All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....Petitioner V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....Respondent None For Petitioner CORAM : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J DATE : 28th August, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 11/09/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena …Petitioner Versus Umesh Chandra Tiwari and ors. …Respondents ---------- None for the petitioner. Mr.Brijesh Shukla for the respondents. CORAM : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER 2019. P.C. : The respondent's counsel informs the Court that the petitioner has filed this writ petition to avoid the execution proceedings, but has not been prosecuting it. According to him, on the last occasion, too, none represented the petitioner. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has, so far, not served the case papers on him. Post the matter on 20th September 2019 under the caption for "dismissal". [DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.]

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. NO.14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena vs. Petitioner. Ms. Manisha Prajapati for the petitioner. CORAM : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. DATE : 18th September, 2019 PC : Petitioner's counsel seeks time. Post the matter on 25.9.2019. ( DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena …Petitioner Versus Umesh Chandra Tiwari and ors. …Respondents Ms.Manisha Prajapati for the petitioner. Mr.Brijesh Shukla for the respondents. CORAM : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. DATE : 25th SEPTEMBER 2019. P.C. : Shri Brijesh Shukla waives notice and informs the Court that he is appearing for the respondents. The petitioner's counsel assures the Court that she will serve the case papers on the respondents' counsel forthwith. Post the matter on 10th October 2019. [DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.] Vina A. Khadpe Digitally signed by Vina A. Khadpe Date: 2019.09.26 17:15:04 +0530

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gauraqv Saxena …Petitioner Versus Umesh Chandra Tiwari and ors. …Respondents ---------- Mr.Samji Joseph i/b. Ms.Manisha Prajapati for the petitioner. Mr.Brijesh Shukla a/w Ms.Devika Mehra for the respondents. CORAM : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. DATE : 10th OCTOBER 2019. P.C. : The petitioner's counsel fairly submits that there is a dispute about the quantum of damages/rent due from the petitioner to the respondents-landlord. He submits that the admitted amount comes to Rs.2,25,000/-. Status quo in relation to the recovery of rent/damages shall be maintained subject to the petitioner's depositing Rs.2,25,000/-, the admitted amount, with the Registry in 4 weeks. If petitioner fails to deposit the amount in 4 weeks, the stay stands vacated without further reference to this Court. Vina A. Khadpe Digitally signed by Vina A. Khadpe Date: 2019.10.11 21:04:14 +0530 [DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.]

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena …..Petitioner. Vs. Umesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors. …..Respondents. Mr. Siraj Khan i/by M. B. Prajapati for the Petitioner. Mr. Brijesh Shukla a/w Devika Mehra for the Respondents. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 11th NOVEMBER, 2019. P.C.:- It is submitted that, the Advocate on record for the Petitioner is in personal difficulty and is unable to attend the Court today. 2 At his request of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, stand over to 20th December, 2019. (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....Petitioner V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....Respondent Adv. Ramji Kotali For Petitioner Adv.Brijesh Shukla Res 1 For Respondent CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 20th December, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 07/02/2020 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 20: 54-wp-14372-2018.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ••• Petitioner V/s. Umesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors. ••• Respondents Mr.Sudhir V. Sadavarte i/b. Manisha Prajapati for Petitioner. Mr.Vaibhav R. Gargade for Respondent No.1. Ms.V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent No.2. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 7 th February 2020. P.C. : 1] Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in pursuance of Order dated 10 th October 2019, the petitioner has deposited the said amount of Rs.2,25,000/- in the Registry of this Court. 2] The issue involved in the present Petition is with respect to the quantum of compensation to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents-landlord pertaining to a period of 12 months as per Order dated 11 th April 2017. 3] In view thereof, Admit. 4] Ad-interim relief, granted by Order dated 10 th October 2019, is confirmed as interim relief. [A.S. GADKARI, J.]

Order - Status 21: TAUSEEF LAIQUEE FAROOQUI Digitally signed by TAUSEEF LAIQUEE FAROOQUI Date: 2023.03.13 11:02:46 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena … Petitioner V/s. Umesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors. … Respondents ***** None for the Petitioner. Mr. Brijesh Shukla for Respondent No.1. Mrs. V. s. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent (State). ***** CORAM : S.G. DIGE, J. DATED : 8 MARCH, 2023 P.C.: None present for the Petitioner. Heard learned counsel for Respondent No.1, stand over to 12 April 2023. (S.G. DIGE, J.)

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....PETITIONER V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....RESPONDENT None for Petitioner Mr. S. V. Sadavarte i/by Brijesh Shukla for Respondent No. 1 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHIVKUMAR DIGE J DATE : 12th April, 2023 P.C. : None present for the petitioner/s, stand over to 14/06/2023. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 26: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ...PETITIONER V/s. Umesh Chandra Tiwari and Ors ...RESPONDENTS Mr. Rushikesh Patil i/b Mr. S.V. Sadavarte, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Brijesh Shukla, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 14th JUNE, 2023 P.C. : Mr. Rushikesh Patil holding for Mr. S.V. Sadavarte, submits that Mr. Sadavarte will be filing Vakaltnama on behalf of the petitioner and some time may be granted. At his request, list on 28th June, 2023. In the meanwhile, let the Counsel for the petitioner take instructions on the payment plan for the outstanding payments to be made to the landlord. (ABHAY AHUJA, J.) KSG 1/1

Order - Status 28: WRIT PETITION NO.14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena … Petitioner Vs. Umesh Chandra Tiwari and ors. … Respondents ------- Mr.Saurabh M. Railkar h/f Mr.S.V.Sadavarte i/by Ms.Manisha B. Prajapati, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr.Brijesh Shukla, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 28 JUNE, 2023. P.C. : On 14th June, 2023, the following order was passed:- "1. Mr. Rushikesh Patil holding for Mr. S.V. Sadavarte, submits that Mr. Sadavarte will be filing Vakaltnama on behalf of the petitioner and some time may be granted. At his request, list on 28th June, 2023. In the meanwhile, let the Counsel for the petitioner take instructions on the payment plan for the outstanding payments to be made to the landlord." Today this court is informed that Mr.Sadavarte has filed a leave note. On the last occasion, the learned counsel for the Petitioner was to take instructions on the payment plan for the outstanding payments to be made to the landlord. Let instructions with respect to the payment plan be taken by the next date. List on 19th July, 2023. It is made clear that if instructions are not obtained by the next date, this court will proceed to pass appropriate orders. (ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

Order - Status 30: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....PETITIONER V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION STAMP NO. 18038 OF 2023 In Writ Petition 14372 OF 2018 Umesh Chandra Tiwari ....PETITIONER V/S Gaurav Saxena ....RESPONDENT None for Petitioner Mr Brijesh Shukla Advocate for Respondent No. 1. [ MENTIONED AT 5.15 P.M. ] CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ABHAY AHUJA J DATE : 19th July, 2023 P.C. : Mentioned out of turn. At the request of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Respondent, stand over to 21/08/2023. Ad-interim relief, if any, to continue till the next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 31: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2024.01.11 16:09:58 Digitally +0530 INTERIM APPLICATION NO.14387 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO.14372 OF 2018 Umesh C. Tiwari ...Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN : Gaurav Saxena ...Petitioner V/s. Umesh C. Tiwari & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Brijesh Shukla with Ms.Siddhi Mahambre and Mr.Harshil Gandhi for the Applicant. Mr.Sudhir Sadavarte for the Petitioner. Mr.P.P. Pujari, AGP for the State - Respondent. CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE : 9 TH JANUARY , 2024. P.C. :- This Interim Application is filed by the Original lessor. This Interim Application seeks withdrawal of the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- deposited by the lessee (Petitioner) pursuant to vai the directions given by this Court on 10 October 2019. For ease of reference, the order dated 10 October 2019 is reproduced herein below :- "1. The petitioner's counsel fairly submits that there is a dispute about the quantum of damages/rent due from the petitioner to the respondents-landlord. He submits that the admitted amount comes to Rs.2,25,000/-. Status quo in relation to the recovery of rent/damages shall be maintained subject to the petitioner's depositing Rs.2,25,000/-, the admitted amount, with the Registry in 4 weeks. If petitioner fails to deposit the amount in 4 weeks, the stay stands vacated without further reference to this Court." According to the Respondent (lessor) as per the impugned order, the amount payable by the lessee till the date of handing over possession i.e. 25 May 2019, would be Rs.5,23,600/-. Mr.Shukla, advocate appearing for the Applicant (Umesh Chandra Tiwari) submits that however on 10 October 2019, as the sum of Rs.2,25,000/- was admitted by the Petitioner, the Writ Petition was admitted. Mr.Shukla further submits that in such a situation, if the amount less than 50% is deposited in this Court, the Respondent / lessor should be allowed to withdraw the said amount with accrued interest. After hearing both the sides, I am of the view that suffice will be the purpose if the Applicant (Umesh Chandra Tiwari) is allowed to withdraw the said sum of Rs.2,25,000/ deposited in this Court along with accrued interest thereon. Before withdrawal of the said amount, the Applicant (Umesh Chandra Tiwari) should file an undertaking before this Court within a period of one week from today that in case after hearing the Writ Petition, the Writ Petition is answered against the Applicant Umesh Chandra Tiwari), the Applicant will comply with the directions given by this Court. The Interim Application is accordingly disposed of. 7. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.14372 OF 2018 Both the parties agree that the Writ Petition can be disposed of, since small issue is involved in this matter. 3/4 Place the Writ Petition on board for hearing and final disposal on 8 February 2024, at 2:30 p.m. The parties agree to file a compilation of documents, short synopsis along with their preposition of law and authorities relied upon by them before the next date of hearing. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 33: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.14372 OF 2018 ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Gaurav Saxena … Petitioner V/s. Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors … Respondents Mr. Saurabh R h/f Mr. Sudhir Sadavarte, Advocate for the Petitioner. Adv. Bijesh Shukla a/w Mr. Harshil Gandhi & Ms. Siddhi Mahambre, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri. P. P. Pujari – AGP for Respondent-State Nos. 2 & 3. CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J . DATED : 8 FEBRUARY 2024 P.C.: This Writ Petition is filed by licensee challenging the impugned Judgment and Order dated 11 April 2017 and as confirmed by Judgment and Order dated 19 June 2018. Mr. Shukla appearing for the Respondent No.1 submits that the possession of the suit premises has been already received by them. He submits that the only dispute is now regarding the payment of compensation to be made by the petitioner. He further points out to Order dated 14 June 2023 passed by this Court. On 14 June, 2023 there was a request made by the advocate appearing for the Petitioner seeking time so that he will furnish a "Payment Plan" with regard to the outstanding payment to be made to Respondent / Landlord. Mr. Shukla submits that from 14 June 2023 till today, the said so called payment plan has not been furnished by the Petitioner. Mr. Saurabh appearing for the Petitioner seeks a short accommodation on the ground that the advocate appearing for the Petitioner due to personal reasons is not present in this Court. As a matter of last chance, stand over to 13 February 2024. To be listed "High On Board". (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 36: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2024.02.17 11:50:13 +0530 Writ Petition NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ..Petitioner Versus Umesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Sudhir Sadavarte for the Petitioner. Mr.Brijesh Shukla with Adv.Siddhi Mahambre for Respondent No.1. Ms.Kajle, AGP for the State - Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE : 13 TH FEBRUARY , 2024. P.C. :- This Writ Petition is filed as regards quantum of damages payable by the Petitioner to the Respondents, since the possession of the suit premises has already been hand over. Mr.Shukla appearing for Respondent No.1 / Owner submits that as per his calculation the amount as of today payable would be Rs.2,98,600/-. vai Mr.Sadavarte appearing for the Petitioner disputes the said figure payable. Mr.Sadavarte submits that the total outstanding amount is Rs.4,86,000/-. However, a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- was deposited in this Court and by an order of this Court, Respondent No.1 has already withdrawn the said amount. Therefore, the amount now payable by the Petitioner to Respondent No.1 according to him would be Rs.2,61,200/-. Be that as it may, in the present Writ Petition on 10 October 2019 an order was passed. The said order dated 10 October 2019 reads as under :- "The petitioner's counsel fairly submits that there is a dispute about the quantum of damages/rent due from the petitioner to the respondents-landlord. He submits that the admitted amount comes to Rs.2,25,000/-. Status quo in relation to the recovery of rent/damages shall be maintained subject to the petitioner's depositing Rs.2,25,000/-, the admitted amount, with the Registry in 4 weeks. If petitioner fails to deposit the amount in 4 weeks, the stay stands vacated without further reference to this Court." Thereafter on 7 February 2020, this Court recorded that a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- had been deposited by the Petitioner with the Registrar of this Court. Therefore, the Writ Petition was "Admitted" and ad-interim relief granted on 10 October 2019 was confirmed. The said order dated 7 February 2020 reads as under :- "1] Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in pursuance of Order dated 10th October 2019, the petitioner has deposited the said amount of Rs.2,25,000/- in the Registry of this Court. 2] The issue involved in the present Petition is with respect to the quantum of compensation to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents-landlord pertaining to a period of 12 months as per Order dated 11th April 2017. 3] In view thereof, Admit. 4] Ad-interim relief, granted by Order dated 10th October 2019, is confirmed as interim relief." Mr.Sadavarte submits that thereafter the matter came up before this Court on 14 June 2023 when the colleague of Mr.Sadavarte sought time to file Vakalatnama on behalf of the Petitioner. He submitted that on 14 June 2023, Vakalatnama to appear on behalf of the Petitioner was not there. Therefore, the said statement was made on behalf of the Petitioner. On 14 June 2023, this Court granted two weeks time to Mr.Sadavarte to file the Vakalatnama on behalf of the Petitioner. So also it was recorded that the advocate appearing for the Petitioner to take instructions about payment plan as regards outstanding payment to be made. The said order dated 14 June 2023 reads as under :- "1. Mr. Rushikesh Patil holding for Mr. S.V. Sadavarte, submits that Mr. Sadavarte will be filing Vakaltnama on behalf of the petitioner and some time may be granted. At his request, list on 28th June, 2023. In the meanwhile, let the Counsel for the petitioner take instructions on the payment plan for the outstanding payments to be made to the landlord." Mr.Sadavarte submits that the Petitioner had challenged the quantum of amount payable as the rent to Respondent No.1 / Landlord and whatsoever was admitted amount by the Petitioner was already deposited as per the directions of the Court on 10 October 2019, and the said amount has been withdrawn by Respondent No.1 pursuant to the order dated 9 January 2024 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.14387 of Mr.Sadavarte submits that since he could not appear on 14 June 2023, his colleague had appeared in the matter only for seeking two weeks time to file Vakalatnama on behalf of the Petitioner, no statement could be made as regards payment plan towards the outstanding amount, as according to him as of that date, there was no outstanding amount payable as a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- admitted by them was already deposited. Thereafter the matter appeared on 28 June 2023, although Mr.Sadavarte had personal difficulty and he had filed the leave note, therefore, his colleague Mr. Railkar appeared on his behalf and sought time. According to Mr.Sadavarte, again on the said date, it was recorded that the Petitioner would be filing payment plan towards the outstanding amount. This Writ Petition involves only the dispute as to the quantum payable by the Petitioner to Respondent No.1 / Landlord. The Petitioner had admitted that only a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- is payable by Respondent No.1, however, Respondent No.1 has disputed this figure. The Petitioner has already deposited the said amount of Rs.2,25,000/- in this 5/6 Court. The said amount has been withdrawn by Respondent No.1. The Petition is already admitted by an order of this Court on 7 February 2020. The Writ Petition to come up on board for hearing and final disposal as per its turn. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 37: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....PETITIONER V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE J DATE : 30th August, 2024 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 04/10/2024 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 39: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....PETITIONER V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE J DATE : 4th October, 2024 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 13/12/2024 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 41: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....PETITIONER V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....RESPONDENT Mr. Sudhir Sadavarte for Petitioner Smt. Madhubala Kajale 'B' Panel for Respondent-State CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE J DATE : 13th December, 2024 P.C. : Stand Over to 16/12/2024. List the matter under the caption of For Circulation. Interim relief,if any,to continue till the next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 44: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ….Petitioner : Versus : Umesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors. ….Respondents None for the Petitioner. Mr. Brijesh Shukla, for Respondent No.1. Mr. Hamid Mulla, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3/State. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. Dated : 16 DECEMBER 2024. _____________ _____________ P.C. : None appears on behalf of the Petitioner. It appears that the Petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting the petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Respondent No.1 would be at liberty to execute the order passed by the Competent Authority. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2024.12.17 08:54:47 +0530

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 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1483 OF 2019 Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, J DATE : 7th June, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 04/07/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1483 OF 2019 Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, J DATE : 4th July, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 29/07/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1483 OF 2019 Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, J DATE : 22nd August, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned.Stand over to 16/09/2019. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1483 OF 2019 Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, J DATE : 16th September, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 09/10/2019 . In case any ad-interim/interim relief is operating till today, the said order will continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1483 OF 2019 Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, J DATE : 9th October, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 15/11/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 1483 OF 2019 Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 15th November, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 06/12/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.1482 OF 2019 Roshan Sunil Pawar .. Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO.1483 OF 2019 Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde .. Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent …... …... Mr.Silvin Y. Kale, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs.A.A. Takalkar, APP APP for the Respondent – State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATED : DECEMBER 20, 2019. P.C. : The applicants in both the applications were arrested in connection with C.R.No.I–291 of 2018, registered with Panvel City Police Station, Navi Mumbai, for the ofence punishable under Section 302j read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2 The case of the prosecution is that on 30th June, 2018, the victim/complainant was waiting at rickshaw stand. Accused Avi alias Ajinkya Shinde spoke to the victim and told him that he want to travel at Karanjade and the fare was fied at Rs.60/-. He boarded rickshaw. The victim dropped him at Karanjade. He paid Rs.50/- towards the fare although it was fied to be Rs.60/-. The victim demanded the balance amount. Accused Avi alias Ajinkya told him that he is associate of Rajesh Kaikadia and slapped him. The victim also slapped him. Thereafter, the victim went towards Panvel railway station and was waiting at rickshaw stand. At about 22:30 hrs., he went for smoking cigarette. Avi alias Ajinkya Shinde came and questioned him as to why he charges heavy fare and left the place. After some time, Ajinkya Shinde, Babu Kaikadia and two other persons approached the victim. Ajinkya Shinde assaulted him with iron rod in his head. As a result the victim fell down. Babu Kaikadia assaulted by knife and two other persons assaulted the victim by fst blows. Babu Kaikadia then assaulted him on head. The mother and wife of the victim reached the spot. Babu Kaikadia also assaulted his mother and all of them fled away from the place of incident. The victim was taken to the hospital. His statement was recorded, which was treated as First Information Report. Subsequently, victim succumbed to the injuries and charge under Section 302 of IPC was invoked. 3 Learned counsel for the applicant appearing for both the applicants submitted that there are major discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses. There are contradictions in the statements of eye witnesses. Applicants are falsely implicated,. There is no evidence against the applicant Roshan Pawar, the eye witnesses have given contradictory versions about the role played by him. Although, the applicant was identifed, subsequent to identifcation, diferent role is attributed to the said applicant. The version of both the eye witnesses were contradictory to each other. The applicants are in custody from the date of arrest and further detention is not necessary. Co-accused Iqbal Abdul Kadir Shaha has been granted bail by this Court. 4 Learned APP submitted that the role has been assigned to both the applicants. Applicant Avinash had picked up quarrel with the deceased. Thereafter, he came along with other accused and the victim was assaulted by weapons. The applicants are identifed by the eye witnesses. Thus, there is suficient evidence against the applicant and bail may not be granted. 5 Having heard both the sides. I have perused the charge–sheet. The frst informant is the victim of the crime. He has stated that accused Avi alias Ajinkya had quarreled with him. Subsequently, he came along with the other accused. In the frst information report, it is stated that Avi alias Ajinkya Shinde had assaulted the victim on his head by iron rod and Babu Kaikadia had assaulted by knife. Two unknown persons had allegedly caught hold of the victim. Thus, the role of assault is attributed to Avi alias Ajinkya Shinde and Babu Kaikadia. During the course of investigation, statement of Naziya and Sherbano were recorded. Naziya had stated in a statement under Section 164 that the victim was assaulted by Avi alias Ajinkya and others. Avi alias Ajinkya was holding iron rod and the other short person was holding knife. The victim was assaulted by iron rod on his head and the other person had assaulted by knife. Her statement was also recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., which is in consonance with her earlier statement. Thus, the said witness categorically stated that Avi alias Ajinkya Shinde had assaulted the victim by iron rod on his head and other persons assaulted by knife. Statement of Sherbano was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. She has stated that accused Avi alias Ajinkya and others had assaulted the victim. The identifcation parade was conducted. In the parade Naziya has identifed accused Roshan Pawar and stated that Roshan Pawar had assaulted victim by knife. The other witness Ayesha has also identifed Roshan Pawar and during the identifcation stated that he had assaulted the victim by fst blows. Thus, apparently, there are discrepancies in the evidence with regards to the role played by Roshan Pawar in the FIR, statement of eye witnesses and the identifcation parade. However, as far as Ajinkya @ Avinash Anant Shinde, is concerned, specifc overtact has been attributed to him. There is consistency in the evidence of witnesses. He was the cause of quarrel and incident of murder. The victim as well as other witnesses have attributed him role of assault. In this circumstances, applicant Roshan Pawar can be granted bail, however, applicant Ajinkya @ Avinash Shinde is not entitled for bail. 7 Hence, I pass the following order: :: O R D E R :: (i) Bail Application No.1482 of 2019, is allowed and disposed of; (ii) Applicant Roshan Sunil Pawar, is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R.No.I– 291 of 2018, registered with Panvel City Police Station, Navi Mumbai, on his eiecuting P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one or more sureties in the like amount; (iii) Applicant Roshan Sunil Pawar, shall attend the concerned police station once in a month on frst Saturday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, till the conclusion of the trial; (iv) Bail Application No.1483 of 2019, is rejected. ( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1205 OF 2019 Uday Manohar Sule .... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent ….... Mr.S.V. Marwadi i/b. N.M. Nadar, Advocate for Applicant. Mr.Anilkumar Patil, APP for the State/Respondent. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 06th JUNE, 2019 P.C. : Learned Counsel for the Applicant on instructions of the daughter of the Applicant, who is present in the Court, prays for withdrawal of this Application. Liberty as prayed for is granted. The Application is allowed to be withdrawn and is disposed of accordingly. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)