the applicant, stand over to 27/3/2017. No. interim relief. ( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J) ..... Talwalkar 1/1

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 98 OF 2017 Khaldum Mohammed Hasan And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Mr. S,V. Kotwal i/by Meghashyam Kanoji Kocharekar For Applicant Smt P.P. Shinde App for State CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 27th March, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 29/03/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 98 OF 2017 Khaldum Mohammed Hasan And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Mr S.V. Kotwal i/by Meghashyam Kanoji Kocharekar For Applicant Mrs P P Shinde App for State CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 29th March, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 05/04/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 98 OF 2017 Khaldum Mohammed Hasan And Anr Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra Respondent Mr S.V. Kotwal i/by Meghashyam Kanoji Kocharekar For Applicant Ms P.P. Shinde App for State CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 5th April, 2017 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the Applicant , Stand over to 20/04/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 24: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 98 OF 2017 Khaldum Mohammed Hasan And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Mr S V Kotwal a/w Mr Ashish Sudhakar Sawant i/by M K Kochrekar For Applicant Smt P P Shinde App for State CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 24th April, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 04/05/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 27: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 98 OF 2017 Khaldum Mohammed Hasan And Anr Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra Respondent r Ashish Sudhakar Sawant Applicants For Applicant Mr.A.R.Kapadnis, APP for State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 27th June, 2017 P.C. : Not before this Bench. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 31: Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.98 OF 2017 Khaldum Mohammed Hasan & anr. .Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra .Respondent Mr.A.S.Sawant, Advocate, for the Applicants Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent – State CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. P.C. DATE : 29.06.2017 . Mentioned. Not on board. Taken on board. Learned counsel for the Applicants seeks leave to withdraw this Application. Accordingly, the Application is disposed of as withdrawn. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.712 OF 2015 James D'Souza ..Applicant. versus State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. ..... Mr. Parvez Memon with Mr. Ravi Mishra i/b MZM Legal for the Applicant. Mr. Arfan Sait, Addl. P.P. for the State. ..... CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J. (VACATION COURT) 19th May 2015. P.C. : The Applicant has been charged with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code by the Deccan Police Station vide F.I.R. No.98 of 2015 dated 2nd April, 2015. It is the case of the complainant that she was working with the travel agency viz. Sudin Travel Agency, Karve Road, Pune. The Applicant on telephone approached her and pretended that he is the owner of Dark Oranges Hospitality company and regularly requires substantial quantity of air tickets. Under that pretext, the Applicant got booking of 20 air tickets, domestic and international, from the complainant. It is further the case of the Applicant that the total value of the said tickets was Rs.7,50,000/-. Despite repeated requests from the complainant, the Applicant did not pay the said amount and on some or the other pretext avoided to pay the same. It was further revealed to the complaint that the company viz. Dark Oranges Hospitality was not in existence at the address mentioned therein. She, therefore, lodged a complaint with the police. The police are investigating the said crime. The learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the present case is of civil nature and it is only because of the dispute about the quantum of amount to be paid to the complainant, the amount remained to be paid. He expressed his willingness to deposit the disputed amount in this Court with a view to prove his bonafide. It appears to me that the offence is simpliciter under Section 420 and the Applicant has expressed his desire to prove his bonafide by depositing the disputed amount in this Court. On this ground, I am inclined to release the Applicant on anticipatory bail upto 11th June, 2015 on the following conditions : i) The Applicant shall deposit the amount of Rs.7,50,000/- by way of demand draft in the Registry of this Court within a period of three days from today. Subject to deposit of the said amount by the Applicant, in the event of arrest, the Applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and a solvent surety in the like amount; ii) The Applicant shall attend the Deccan Police Station, Pune as and when called for between 11.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.; iii) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and/or shall not indulge into any act amounting to tampering of evidence; iv) In case, the Applicant fails to deposit the amount within a period of three days from today, the protection granted to the Applicant shall come to an end without further reference to this Court; v) It is further made clear that the period of three days shall not be extended in any event and for whatsoever reason. Place this matter on Board on 11th June, 2015 for further orders. (A.S. Gadkari, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 712 OF 2015 James D'Souza .....Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent Mr. Sherbir Panag a/w Parvez Memon & Ravi Mishra i/b MZM Legal for Applicant Ms. P. P. Shinde APP for the State. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATED : 7th JULY 2015 PC : By an order dated 19/05/2015, Vacation Court (Coram: A. S. Gadkari, J.) had granted conditional pre-arrest bail to the applicant. Condition was that he shall deposit amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- by way of demand draft in this Court within a period of 3 days from 19/05/2015. It is an admitted position that order has not been complied with till today. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he would still be willing to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/-, however, according to him, amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- is the amount alleged by the complainant and that criminal proceedings cannot be treated as recovery proceedings. Learned Vacation Court had observed that counsel for the applicant had expressed his willingness to deposit the disputed amount in this Court with a view to prove his bonafides. Today, as the amount is disputed, judicial propriety warrants that application be heard and decided by the same bench. In view of this, Registry shall take directions and place the matter before appropriate Bench. However, learned counsel for the applicant would be at liberty to take steps. Removed from board. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 11: Dond IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.712 OF 2015. Mr. James D'Souza ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr. Ravi Mishra i/b MZM Legal for Applicant. Mrs. Prajakta Shinde, APP for Respondent-State. CORAM: A.S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 21st July 2015. P.C. 1 This matter is placed before me in pursuance of order dated 7th July 2015 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench as I had passed the interim order dated 19.5.2015. 2 Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 3 The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that, though the statement was made on behalf of the applicant on 19th May 2015 before this Court thereby expressing his willingness to deposit the disputed amount in this Court with a view to prove bonafide of the applicant, the applicant could not deposit the same within the said stipulated period and even as of today as the applicant is running short of the funds. He further submits that the applicant is trying to settle the matter out of the Court with the original complainant, but due to order dated 19.5.20015 the same could not take place. 4 It is to be noted here that in order dated 19.5.20015 in para-2, a statement of the Counsel for the applicant was recorded. The said statement is undoubtedly based on the instructions given by the applicant to his Counsel. On the basis of the said statement, the disputed amount was to be deposited within a period of three days from the date of order i.e. from 19.5.2015. As stated above, the said order has not been complied with. The applicant has failed to comply with the said order and has enjoyed prearrest bail till today. It is surprising to note here that the police authorities have also not taken notice of the condition imposed in para no.3(i), upon the applicant by the said order dated 19.5.2015. Para-3 (i) of the order dated 19.5.20015 reads as under: "The Applicant shall deposit the amount of Rs.7,50,000/- by way of demand draft in the Registry of this Court within a period of three days from today. Subject to deposit of the said amount by the Applicant, in the event of arrest, the Applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal 2 bond of Rs.50,000/- and a solvent surety in the like amount." 5 The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that his client is ready and willing to deposit the admitted amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in this Court as the applicant is disputing amount of Rs.7,50,000/- as has been mentioned in the said order. In my considered opinion this statement is clearly an afterthought of the applicant after enjoying pre-arrest bail for a considerable period. 6 Thus, it is clear that order dated 19.5.2015 was self-operative and failure on the part of the applicant to deposit the said amount, the anticipatory bail granted to the applicant has already come to an end. May that as it may, apart from the prima facie observations made in the order dated 19.5.2015 even on merits also the application has little merits. The minute perusal of the First Information Report and the documents of investigation, reveals that the applicant is perpetrator of the said crime and his custodial interrogation by the police is necessary for the purpose of further investigation. 7 In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the present Application and is accordingly dismissed. (A.S. GADKARI,J.) ABA.712-2015

Order - Status 5: (CRA 473 of 2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.473 OF 2011 Smt.Champabai Maruti Garud since deceased through LRs. Daulatrao Maruti Garud ...Applicant Vs. Dilip Gorakhanath Dalvi ...Respondent ----- Mr.Rajesh More for Applicant ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 21st June, 2011 P.C. Issue notice before admission, returnable on 25th July, 2011. In the meantime, there shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c). Humdust permitted, private service permitted. (V.M. KANADE J.) 1

Order - Status 14: dik FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.473 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Shri.Rajesh More, Advocate for Applicants. Shri.V.G.Peshave, for respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 6th JANUARY, 2012. P.C. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. When this Court was inclined to issue Rule, learned counsel appearing for the respondent seeks time to take instructions on the issue whether the respondent is willing to produce witness Ramkrishna Darekar for crossexamination before Trial Court. Stand over till 25.1.2012. Adinterim relief granted earlier to continue till further order. [ A.S.OKA, J ]

Order - Status 16: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 473 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or Judge's orders orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. Rajesh More for the Applicants Mr. V.G. Peshave for the Respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 25th January, 2012. P.C. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The order dated 6th January, 2012 needs clarification. It must be clarified that after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, when this Court was inclined to issue Rule, this Court made a query as to whether the respondent was willing to produce the witness Ramkrishna Darekar for crossexamination. That is the reason why the learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought time to take instructions. To that extent, the earlier order stands clarified. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that the respondent has not given any instructions on the aforesaid aspect. Rule. Advocate for respondent waives service. Rule on interim relief is made returnable on 29th February, 2012. As a condition for grant of stay, the applicants will have to deposit a reasonable amount by way of compensation from the date of the decree passed by the Trial Court. The determination of the said amount shall be made at the time of hearing as to interim relief. There will be adinterim stay of decree for possession. [ A.S.OKA, J ]

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 473 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Court's Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. Rajendra More for the Applicants. Mr. V.G. Peshave for respondent. CORAM : K.K.TATED,J. DATE : 14/03/2012. PC: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 In this Revision Application this court (Coram: A.S. Oka, J.) granted rule on 25th January, 2012. Today the matter is on board for confirmation of the stay and for determining the compensation payable by the Applicant - tenant to the Respondent – landlord. By consent the following order is passed: a) The Applicant undertakes to pay a sum of Rs.500/- by way of monthly compensation to the Respondent – landlord from 1st April, 2006 till the hearing and final disposal of the present Civil Revision Application. b) The Applicant undertakes to clear the arrears till March, 2012 within eight weeks from today. c) The Applicant also undertakes to pay monthly compensation of succeeding months on or before 10th day of each month to the Respondent – landlord. d) The Applicant to deposit arrears as well as subsequent compensation in the Small Causes Court at Pune. e) The Respondent is granted liberty to withdrawal of the said amount. f) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present Civil Revision Application interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) which reads thus: "(c) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Civil Revision Application, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 23/3/2011 passed by the learned District Judge No.9 at Pune in Civil Appeal No. 404 of 2006 and the judgment and decree dated 28/3/2006 passed by the learned Judge of Addl. Small Causes Court at Pune in Civil Suit No.272 of 2002." (K.K.TATED, J.) katkam

Order - Status 21: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C.R.A. NO.473 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders Registrar's orders CORAM : A.N. MARE REGISTRAR (JUDLII) Date : 27/10/2016 None present Three weeks time (excluding Diwali Vacation) is granted to carry out amendment. sd/ REGISTRAR (JUDLII)

Order - Status 22: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C.R.A. NO. 473 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders Registrar's orders CORAM : A.N. MARE REGISTRAR (JUDLII) Date : 06/12/2016 None present Three weeks time granted to carry out amendment. sd/ REGISTRAR (JUDLII)

Order - Status 23: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C.R.A. NO. 473 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders Registrar's orders CORAM : A.N. MARE REGISTRAR (JUDLII) Date : 10/01/2017 None present Amendment is not carried out. Matter to proceed to next stage. sd/ REGISTRAR (JUDLII)

Order - Status 26: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 473 OF 2011 Smt. Champabai Maruti Garud (since deceased), CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 473 OF 2011 ••• Applicants. Smt. Champabai Maruti Garud (since deceased), through Shri Daulatrao Maruti Garud and Ors. … Applicants. ——— Mr. Soham Powar i/by Mr.Rajesh More, Advocate for the Applicants. ——— CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : DECEMBER 20, 2023. P. C.: Learned counsel appearing for the Applicants on instructions submits that the matter has been settled between the parties and seeks permission to withdraw the Petition. Petition is disposed of as withdrawn. (Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.)

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO.171 OF 2008 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL (STAMP) NO.15932 OF 2008 ------------------------------------:---------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court's or Judge's orders. coram, appearances, Court's orders : or directions and Registrar's : orders. : ------------------------------------:----------------------------------- Mr.V.S.Kapse for the appellant. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ DATED: 15th July, 2008. P.C.: . Heard Mr.Kapse, learned counsel for the applicant-husband. Issue notice to the respondent-wife, returnable after ten weeks. In addition, to normal mode of service, Mr.Kapse is at liberty to issue advocate's notice to the respondent but under Registered Post A.D and shall also file affidavit of service on the next date. (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Civil Application No.171 of 2008 In Family Court Appeal Stamp No.15932 of 2008 Mr.Vinay Applicant Prahaladrai Poddar Vs. Mrs.Rachana Respondent Vinay Poddar Mr.Abhijit V. Rane i/b. Mr.V.S. Kapse for applicant. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. September 23, 2008. P.C. .Heard Mr.Rane holding for Mr.Kapse, the learned counsel for the applicant - husband. The notice issued to the respondent - wife has been returned by the postal authorities with the remark "Refused" and the postal envelope is placed on record. .This is an application praying for condonation of delay caused in filing Family Court Appeal under Stamp No.15932 of 2008. .As per the office note the appeal is beyond time by 64 days and we are satisfied that the delay caused deserves to be condoned subject to payment of costs. .Hence the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to payment of costs quantified at Rs.500/- and to be remitted to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within two weeks from today. .List the appeal for admission on 13th October (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)