All Cases

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8432 OF 2024 a/w INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8433 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 13269 OF 2024 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's order appearance, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's orders CORAM : SHRI S. R. AGRAWAL REGISTRAR (JUDL -II) DATE : 09/07/2024 Adv. Hafan Shaikh i/by S K Legal Associates LLP present for Applicant. Await service of notice for 06 weeks for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Sd/- REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) sat-R(J-II)-09.07.2024

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BEFORE THE NATIONAL LOK ADALAT CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.13269 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.8432 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.13269 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.8433 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.13269 OF 2024 The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai ….Appellant Versus Shobha Arun Poojari And Ors. ….Respondents ********* Ms Swati Sawant, i/b. SK Legal Associates LLP, for the Appellant. Mr BM More, for the Respondents. ********* CORAM : : N R.N. LADDHA, J., HEAD OF THE PANEL H.M. BHOSALE, REGISTRAR, (JUDICIAL-I), MEMBER D.V. KUTE, DEPUTY REGISTRAR PERSONNEL, MEMBER DATE : 27th JULY, 2024. - P.C. : . In this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 26 July 2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, in Application No.2232 of 2016, whereby the appellant was directed to pay Rs.47,99,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum towards compensation to the respondents. Ms Swati Sawant, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr BM More, the learned Counsel representing the respondents, in unison, submit that during the pendency of the appeal, the parties have settled the dispute amicably and executed consent terms dated 27 July 2024, which have been placed on record. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had deposited Rs.72,48,816/- before the competent Court and has no objection to the respondents withdrawing Rs.50,00,000/- towards the settlement of their claim. Further, the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents have agreed to settle their claim by accepting Rs.50,00,000/- and have no objection to the appellant withdrawing Rs.22,98,816/- deposited before the competent Court and Rs.25,000/- along with interest accrued thereon deposited before this Court towards statutory deposit. The consent terms are taken on record and marked as 'X' for identification. Given the foregoing, the present appeal is disposed of in terms of the consent terms. As agreed between the parties, the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- deposited by the appellant before the competent Court is permitted to be released in favour of the respondents. Likewise, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.22,98,816/- deposited before the competent Court and Rs.25,000/- along with the interest accrued thereon, if any, deposited before this Court. In view of the disposal of the First Appeal, pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Accordingly, the Court fees be refunded as per rules. Deputy Registrar (Personnel) Member (D.V. KUTE) (H.M. BHOSALE) (R.N. LADDHA, J.) Registrar (Judicial-I) Member Head of the Panel

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.115 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4852 OF 2912 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.171 OF 2012 Shri Prabhakar Raghunath Patil & Ors. ..Appellants Versus The Secretary, Pimpalgaon Agriculture Produce Market Committee & ors. ..Respondents. Mr. M.S. Karnik i/b. Sachin Gite for the appellants. Mrs. Prashant Darandale, AGP for respondent Nos.3 to 5 for State. CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 13 August 2012. P.C. This appeal is directed against the interlocutory order dated 14 June 2012 of the learned Single Judge declining to grant interim relief, while admitting the appellants' Writ Petition against the judgment and order dated 15 May 2012 of the Additional Collector, Nashik in Revision Application No.50 of 2012 against the judgment and order dated 30 March 2012 passed by the learned Tahsildar, Dindori. By the said order the Tahsildar had granted permission to respondent No.1- Pimpalgaon Agricultural Produce Market Committee for laying down pipeline for carrying water for drinking purposes under the land belonging to the appellants, 7 in number, and 3 others. The appellants' case is that such permission can be granted only for carrying water for irrigation purposes and not for drinking purposes. The learned Single Judge has admitted the petition for considering the questions of law raised in the Writ Petition. However, the learned Single Judge has found that the balance of convenience is against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order which is only an interlocutory order. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, submits that by allowing large quantity of water for drinking purposes, the water table level will come down considerably and will adversely affect the appellants right to draw water for irrigation purposes. The learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, states that the appellants would like to make representation to the Tahsildar for restricting the quantity of water to be supplied for drinking purposes. It is clarified that pendency of the Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge shall not preclude the appellants (Writ Petitioners) from making such representation, but we make it clear that we may not be treated to have expressed any opinion on the issue. Subject to the above, the Appeal is dismissed without going into the merits of the controversy between the parties. In view of the disposal of the appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. CHIEF JUSTICE (N.M. JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 5: 24-WP-6807-2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6807 OF 2022 Sanjay Hanuman Pandey .. Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors. .. Respondents ******* Mr. A.M. Saraogi for the Petitioner. Mr. D.P.Singh for Respondent No. 1-UOI. Mr. Y.D.Patil, AGP for the State. ******* CORAM: A. A. SAYED & ABHAY AHUJA, JJ. DATE : 13 th JUNE,2022 P.C. :- Registry to verify and place the matter before the appropriate Bench. (ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (A. A. SAYED, J.) YUGANDHARA SHARAD PATIL Digitally signed by YUGANDHARA SHARAD PATIL Date: 2022.06.15 14:12:07 +0530

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6807 OF 2022 Sanjay Hanuman Pandey ....PETITIONER V/S Union Of India And Ors ....RESPONDENT Ashok M. Saraogi for Petitioner Mrs. S. S. Bhende, AGP for State CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.V. GANGAPURWALA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. N. LADDHA, JJ DATE : 12th September, 2022 P.C. : At the request of learned counsel for the Petitioner , stand over to 17/10/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6807 OF 2022 ……. Sanjay Hanuman Pandey … Petitioner. V/s. Union of India and Others … Respondents. Mr. Ashok M. Saraogi for the Petitioner. Ms R. A. Salunkhe, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. Anil K. Singh i/b Mr. D. P. Singh for Respondent No. 1. ……. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR, AND MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 25 September 2023. P.C. : The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that there are substantial amendments will have to be carried out to pursue the petition further. He states that the petition would be withdrawn and petition joining the correct parties and giving particulars would be filed. In view of this prayer, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn as above. (MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4924 OF 2006 Shri Devidas Sakharam Godge. ...Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.R.V. More i/b. V.S. Deokar for Petitioner. Mr.Mandar Limaye for Respondent No.2. Mr.R.D. Rane, GP for Respondent No.1. CORAM : DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 17, 2006 P.C. :- . Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned GP for respondent no.1 and learned Counsel for respondent no.2. . Learned GP seeks short adjournment of two weeks to take instructions and file affidavit-in-reply. . Place the matter on board after two weeks. (DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4924 OF 2006 Shri Devidas Sakharam Godge. ...Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.V.S. Deokar for Petitioner. Mr.R.D. Rane, GP for Respondent No.1. Mr.Ashutosh Gole i/b. Mandar Limaye for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 31, 2006 P.C. :- Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for respondent no.1 and learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Learned Counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 seeks a short adjournment to take instructions in the above and file an affidavit-in-reply. Matter stands adjourned by three weeks. Pending further orders, there shall be an ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d). (DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4924 OF 2006 Shri Devidas Sakharam Godge ...Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.V.S. Deokar for the Petitioner. Mr.R.D. Rane, Government Pleader, for Respondent No.1. Mr.Mandar Limaye for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : H.S. BEDI, C.J., & V.M. KANADE, J. DATED: 16TH OCTOBER, 2006. P.C. : . The learned Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3 contends that before the interim order had been obtained on 31 st August, 2006, the petitioner had already joined his place of posting. . We, accordingly, vacate the stay granted by Order dated 31 st August, 2006. Reply and Rejoinder to be filed before the next date. . S.O. to 20 th November, 2006. CHIEF JUSTICE V.M. KANADE, J.

Order - Status 18: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.4924 of 2006 Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders ------------------------------------------------------------ Mr.Vishwasrao S. Deokar for petitioner. Mr.R.D.Rane, GP for resp.no.1. Mr.Mandar Limaye for resp no.2. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & J.H.BHATIA, JJ. December 06, 2006. P.C. .Petition isdisposed as withdrawn. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)

Order - Status 5: spb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4379 OF 2011 Zilla Parishad Pune ... Petitioner. V/s. Shir Ganesh Kisan Adsare & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Shekhar i/by J. Shekhar & Co. for the Petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 11th July 2011 P.C. 1 Issue notice to the respondents returnable at the end of eight weeks. Notice to indicate that the petition may be heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 2 In addition to the court service, the petitioner is directed to serve the respondents by a private notice by hand delivery or by speed post registered AD and file affidavit of service on or before the next date. 3 In the meanwhile, it is clarified and ordered that the order of injunction granted by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court shall not in any prevent the petitioner from initiating any proceedings in accordance with the law. The petitioner, however, shall not disturb the possession of the respondents nor evict them except by due process of law. (D.G.KARNIK, J) .....

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4379 OF 2011 Zilla Parishad Pune .. Petitioners v/s. Ganesh Kisan Adsare & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. J. Shekhar for the petitioners Mr. Abhijit B. Kadam for respondent no.3 Mr. S.R. Agarkar for respondent nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 26th MARCH, 2012. P.C. : Respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed R.C. Suit No.99 of 2010. In the said suit, learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Junnar passed order on 30th November, 2010 thereby restraining present petitioners from demolishing the suit property and from constructing the compound wall till the final disposal of the suit. The said Judge also issued an order of injunction restraining the petitioner nos.1 and 2 from disturbing peaceful possession and enjoyment of respondent nos. 1 and 2 from the suit property till the disposal of the suit. This order was challenged by the petitioners in Misc. Civil Appeal No.369 of 2010. The said appeal has been dismissed by learned District Judge14, Pune by order dated 19th April,l 2011. Hence, this writ petition is filed. After having perused the impugned order, it is clear that the learned trial Judge accepted the case of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and issued an order of injunction. The order passed by the learned trial Judge was confirmed by the appellate Court i.e. District Court. In such a situation, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below. The learned advocate for the petitioners states that the petitioners shall adopt appropriate proceedings to redress their grievances so far as respondent nos. 1 and 2 in a competent Court. Statement made by learned advocate for the petitioners is recorded. As and when such proceedings are filed, the petitioners are free to apply to the Court of learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Junnar, Dist. Pune for vacation the order passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Junnar on 30th November, 2010 on the ground that no purpose will be served by continuing the order of injunction on account of the proceedings, which would be filed by the petitioners. With the aforesaid observation, petition stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4666 OF 2005 Sangli Miraj Kupwad Cities Municipal ) Corporation, Sangli and another ).. Petitioners Versus Mahapalika Kamgar Sabha ).. Respondent Mr.N.V.Walawalkar for the Petitioners. Mr.S.M.Dharap with Mr.Helekar for the Respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 21ST JULY 2005 P.C.: . Leave to amend. This Petition is directed against the order dated 4th April 2005 passed below Exhibit U-13 in Reference (IT) No.6 of 1996 by the Industrial Tribunal, Sangli. According to the Petitioners, the Reference was made between the Miraj Municipal Council and the Miraj Kamgar Union. However, the Miraj Municipal Council is now functioning as a Municipal Corporation and, therefore, according to the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, some of the demands which have been referred may not be applicable and cannot be decided by the Tribunal. He submits that, for instance, Demand No.8 is in respect of the permanency of workmen. The Corporation will now have to decide the seniority based on all employees and not just of Miraj Municipal Council. The Corporation is made up of several Municipal Councils and, therefore, seniority of all the employees will have to be determined. This submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners cannot be accepted. Permanency is a dispute which is between those specific employees and the Council which is now functioning as a Municipal Corporation. After these workmen are made permanent, it is always open for the Corporation to decide the inter-se seniority of all the workmen including that of other Municipal Councils who are now their employees. The other submission made on behalf of the Petitioners is that the Tribunal cannot decide the Reference in view of the new Corporation coming into existence by the merger of three Municipal Councils. It is submitted that the scope of the Reference is enlarged by incorporating the Petitioners as a party to the Reference. The Industrial Tribunal has considered the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and has rightly not accepted this submission of the Petitioners. Hence, Writ Petition rejected.

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.78 OF 2012 Om Prakash Dharampal Agarwal .. Applicant Vs. Niranjan Dharmadas Chawla and Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Rafeeq Peermohideen i/b. Mr.Jeetendra Sachdev, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Sanjay Kshirsagar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : MARCH 31, 2012 P.C.: I have heard the learned advocates on both sides. Applicant is the original defendant No.1 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in Special Civil Suit No.643 of 2008. The present applicant is an auction purchaser in regard to the property which was put up for sale by Respondent No.2 Central Bank of India to the extent of 5500 sq. ft. The total area according to the plaintiffs/Respondent No.1 is 6854.2 sq. ft. The Respondent No.1 wants a declaration from the learned Trial Judge in Civil Court that he continues to be the owner in respect of the property admeasuring 1354.2 sq. ft. of the description in the prayer clause (f). pmw 1 Learned advocate for the applicant wanted to contend that Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal will be the competent authority to resolve the dispute raised in the present plaint and, therefore, this court will have no jurisdiction. This contention of the learned Advocate for the applicant cannot sustain because the point raised by the present Respondent No.1 in the aforesaid suit is not concerning the sale of property of a particular description but he wants a declaration that he is the owner and continues to be so in respect of the property described in the plaint and prayer clause (f). Surely, such declaration can be granted by Civil Court and by no other court. In view of the above, the application is dismissed as no interference is required in the impugned order. There shall be no orders as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, J.)

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Machindra Bodke, advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. V.S. Mhaispurkar, APP for State. CORAM :SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV , J DATE :JANUARY 15, 2014 P.C.: 1 Learned APP waives service for respondent and seeks time. Issue notice to respondent No. 2. Notice returnable on 12/2/2014. 2 Pendency of this Petition shall not be construed as stay to the proceedings. ( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J) Talwalkar 1/1

Order - Status 7: Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2 OF 2014 Jayesh B. Kanoga .Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & anr. .Respondents Mr.A.M.Moorthy, Advocate, for the Petitioner Mr.Rajesh More, APP, for the Respondent No.1 – State Mr.Rahul Arote, Advocate, for the Respondent No.2 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 20TH JUNE, 2014 P.C. . Mr.Arote states that he has been instructed to appear on behalf of the respondent No.2. The office objection, therefore, does not survive. The matter to be listed under the caption "For Admission" after notice on 04.07.2014. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

Order - Status 10: spb/ 10wp2-14.sxw CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 02 OF 2014 Jayesh B. Kanoga … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents. Mr. A. M. Moorthy, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Mr. S. Pasbola with Rahul Arote, Advocate, for the Respondent No.2. Mr. V.B.KondeDeshmukh, APP for the State. CORAM : M.L.TAHALIYANI,J. DATE : 02 SEPTEMEBR, 2014 P.C. : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 The Petitioner is facing trial for the offences punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial is concluded and it is kept for recording of the statement of the Petitioner under section 313 of the Cr. P.C.. 3 The Petitioner had made an application for sending the cheque to the document examiner to determine the hand writing on the cheque. The Petitioner denies of his hand writing on the cheque. He admits his signature on the cheque. The learned Advocate Mr.Pasbola, appearing on behalf of the Borey 1/2 Respondent No.2, has stated that it is not the case of the Respondent No.2 that the cheque was in the hand writing of the Petitioner. The case of the Respondent No.2 is that the cheque bears the signature of the Petitioner and it was given by the Petitioner to Respondent No.2. 4 In view of the statement of the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2, it is not necessary to discuss the order of the learned Magistrate in detail. The position is made absolutely clear by the statement of the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. In view thereof, I pass the following order. 5 The Writ Petition stands dismissed. Adinterim order, if any stands vacated. ….. (JUDGE)

Order - Status 5: CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2526 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2527 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL (stamp) NO. 16905 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. Arjun H. Patil for the Applicant. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18th February, 2011. P.C. 1 Rule, returnable on 21st April, 2011. 2 There will be adinterim relief of stay of execution and operation of the impugned judgment and order subject to condition of the Applicant depositing in this Court the entire compensation amount within a period of six weeks from today. If compliance is not made by depositing the compensation amount within the stipulated time, adinterim relief of stay will stand vacated without further reference to the Court. [ A.S.OKA, J ]

Order - Status 10: ndm FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2526 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL (stamp) NO. 16905 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. Arjun H. Patil for the Applicant. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 08th July, 2011. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant. None appears for the Respondent though the notice is duly served. There is no reply filed to the application. 2 Sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). [ A.S.OKA, J ]