All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5610 OF 2021 Somnath Baburao Mayrane. … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. … Respondent. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP for the Respondent- State. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND N.R. BORKAR, JJ. DATE : 29 July 2022. P.C. : The learned APP informs that the Petitioner was released on emergency (Covid-19) parole but he has not returned back and is absconding. As per the Government Resolution dated 4 May 2022, the said policy is discontinued. Therefore, no relief can be granted. Writ petition is rejected. (N.R. BORKAR, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 3: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10095 OF 2017 Mr. Bharat Jethalal Maniar ....Petitioner V/S Usha Balasaheb Khandagle And Anr. ....Respondent CORAM : M.S. SONAK, J DATE : 25th September, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to CMIS date. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10095 OF 2017 Mr. Bharat Jethalal Maniar ....Petitioner V/S Usha Balasaheb Khandagle And Anr. ....Respondent Adv. Ashwini C. Pawar i/b Akshar Laws For Petitioner Mrs. Usha Balasaheb Khandagale for Respondent in person present in court CORAM : RAJESH G. KETKAR, J DATE : 7th June, 2019 P.C. : Matter to be placed on 21/06/2019 on supplementary board as a last chance. In the meantime, Ad-interim relief if any to continue. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10095 OF 2017 Mr. Bharat Jethalal Maniar ....Petitioner V/S Usha Balasaheb Khandagle And Anr. ....Respondent Aseem Naphade a/w Ms. Ashwini C. Pawar, Advocate Akshar Laws For Petitioner Smt. Vasudha Narvekar, Advocate for Respondent CORAM : RAJESH G. KETKAR, J DATE : 21st June, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 09/07/2019 on Supplementary Board a/w cawst 23274/2018 for Passing Order. In the meantime Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: Shailaja IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10094 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1541 OF 2019 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10095 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1540 OF 2019 Bharat Jethalal Maniar ] Petitioner Vs. Usha Balasaheb Khandagale & Ors. ] Respondents ….. Mr. Assem Naphade a/w Arun H. Mehta i/b Akshar Laws, Advocates for the Petitioner. Ms. Vasudha C. Narvekar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. ….. CORAM : R.G. KETKAR, J. DATE : 9TH JULY, 2019. P.C. Heard Mr. Naphade, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Narvekar, learned Counsel for respondent No.1, at length. The Petitions were heard on 21st June, 2019 and were kept today for passing orders. Mr. Naphade, on instructions, seeks permission to withdraw these Petitions and Civil Applications for amendment with liberty to file Petition seeking review of the impugned orders dated 6th December, 2016 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai. He assures that within two weeks from today, Petition seeking review of the impugned orders dated 6th December, 2016 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai will be filed. He states that as the petitioner was prosecuting these Petitions in this Court bona fide, time spent by the petitioner in prosecuting these Petitions from 8th June, 2017 till date may be excluded while considering the issue of limitation. Ms. Narvekar states that in case the Court is inclined to grant liberty, it may be made clear that grant of liberty shall not be construed as an expression of merit either way and that all contentions of the first respondent may be expressly kept open. In view thereof, on the motion made by Mr. Naphade, Petitions and Civil Applications are allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It is made clear that grant of liberty shall not be construed as an expression of merit either way. All contentions of the first respondent including maintainability of the Review Petition are expressly kept open. It is further made clear that in case the petitioner files Petition seeking review of the impugned orders dated 6th December, 2016 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai, within two weeks from today, the time spent by the petitioner in prosecuting these Petitions bona fide in this Court from 8th June, 2017 till date i.e till 9th July, 2019 shall be excluded while considering the issue of limitation. The Petitions and Civil Applications are disposed of accordingly. All the parties, including the Small Causes Court to act upon the authenticated copy of this order. [R.G. KETKAR, J.]

Order - Status 7: ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.8 OF 2011 Pradip Shankar Rao @ Shervegar. ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr. ....Respondents None for petitioner. Mr. K.V.Saste, APP for State. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED: JANUARY 31, 2011. P.C. None appears for the Petitioner. Office note indicates that office objections have not been removed. We grant one week's time to the Petitioner by way of indulgence to remove office objections, failing which the Writ Petition to stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the court. Subject to above, Writ Petition to proceed as per its turn under appropriate caption. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2931 OF 2021 SONALI ASHOK TANDLE )...PETITIONER V/s. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER F/S. DIVISION ) AND OTHERS )...RESPONDENTS Mr.Shantanu Raktate i/b. Mr.Amar Parsekar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Prakash Lad a/w. Ms.Priyanka Naik & Ms.Prerna Dhoke, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Ms.Ashwini A. Purav, AGP for the Respondent No.6-State. CORAM : A. A. SAYED & S. G. DIGE, JJ DATED : 9 th SEPTEMBER, 2021 P.C.: 1 We record the statement of the learned Counsel for MHADA that the name of the Petitioner shall be included in the certified tenants' list. The same shall be done before the next date. 2 Issue notice to Respondent Nos.4 and 5, returnable on 30th September 2021. Private notice is permitted. (S. G. DIGE, J.) (A. A. SAYED, J.)

Order - Status 6: spb/ due to paucity.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. / CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER FOR THE BALANCE BOARD CORAM : A.A.SAYED & S.G.DIGE,JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 30, 2021. P.C. : Due to paucity of time, rest of the matters are adjourned as follows : Sr. No. APPELLATE SIDE Adjourned to : 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 : 07.10.2021. 57, 58, 60, 61, 62 : 08.10.2021. 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 68, 69, 70, 71, 72 : : 11.10.2021. 11.10.2021. 80, 81, 82, 83 : 12.10.2021. ORIGINAL SIDE DE 51, 59, 73, 74, 75, 76 : 21.10.2021 79 & 84 : 21.10.2021. 2 If in any of the above matters, ad-interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (S.G.DIGE, J.) (A.A. SAYED, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2931 OF 2021 Smt Sonali Ashok Tandle ....PETITIONER V/S The Executive Engineer F/s Division And Ors....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.A. SAYED & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. G. DIGE, JJ DATE : 8th October, 2021 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 16/11/2021. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: 42.WP.2931.2021 .doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION 1/1 WRIT PETITION NO. 2931 OF 2021 Smt Sonali Ashok Tandle ..PETITIONER V/S The Executive Engineer F/S Division & Ors. ...RESPONDENTS Adv. Ashish Vernekar for the Petitioner Ms. A. A. Purav, AGP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : A. A. SAYED & S. G. DIGE, JJ DATED : 16th NOVEMBER, 2021 P.C.: Await service. Stand over to 7th December, 2021. (S. G. DIGE, J.) (A. A. SAYED, J.)

Order - Status 12: HEMANT CHANDERSEN SHIV Digitally signed by HEMANT CHANDERSEN SHIV Date: 2022.02.25 16:09:47 +0530 Shiv IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2931 OF 2021 Smt Sonali Ashok Tandle …Petitioner Versus The Executive Engineer F/S Division & Ors …Respondents An Advocate*, i/b Ajinkya J Jaibhave for the Petitioner.* Mr P G Lad *, with Ms Sayli Apte for the MHADA/Respondent.* CORAM G.S. Patel & Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ. DATED: 24th February 2022 PC:- 1. The Respondents to file an Affidavit in Reply by 4th March 2022. 2. List the Petition on 11th March, 2022. 3. Previous interim order to continue. 4. All concerned will act on production of a digitally signed copy of this order. (Madhav J. Jamdar, J) (G. S. Patel, J)

Order - Status 14: Ashwini IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2931 OF 2021 Sonali Ashok Tandle …Petitioner Versus The Executive Engineer F/S Division & Ors …Respondents Mr Ajinkya Jaibhave *, for the Petitioner.* Mr PG Lad *, with Sayli Apte, for the Respondent-MHADA.* Mr KS Thorat, AGP *, for Respondent No. 6-State.* CORAM G.S. Patel & Vinay Joshi, JJ. DATED: 11th March 2022 PC:- Digitally signed by ASHWINI HULGOJI GAJAKOSH Date: 2022.03.11 18:06:58 +0530 1. Mr Lad states that there is a compliance of 9th September 2020. This is noted. All Affidavits in Reply are to be filed and served on or before 21st March 2022. 2. No Rejoinder is permitted at this stage. 3. List the matter on 23rd March 2022. (Vinay Joshi, J) (G. S. Patel, J) Page 1 of 1 11th March 2022

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2931 OF 2021 Smt Sonali Ashok Tandle ....PETITIONER V/S The Executive Engineer F/s Division And Ors....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. PATEL & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ DATE : 23rd March, 2022 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 28/04/2022. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 17: Ashwini IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2931 OF 2021 Sonali Ashok Tandle …Petitioner Versus The Executive Engineer F/S Division & Ors …Respondents Mr Vivek Salunkhe *, i/b Ajinkya Jaibhave, for the Petitioner.* Mr PG Sawant, AGP *, for the Respondent-State.* CORAM G.S. Patel & Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ. DATED: 31st March 2022 PC:- ASHWINI HULGOJI GAJAKOSH Digitally signed by ASHWINI HULGOJI GAJAKOSH Date: 2022.04.01 10:10:23 +0530 1. The Petitioner is now found to be eligible occupant/tenament entitle for Permanent Alternate Accommodation. This has been certified by MHADA. Mr Lad confirms this. It is therefore for the 4th Respondent developer to enter into a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement ( "PAAA" ) with the Petitioner and to provide that Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement once it is ready and the Occupation Certificate is received. We are told that the PAAA will be executed within two weeks. This is to be done on or before 18th April 2022. 2. List the matter on 8th June 2022 for compliance. Page 1 of 2 31st March 2022 3. Reply is to be filed in Registry. (Madhav J. Jamdar, J) (G. S. Patel, J) Page 2 of 2 31st March 2022

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2931 OF 2021 Sonali Ashok Tandle .. Petitioner vs. The Executive Engineer F/S Division and ors. .. Respondents ------------ Mr. Ajinkya J. Jaibhave for petitioner. Ms. Sayli Apte a/w Ms. Prerana Dhoke and Ms. Shreya Shah for respondent nos. 1 to 3-MHADA. Mr. R.M. Haridas a/w Mr. Abhinav A. Bhatkar i/b. Mr. Ajay Patil for respondent no. 4. Mr. M.M. Pabale, AGP for respondent no. 6-State. CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : JUNE 8, 2022. P.C. : Stand over to next Wednesday ( June 15, 2022 ). (M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

Order - Status 23: AGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2931 OF 2021 Smt. Sonali Ashok Tandle …Petitioner V/s. The Executive Engineer F/S Division, Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board & Ors. …Respondents Mr. Vivek Salunkhe i/by Mr. Ajinkya J. Jaibhave for the petitioner. Ms. Sayli Apte i/by Mr. P. G. Lad for respondent nos. 1 to 3/MHADA. Mr. R. M. Haridas with Mr. Abhinav A. Bhatkar i/by Mr. Ajay Patil for respondent no. 4. Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for respondent no. 6/State. CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE: JUNE 15, 2022 P.C.: 1. Wrongly on board. 2. Place the writ petition before the appropriate Bench. (M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

Order - Status 24: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2931 OF 2021 Smt Sonali Ashok Tandle ....PETITIONER V/S The Executive Engineer F/s Division And Ors....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.V. GANGAPURWALA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHRIRAM MADHUSUDAN MODAK, JJ DATE : 18th July, 2022 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 30/08/2022. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 25: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2931 OF 2021 Smt Sonali Ashok Tandle ....PETITIONER V/S The Executive Engineer F/s Division And Ors....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.V. GANGAPURWALA & HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI ARIF SALEH DOCTOR, JJ DATE : 2nd August, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 27/09/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 28: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2931 OF 2021 Smt Sonali Ashok Tandle ....PETITIONER V/S The Executive Engineer F/s Division And Ors....RESPONDENT Mr Vivek Salunkhe i/b Mr Ajinkya J Jaibhave for Petitioner Ms Sayali Apte i/b Mr P G Lad for Resp No. 1 to 3 Mr Abhinav Bhatkar a/w Mr Rajendra Haridas i/b Mr Ajay Patil for Resp No.4 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.V. GANGAPURWALA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ DATE : 30th August, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 26/09/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 31: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2931 OF 2021 Smt. Sonali Ashok Tandle through her constituted attorney Mr. Vikrant Ashok Tandle. …Petitioner. V/s. The Executive Engineer F/S Division, Mumbai Building Repair and Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board & ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Vivek Salunke i/b. Mr. Ajinkya J. Jaibhave, for the Petitioner. Ms. Sayali Apte a/w. Ms. Shreya Shah i/b. Mr. P.G. Lad, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3(MHADA). Mr. R.M. Haridas a/w. Mr. Abhinav Bhatkar i/b. Mr. Ajay S. Patil, for respondent Nos. 4. Mr. A.P. Vanarase, AGP for State. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & R.N.LADDHA, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 26, 2022 P.C. : We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the developer. On 31st March, 2022, this Court has observed that Petitioner is now found to be eligible and entitled for Permanent Alternate Accommodation. This has been certified by MHADA. It is further observed that it is for the 4th Respondent developer to enter into a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement ("PAAA") with the Petitioner and to provide the Permanent Alternate Accommodation once it is ready and the Occupation Certificate is received. The Court further observed that the PAAA will be executed within two weeks. Now the dispute of area is raised. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the developer himself has produced the plan signed by it before MHADA for claiming incentives, wherein it is shown that the Petitioner is entitled for 43.01 sq.metrs. of the premises as per the plan. According to the Respondent-Developer, the petitioner is entitled to an area of 315 sq.ft. Reliance is placed by him on the area, which the Petitioner is occupying according to the developer. 5 The dispute about area is within the realm of MHADA. MHADA shall decide the area that the Petitioner would be entitled to. The Petitioner and the Developer shall appear before the Competent Authority of MHADA on 30/9/2022. MHADA shall consider the documents placed on record by the petitioner and the developer and the stand taken by them and shall take decision with regard to the area of the alternative permanent tenament, the Petitioner is entitled to. The said decision shall be taken preferably within 7 days from the date, the Petitioner and Developer appear before it. Upon decision of MHADA, the Developer shall execute the Permanent Alternative Accommodation Agreement with the Petitioner within 15 days. 7 The parties may raise their plea with regard to parking place etc. before MHADA. 8 Writ Petition disposed of on the above terms. No order as to cost. (R.N.LADDHA, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J)

Order - Status 4: VISHWANATH SATYANARAYANA SHERLA Digitally signed by VISHWANATH SATYANARAYANA SHERLA Date: 2021.09.30 16:08:34 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2260 OF 2021 Chandrakant Dattatray Rajkuvar … Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra … Respondent Mr.J.P. Yagnik, APP, for Respondent – State CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & N.J. JAMADAR, JJ. DATED: SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 P.C.: 1. Issue notice to the Respondent, returnable on 20th October, 2021. 2. The learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent – State. 3. In the meantime, the High Court Legal Services Committee to appoint an advocate from the legal aid panel to represent the petitioner, where the petition has been received directly through Jail. 4. The learned advocate appointed to represent the petitioner through legal aid panel shall ensure that memo of petition is prepared and filed in the Registry after serving the copy of the same to the Public Prosecutor, before the next date. 5. List on 20th October, 2021. (N.J. JAMADAR, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2260 OF 2021 Chandrakant Dattatray Rajkuvar PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NITIN JAMDAR & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, JJ DATE : 20th October, 2021 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 25/11/2021. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2260 OF 2021 Chandrakant Dattatray Rajkuvar … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Ajinkya Udane i/b. Niranjan Bhavke, appointed through Legal Aid for the Petitioner Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent - State CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : 18 NOVEMBER 2021 JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR Digitally signed by JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR Date: 2021.11.24 12:17:57 +0530 P.C. :- By this Petition the Petitioner is seeking Emergency (Covid-19) Parole. By order dated 19 September 2020 the request is rejected by the Respondent – authority. During the pendency of the Petition, another application was made by the Petitioner which is rejected by order dated 6 May 2021 which is placed on record. The reason given for rejection is that when the Petitioner was released on parole on 7 March 2013, he did not return within the period stipulated and overstayed for 2193 days and had to be arrested and brought back to the jail. If in view of this conduct of the Petitioner, the authority is of the opinion that the Petitioner will not be available if he released on emergency parole, the opinion cannot be considered to be unjustified. The exercise of discretion by the Respondents is not arbitrary or perverse. The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. NITIN JAMDAR, J.

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLAE SIDE Writ Petition No. 4026 of 2007 Lasalgaon Vibhag Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh Ltd. ..Petitioner vs. 1.The Asstt.Registrar Cooperative Societies & Ors. ..Respondents Shri A.S.Desai for petitioner. Shri P.P.Kakade, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1, 2 and 6. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 4th July, 2007 P.C. The petitioner society removed the Managing Committee members on the ground that they had incurred disqualification under Rule 58(2) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961. That action was subject matter of challenge at the instance of the members and the Asstt.Registrar Cooperative Societies, Niphad, District Nashik has held that the decision of the society is without any authority of law in as much as the concerned persons have not been declared as defaulters. There is no adjudication in that behalf. That order of the Asstt.Registrar was challenged by the Society in Revision Petition No.89 of 2006 and the Divisional Joint Registrar having upheld the same by the impugned order, the petitioner society is before me invoking my writ jurisdiction. The only contention raised by Shri Desai is that the aggrieved persons have no right to approach the Asstt.Registrar in as much as they had the remedy of filing a Dispute under sec.91 before the competent Cooperative Court. That was the only remedy available to them in law. Asstt.Registrar had no jurisdiction to entertain their grievance. Be that as it may, on facts, it has been concurrently observed that the pre-requisite for initiating action has not been satisfied in the present case. In para 11 of the impugned order, the Joint Registrar has observed that C.E.O. of the society issued letter dated 22nd August, 2006 informing the concerned Managing Committee members that they have incurred disqualification under sec.73FF of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Hence, they cease to be the Managing Committee members. It has been observed by the Joint Registrar that powers under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act of removal are vested only with the Registrar and unless action under sec.78 of the Act is initiated there is nothing like an automatic cessation. That no order under sec.78 has been passed is not disputed by Shri Desai. That is settled position in law and reference has been made by both the authorities to the decisions of this Court in that behalf. Having observed that mandatory pre-requisites are not satisfied for invoking the powers to disqualify the Managing Committee Members and to remove them, I do not wish to enter into any larger controversy. More so, when the factual position remains undisputed. As to whether the Asstt.Registrar would have jurisdiction to interfere with the action of disqualification or removal or not is a matter which can be gone into and decided in an appropriate case. That aspect is expressly left open. I am of the view that the findings of fact are not vitiated by any error apparent nor can be termed as perverse. Hence, the writ jurisdiction is not available to the petitioner. Petition is summarily dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE FIRST APPEAL NO.1400 OF 2005 -----------------------------------:------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.M.V.Shingade i/b Mr.G.N.Salunke for the appellants. Mr.N.V.Walavalkar i/b Mr.Sanjeev Singh for respondent no.1. Mr.J.J.Xavier for the respondent no.2. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED: 14TH NOVEMBER, 2006. P.C. : . Heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr.Walavalkar, learned senior counsel for respondent no.1 seeks liberty to file paper book and has also tendered the same in the court. He has also served a copy of the paper book on the other side. The paper book is accepted and in view thereof printing is dispensed with. Office is directed to place the appeal for hearing, as directed earlier by this court vide order dated 4.10.2006, in the week commencing from 27.11.2006. It is open for the appellants to file additional paper book, if they so desire, before 27.11.2006. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1400 OF 2005. New Borivali Prajakta Cooperative Housing ... Society Ltd. Appellant. Versus. M/s.Ashirwad Builders and others. ... Respondents. None for the Appellant. Shri Sanjeer Singh the Respondent No.1. CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED : 9th January, 2007. P.C.: 1.Not on board. Taken on board. 2.The Appeals of the year 1985 onwards are pending for final hearing and therefore, no specific date of hearing as of today can be fixed in this Appeal of the year 2005. No orders. Judge.

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1400 OF 2005 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Court's or Judge's Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - None present. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED : 27th August, 2007 P.C. 1.Stand over after twelve weeks. [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.]

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1400 of 2005 ... New Borivli Prajakta CHS Ltd. Appellant versus M/s.Ashirwad Builders & Anr Respondents None for the appellant. Mr.Sushil K. Chaurasia,Advocate for respondent no.1. CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE,J DATED : SEPTEMBER 6, 2013 P.C. 1 This appeal is preferred against judgment and order dated 5 May 2005 passed by Bombay City Civil Court in L.C.Suit No.925 of 2004. The appellant herein (original plaintiff) had filed suit for declaration that plan sanctioned by Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay in favour of M/s.Ashirwad Builders firm having office at 1, Jai Abhilasha, Jai Raj Nagar, Linking Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai 400 092, is illegal and for permanent injunction against defendant no.1 seeking to restrain him from constructing the building pursuant to sanctioned plan on the plot no.135 at 57 Road, Borivali (West) Mumbai. 2 It is submitted on behalf of respondent no.1 that earlier the appellant plaintiff had filed Suit No.1679 of 2002 for perpetual injunction against the respondent builder. It was compromised between the parties and detailed consent terms were recorded in the said suit whereby parties are, and were bound. The respondent no.1 offered payment but it was refused by plaintiff deliberately. According to learned Advocate for the respondent, he was and is ready and willing to observe those terms mentioned in consent terms as the same are binding between the parties to the suit. Therefore, any question arising in relation to execution discharge and satisfaction of decree by consent terms in L.C. Suit No.1679 of 2002 ought to have been dealt with in execution of decree in the said suit in view of section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure and not otherwise. Furthermore, it is contended that respondent no.1 is entitled to construct in accordance with sanctioned plan by Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai and plaintiff have no right to claim any injunction against respondent no.1 when they are acting lawfully constructing in accordance with sanctioned plan. 3 Nobody appeared on behalf of plaintiffs appellant although they are represented by Advocate Mr.G.N.Salunkhe on record. 4 For the reasons stated above therefore, there is no merit in the appeal as a remedy for the appellant is to execute the decree by consent terms as finalised in S.C.Suit No.1679 of 2002. 6 Interim order, if any, stands vacated. ( A.P. BHANGALE, J )