All Cases

Order - Status 3: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.981 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1678 OF 2022 Krishna Ramanathan and Another ...Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent PAREKAR Digitally signed by VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Date: 2022.07.02 14:36:03 +0530 VISHAL SUBHASH Mr. Satish Maneshinde a/w. Ms. Namita Maneshinde, for the Applicants. Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Ashwin Shete, Ms. Priyanka Dage i/b. Jayakar and Partner, for the Intervener. Mrs. J.S. Lohkare, APP, for the State. Mr. Harish Thakur, API, Bundgarden police station, Pune present. CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : JULY 01, 2022 P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, list on 13th July, 2022 for hearing. In the meanwhile, interim protection granted earlier, if any, shall continue to operate. (N. J. JAMADAR, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.981 OF 2022 Krishna Ramanathan and another … Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra … Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1678 OF 2022 Aman Nandlal Gupta … Applicant (Intervenor) In the matter between: Krishna Ramanathan and another … Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra … Respondent IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.981 OF 2022 ---- Mr. Satish Maneshinde a/w. Mr. Anandini Fernandes and Ms. Namita Maneshinde for Applicants. Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Ashwin Shete, Mr. Abhay Dhadiwal, Mr. Priyank Daga i/b. Jayakar and Partners for Intervenor. Ms. Geeta P. Mulekar, APP for Respondent-State. CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 P.C. : After having heard for some time, it is noticed that this Court has granted ad-interim protection to the applicants vide order dated 12.04.2022. At the relevant time, submissions were canvassed on behalf of the applicants that, without prejudice and without admitting the liability, way back in March 2019, the applicants had shown willingness to repay the amount invested by the complainant. In the aforesaid background, this Court in paragraph 10 of the said order directed counsel for the applicants to make a specific statement on instructions whether the applicants in order to show bonafides can make deposit of certain amount before this Court by the next date. Today, during the course of hearing, counsel for the applicants, on instructions, makes a categorical statement that amount of Rs.1 crore will be deposited in this Court within a period of two weeks from today. Statement accepted. As far as further deposits to be made by the applicants, an appropriate order shall be passed after hearing the rival claims. Learned APP has invited my attention to the notice dated 07.09.2022 issued under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to M/s. Curatio Health Care (I) Private Limited of which applicant No.1 is one of the Directors. It is claimed by APP that the said applicant has not co-operated in the investigation pursuant to the said notice. Mr. Maneshinde, counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicants had every intention to co-operate. However, it is claimed that the the applicants have always supplied and are willing to supply relevant information in relation to the offence in question. He states that applicants have reservation that such information supplied by them will be made available to the complainant by the investigating agency as according to him the aforesaid notice issued under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. was within the knowledge of the complainant. Be that as it may, in view of the assurance given by Mr.Maneshinde that the notices issued under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. will be honoured in its true letter and spirit, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to direct the applicants to appear before the investigating officer from 10th to 15th October, 2022 between 10:00 a.m. and 12 noon and thereafter as and when directed by the investigating officer. Matter to come up for further consideration on 19.10.2022. Ad-interim order to continue till then. (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 981 OF 2022 Krishna Ramanathan And Anr ....APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT WITH CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1678 OF 2022 In Cr. Anticipatory Bail Appln. 981 OF 2022 Aman Nandlal Gupta ....PETITIONER V/S State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. R. BORKAR J DATE : 6th January, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 07/01/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 14251 OF 2017 Smt. Majedabano Mohd. Mukeem Ansari ....Petitioner V/S Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation, Through Its Commissioner And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : A.S. OKA & SMT. VIBHA VASANT KANKANWADI, JJ DATE : 14th June, 2017 P.C. : On account of paucity of time, matter stands adjourned to 12/12/2017. If any ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will be continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: pmw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6665 OF 2017 Smt. Majedabano Mohd. Mukeem Ansari … Petitioner Vs. Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Atharva A. Dandekar for the Petitioner. CORAM : A.S. OKA & SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ. DATE : 20th JUNE, 2017 P.C. . Not on Board. Taken on Board. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He states that notice of today's application has been served to the first respondent. He states that he will file an affidavit of service. We accept the statement. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 19th July, 2017. We direct the first respondent to depute the Designated Officer of the concerned ward to the site for ascertaining whether illegal construction as alleged by the petitioner is in progress. The Designated Officer shall visit the site within a period of three working days from the date on which an authenticated copy of this order is served to the first respondent. 2 If the Designated Officer finds that illegal construction is in progress, he shall forthwith take steps in accordance with law for stopping the illegal construction and thereafter proceed to take steps for demolition of the illegal construction in accordance with law. 3 Compliance affidavit shall be filed by the Designated Officer before the next date. The first respondent to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. 4 In addition to service through Court, private service is permitted. Along with private notice authenticated copy of this order shall be forwarded to the concerned respondents. (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J) (A.S. OKA, J)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6665 OF 2017 Smt. Majedabano Mohd. Mukeem Ansari ....Petitioner V/S Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation, Through Its Commissioner And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : A.S. OKA & SMT. VIBHA VASANT KANKANWADI, JJ DATE : 19th July, 2017 P.C. : On account of paucity of time, matter stands adjourned to 29/09/2017. If any ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will be continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6665 OF 2017 Smt. Majedabano Mohd. Mukeem Ansari ....Petitioner V/S Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation, Through Its Commissioner And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : A.S. OKA & P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ DATE : 11th January, 2018 P.C. : On account of paucity of time, matter stands adjourned to 02/04/2018. If any ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will be continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim or 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 CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6665 OF 2017 Smt. Majedabano Mohd. Mukeem Ansari ....Petitioner V/S Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation, Through Its Commissioner And Ors. ....Respondent Mr Atharva A.dandekar For Petitioner Mr N. R Bubna for R.no.1 CORAM : A.S. OKA & P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ DATE : 12th January, 2018 P.C. : Not on Board. Taken on Board. No Order. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6665 OF 2017 Smt Majedabano Mohd. Mukeem Ansari ..Petitioner vs. Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation, through its Commissioner and Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Atharva A. Dandekar for the Petitioner. CORAM : A.S. OKA & P. N. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 22nd JANUARY, 2018 P.C.: . Not on board. Taken on board. Mr. Dandekar, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner states that he has served a notice to the advocates representing the Respondent No.1 as well as the Respondent No.4 of today's application. We accept the statement. Affidavit of service be filed within one week from today. He states that the Designated Officer of the Respondent No.1 has not complied with the directions contained in the order dated 28th June 2017. Place the Petition under caption "Direction" on 9th February 2018. We direct the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation to ensure that the Designated Officer of the concerned ward personally remains present on the next date along with the file. Advocate for the Petitioner to serve a copy of this order in the office of the Commissioner of the Respondent No.1 and the Commissioner shall act upon the said order. (P.N. DESHMUKH, J) (A.S. OKA, J.)

Order - Status 19: pmw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6665 OF 2017 Smt. Majedabano Moh. Mukeem Ansari … Petitioner Vs. Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation & Ors. … Respondents Mr. Atharva Dandekar for the Petitioner. Mr. N.R. Bubna for the Respondent No.1. Mr. Atul G. Damle, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. R.D. Suryawanshi for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. CORAM : A.S. OKA & P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 9 th FEBRUARY, 2018 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second to fourth respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has produced for perusal of the Court a file containing relevant documents. The file shows that on 15th October, 2015 when the officers of the Municipal Corporation inspected the structure subject matter of this Petition (pages 79 to 83), construction of ground floor was in progress. It appears that further inspection was carried out on 16th October, 2015, when certain construction material was seized. It appears that on 4th November, 2015 a notice was issued to second and third respondents calling upon them to stop the construction. On 7th November, 2015 when the Municipal Officers visited the property, it was found that slab of the ground floor was laid which was not in existence on 15th October, 2015. On 8th March, 2016, when the Municipal Officers visited the property it was found that brick work of the ground floor and the construction of erection of columns of the first floor was in progress. Photographs taken on that date are also part of the file. It appears that prosecution was lodged against second and third respondents under Section 52 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short "the MRTP Act, 1966"). There are further reports of inspection carried out by the Municipal officers and photographs taken during the course of inspection. It appears that construction continued on the site. The report dated 11th August, 2016 submitted by the Municipal officers of the inspection along with photographs show that RCC work of ground plus two floors was completed and work of third floor was in progress. 2 On 31st May, 2017 again inspection was taken when it was found that substantial work of ground plus three floors was completed. Some shops on the ground floor were occupied and the construction of fourth floor was in progress. There are subsequent notices issued by the Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation and in fact of 2nd June, 2017 hearing was fixed. It appears that FIR was registered vide C.R. 81/2017. On 7th June, 2017 an order was made by the Assistant Commissioner which is addressed to second and third respondents which holds that construction of ground plus four floors made by them is completely illegal. In terms of adinterim order passed by this Court on 12th July, 2017 the Municipal Officers visited the building. At that time, it was found that construction of ground plus five floors was completed. The work of plastering upto three floors was completed. Partial brick work of fourth floor was completed and brick work of fifth floor was in progress. It is pointed out that out of 13 galas on the ground floor, some have been occupied and some are kept closed. It is pointed out that some of the flats have been also occupied. The photographs taken on 24th October, 2017 have been annexed which show that substantial number of shops on the ground floor have been occupied and parts of the upper floors has been occupied. 3 It is true that the petitioner has filed a suit for injunction against second to fourth respondents in which a limited injunction has been granted which prevents the second to fourth respondents from carrying out construction. The documents in the file prima facie show that there is no development permission granted to second to fourth respondents. The second to fourth respondents have proceeded with construction as stated above after 27th July, 2015. Apart from the fact that construction is grossly illegal it was completely in breach of the order dated 27th July, 2015 passed by the Civil Court. 4 The issue in this Petition is about inaction of the Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation to take action of demolition against the illegal structure. Notwithstanding the pendency of the suit filed by the petitioner, this Petition will have to be interfered as the documents produced by the Municipal Corporation prima facie show that notwithstanding several notices issued by the Municipal Corporation and notwithstanding grant of interim relief by the trial Court, the construction high handedly proceeded. The construction of ground plus five floors is completely illegal. Some of the premises have been permitted to be occupied. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second to fourth respondents states that Shri Ethesham Ahmed Azmi is present in the Court on behalf of the second to fourth respondents. 5 At this stage, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second to fourth respondents pointed out that in this Petition the grievance made is about illegal construction in respect of CTS No.334, Survey No.32, Hissa No.3 (part). The documents in the file to which we have made a reference indicate that the same are in respect of the land bearing Survey No.72/3, CTS No.342, Vetalpada, Bhiwandi. Thus, the structure subject matter of the documents in the file is on land bearing CTS No.342, Survey No.72/3 in respect of which no relief is claimed in the Petition. 6 We may note that in R.C.S. No.428 of 2015, the prayer sought is in respect of the land bearing CTS No.334, Survey No.32, Hissa No.3 (part) at village Nagaon, Khandupada. Therefore, second to fourth respondents were right in submitting that the file which is produced by the learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation does not relate to City Survey No.334, Survey No.32, Hissa No.3 or Survey No.82, Hissa No.3. 7 In the circumstances and in view of the fact that the suit filed by the petitioner is already pending in the Civil Court, we decline to entertain this Petition. However, we clarify that notwithstanding the disposal of the Petition, the Municipal Corporation is bound to take action in accordance with law for demolition of the illegal structure constructed on Survey No.72/3 of village Nagaon, (City Survey No.342) at Bhiwandi, District Thane. Subject to what is observed above, the Petition is disposed of. (P.N. DESHMUKH, J) (A.S. OKA, J)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1463 OF 2022 Bherulal Govind Joshi ....APPLICANT V/S State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT None for Applicant Smt. Anamika Malhotra, APP for State CORAM : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE BHARATI DANGRE J DATE : 6th June, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 04/07/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: Bherulal Govind Joshi .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Ms.Lalita L. Rajguru for the Applicant. Ms.Anamika Malhotra, A.P.P. for the State/Respondent. API Vinayak Jadhav attached to Nayanagar Police Station, present. ... … CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 04th JULY, 2022 P.C:- SALGAONKAR M M Digitally signed by SALGAONKAR M M Date: 2022.07.05 16:48:37 +0530 The learned counsel for the applicant states that, inadvertently two applications came to be fled by the same applicant. She, therefore, seeks permission to withdraw the present application. Permission granted. The application stands disposed off as withdrawn. ( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

Order - Status 4: Vishwanath S. Sherla Digitally signed by Vishwanath S. Sherla Date: 2021.01.25 17:06:01 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.194 OF 2021 Raju Paulas Pakhare … Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra & another … Respondents Mr.Aniket Vagal for the Petitioner Ms.A.S. Pai, Mr.J.P. Yagnik, Ms.S.D. Shinde, Mr.K.V. Saste, Additional Public Prosecutors for Respondent – State CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & MANISH PITALE, JJ. DATED: JANUARY 25, 2021 P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 2. Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 4 th February, 2021. 3. In addition to service of notice through Court, the Petitioner shall serve a private notice by Registered Post A.D. and/or by Courier service and/or by hand delivery or by e-mail/fax on the Respondents and shall file affidavit of service with tangible proof before the returnable date**.** 4. The learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent – State. (MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Appearances of the Advocates as per Board dated 04/02/2021. … CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & MANISH PITALE, JJ. DATED : 04TH FEBRUARY, 2021. P.C:- Matters from Sr. Nos.68 to 135 of the Board stands discharged. Following dates are assigned to the said matters: Sr. Nos. Due Date 68 to 75 09-02-2021 76 to 78, 81 and 83 to 84 10-02-2021 85 to 99 and 115 11-02-2021 100 to 105 15-02-2021 107 to 114 16-02-2021 117 to 130 17-02-2021 131 to 133 and 135 18-02-2021 79 08/02/2021 Ad-interim interim reliefs, if any, to continue till then. (MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 9: Vishwanath S. Sherla Digitally signed by Vishwanath S. Sherla Date: 2021.02.16 19:51:33 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.194 OF 2021 Raju Paulas Pakhare … Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & another … Respondents Mr.Aniket Vagal for the Petitioner Mr.Deepak Thakare, Public Prosecutor, for Respondent – State CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & MANISH PITALE, JJ. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: FEBRUARY 11, 2021 JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON: FEBRUARY 16, 2021 JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE, J.): 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and heard finally. 2. The Petitioner had applied for grant of emergency Covid-19 parole for 45 days in view of the Covid-19 pandemic and the amendment in the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. However, his application was rejected vide order dated 19th May, 2020 passed by Respondent No.2 – Superintendent of Jail, Yerwada Open District Prison, on the ground that the petitioner, in the past, during his stay in the jail, had availed of parole / fulough leave twice, however, reported to the prison late. The petitioner is a convict undergoing sentence of life imprisonment. The petitioner has been in jail since last 10 years. 3. Mr.Vagal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, relied upon the judgments of this Court in Kalyan s/o. Bansidharrao Renge vs. The State of Maharashtra & another (Criminal Writ Petition No.ASDB-LDVC-265 of 2020) and Uzair @ Hujer s/o. Rafiq Shaikh vs. The State of Maharashtra & Others (Criminal Writ Petition No.2989 of 2020) to contend that the ground stated in the impugned order was wholly unsustainable. It was, therefore, submitted that the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, opposed the petition for grant of emergency Covid-19 parole. It was submitted that the petitioner had reported late on both the occasions when he was released on parole/furlough. Now the situation in the Yerwada Open District Prison, Pune, has changed substantially. It was submitted that the number of inmates in the said prison are less than the capacity. It was submitted that there is no crowd in the jail and that the authorities have sufficient infrastructure now to immediately take care of any inmate or staff, who may suffer from Covid-19 virus. 5. We have perused the record forwarded by the respondents to the office of the Public Prosecutor of this Court. The petitioner was released twice in the past on parole/furlough, however, he had reported to the prison late. The facts and figures stated therein indicate that in pursuance of release of number of inmates due to Covid-19 pandemic, now the situation in the Yerwada Open District Prison, Pune, has changed substantially. There can be no doubt about the fact that the petitioner is justified in relying upon the aforesaid judgments of this Court to claim that the reason assigned in the impugned order is unsustainable. 6. At the same time, the fact situation on ground as on today, cannot be ignored and, therefore, there is substance in the contention raised on behalf of the learned APP that the request of the petitioner for grant of emergency Covid-19 parole needs to be considered afresh. 7. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is granted liberty to apply afresh for grant of emergency Covid-19 parole within one week from today. Upon filing such an application, the respondent No.2 shall decide the same on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible, however, within two weeks from the date of such filing of the application in accordance with the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 and keeping in view the factors like the extent of spread of Covid-19 virus and conditions in jail. 8. Rule is partly made absolute to the above extent. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.730 OF 2009 IN CIVIL SUIT NO.10 OF 2002 A N D APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.731 OF 2009 IN CIVIL SUIT NO.1 OF 2006 Gold's Gym. Licensing LLC & Ors. ..Appellants V/s M/s.Gold Gym, through its sole proprietor Mr.K.K.Ashar ..Respondents Mr.Ravi Kadam ASG, Mr.V Dhond & Ms.Nisha Wallani, Mr.Manav Shah & Mr.Kamlesh Patel i/by Deven Dwarkadas & partners for the appellants. Mr.Himanshu Kane with Kailas S. Dewal for the respondents. C oram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 7th September, 2009. PC 1 Parties agree that both the appeals may be disposed off in terms of the Minutes of Order. The Minutes of Order duly signed by the Advocates are tendered. The same are taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Both the appeals are disposed off in terms of the Minutes of Order. (R.S.MOHITE,J)

Order - Status 2: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL ST. NO.14685 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders None Present. CORAM : A.N. MARE REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 08th August, 2016 3 weeks time granted for removing office objections. sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 08.08.16

Order - Status 3: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL ST. NO.14685 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders None Present. CORAM : AJIT N. MARE, REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 29th August, 2016 3 weeks time granted for removing office objections. ­ sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 29.08.16

Order - Status 4: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL ST. NO.14685 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders None Present. CORAM : AJIT N. MARE, REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 19th September, 2016 S.O. 3 weeks as a last chance for removing office objections. ­ sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 19.09.16

Order - Status 10: (FCA 7 of 2017) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL No. 7 OF 2017 Sarika Badal Shinde ….Appellant Vs. Shri Badal Vijay Shinde ….Respondent *********** None for the Appellant Abhijit Patil i/b. Sushant Prabhure for Respondent *********** CORAM : V.M. KANADE & P.R. BORA, JJ DATE : FEBRUARY 07, 2017 P.C. : None for the Appellant. Heard the learned counsel for the Respondent. Perused the appeal memo and the impugned order. Admit. The learned counsel for the Respondent waives service of the notice on behalf of the Respondent. The impugned order is stayed. [ P.R. BORA, J.] [ V.M. KANADE, J.] Vaishali Tikam 1/1 vat

Order - Status 14: 1/9 903-FCA-7-17.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.7 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.271 OF 2019 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.7 OF 2017 . . . . . . . Sarika Badal Shinde versus Badal Vijay Shinde .... Appellant .... Respondent • Mr.Sugandh B. Deshmukh, Advocate for Applicant. • Mr.Sushant Sudhakar Prabhune, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : K. K. TATED & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : 09 th JANUARY, 2020. P.C. : Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By this Family Court Appeal, Appellant/Wife is challenging the judgment and decree dated 08/12/2015 passed by the Family Court, Kolhapur in Petition No.A 33 of 2015 allowing Respondent husband's Petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The main contention of the Appellant is that the said order was passed by the Family Court as ex-arte because no one appeared on behalf of her when the matter was called out for hearing. Both the counsel submit that for last several years, Appellant as well as Respondent are staying separately. Therefore, now it is not possible for them to reconcile the dispute and start living together. Hence, both of them have decided to take divorce by consent before the Family Court at Kolhapur. They further submit that the impugned order passed by Family Court dated 08/12/2015 be set aside. Both the Counsel submit that the matter is settled out of Court. They have tendered Consent Terms dated 09/01/2020 duly signed by the Appellant as well as Respondent along with their parents who are present before this Court. The Appellant as well as the Respondent entered into the witness box. They admitted the contents of Consent Terms as well as the execution thereof. Hence same is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification, which reads thus; "IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2017. DISTRICT – KOLHAPUR IN THE MATTER BETWEEN SARIKA BADAL SHINDE, Age – 30 years, Occu. Service, C/o. Shri. VishwasDattatrayDeshmukh 203,2nd Floor,Atmaram Complex, Near Deshmukh Petrol Pump, At & Post:Asthami, Tal. Roha, Dist. Raigad. …APPELLANT .......(ORG. RESPONDENT) VERSUS BADAL VIJAY SHINDE, Age – 31 years, Occu. Service, 217/7, A Ward, Atharv Apartment, Flat No.8 & 9, Dudhali, Tal. Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur. … RESPONDENT (ORG. PETITIONER) CONSENT TERMS Whereas the Respondent and the Appellant are husband and wife, their marriage having been solemnised at Kolhapur, on 17th of February, 2014 according to the Hindu religion, vaidic rites and ceremonies. Whereas the Respondent and the Appellant have, therefore, without carrying any ill feeling about each other in the future decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent on amicable terms and conditions. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED THAT the Appellant and the Respondent have decided amicably with free consent to dissolve their marriage by virtue of fling a Divorce Petition by mutual Consent. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED THAT the Respondent shall pay to the Appellant an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh only) towards one time lump sum full and fnal settlement of their matrimonial dispute, and on the basis of the aforementioned settlement amount, the parties have agreed to dissolve their Marriage dated 17.2.2014 by Mutual Consent. Out of the settlement amount of Rs.20, 00,000/-, the Respondent shall deposit Rs 5 lakh in the Learned Family Court, Kolhapur on the date of fling of the divorce petition by mutual consent in the Learned Family Court, Kolhapur on 31/1/2020. Both the parties shall appear before the Learned Family Court, Kolhapur on 31/1/2020 and shall fle the divorce petition by mutual consent in the said Court. The remaining amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- (rupees seven lakh ffty thousand only) shall be deposited by the Respondent before the Learned Family Court, Kolhapur on or before 2/3/2020 and the last remaining amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- (rupees seven lakh ffty thousand only) shall be deposited by the Respondent before the Learned Family Court, Kolhapur on or before 10/4/2020 towards the full and fnal settlement for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent and the Appellant shall not claim any amount in future . The Appellant agrees to withdraw the said amount unconditionally from the Learned Family Court, Kolhapur after the grant of decree of divorce in the Divorce Petition by mutual consent. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED THAT the parties have not initiated any other complaint or legal proceedings against each other in any Court and shall end and settle all the disputes without flling any further complaints or legal proceedings against each other. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED THAT the parties will / shall not demand, claim anything cash, Jwellery or in kind or any other claim of whatsoever nature from each other and/or from our family members/relatives apart from the settlement amount mentioned herein above. It is agreed that Appellant will not claim any share in the moveable or immoveable property of Respondent and his parents. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED THAT whereas Respondent is not liable to give anything to the Appellant or to her family at present and in future apart from the settlement amount. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED THAT the parties after divorce will be at liberty to remarry with our any new life partner as per their sweet will and both parties have no any objection for the same against each other. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED THAT the parties after seeking the divorce shall not lodge/fle any 7 / 9 903-FCA-7-17.odt complaint in any police station and not fle any case in any court against each other to harass, fortune, blackmail and for recovery of any claim of whatsoever nature. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED THAT after the divorce, the Appellant will be known by her maiden name i.e. Sarika Deshmukh and she will not use, raise, call or address the name and surname of the Respondent in future. Similarly, the Respondent will not raise call or address the name of the Appellant as his wife in future. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED by the parties that they will abide by all terms and conditions of this Consent Terms and in case if anyone of the parties breaches any terms or conditions, then the other party will have full right to initiate legal actions against the other party. AGREED, CONFIRMED AND DECLARED by the parties that all the above terms and conditions this Consent Terms are prepared with full understanding and willingly and without any undue infuence or pressure. Dated the 9th day of January, 2020 Appellant: Sarika Badal Shinde Advocate for the Appellant Respondent: Badal Vijay Shinde Advocate for the Respondent Witnesses: 2." Both the Counsel submit that they are filing their consent Petition before the Family Court at Kolhapur for divorce by mutual consent. Both the Counsel and Family Court may be directed to entertain the same immediately without waiting for cooling period i.e. six months as the parties are residing separately for last six years. If the Petition for divorce by consent is filed before the Family Court at Kolhapur, Family Court to decide the same without waiting for cooling period i.e. six months as both the parties are residing separately for last more than six years. Undertaking given by both the parties in Consent Terms is accepted. Hence following order: (a) Family Court Appeal No.7/2017 is disposed of in terms of Consent Terms by setting aside the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 08/12/2015 passed by learned Family Court, Kolhapur in Petition No.A 33 of 2015. (b) Registry is directed to draw the decree accordingly. (c) No order as to costs. (d) In view of the disposal of Family Court Appeal in terms of Consent Terms, nothing survives in Civil Application. Hence the Civil Application stands dismissed as infructous. (e) Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.961 OF 2005 IN REJECTED CASE NO.1154 OF 2017 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri H.G. Misar, Advocate for Appellant Present. CORAM : URMILA S. JOSHI­ PHALKE REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 15th June, 2017 In view of the dismissal of Civil Application No.960/2005 vide Court's order dated 04/08/2007 and First Appeal Stamp numbered as Rejected Case, this Civil Application Stamp does not survive. sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 15.06.17