All Cases

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4184 OF 2005 Nivruti Applicant. Pundalik Waghmare. Versus. The Respondent. State of Maharashtra. Shri G.M.Savagave for the Applicant. Ms.M.M.Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the Respondent. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATED : 11th July, 2005. P.C.: Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The prayer in this Application is for modification of Condition (d) incorporated in the order dated 25th February 2005. Grievance of the Applicant is that from February 2005 till today the charge sheet is not filed and as a result thereof the Applicant is required to go to the Police Station every Monday. There is substance in the grievance made by the Applicant and said condition needs to be suitably modified. Hence the Application is disposed of by passing following order: (i)Condition (d) in order dated 25th February 2005 is modified and will now read as under: "The Applicant shall report to Sadar Bazar Police Station on every first Monday of every calender month between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. till filing of the charge sheet." (ii)Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. Judge.

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4688 OF 2005 Jaiprakash Kailashnath Upadhyay .. Petitioner. V/s. Adishakti Hindi Prachar Samiti through the Secretary & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.N.R.Bubna for the petitioner. Mr.C.K.Thomas for for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr.R.S.Apte for respondent No.3. CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 13th November, 2006. P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to furnish a copy of the appointment order on record. S.O. to one week. (A.P.DESHPANDE,J)

Order - Status 13: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE. WRIT PETITION NO. 4688 OF 2005. Office Notes,Office : Memoranda of Coram, : Court's or Judge's orders appearances,Court 's : orders or directions : and Registrar's orders. : N.P.Bubna for the petitioner. C.K.Thomas for respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 19th Septemeber 2006. P.C.: . Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to file service report on record. He is directed to file it in office. Office to verify. (V.C.DAGA, J.)

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4688 OF 2005 Jaiprakash K. Upadhyay .... Petitioner Vs. Adishakti Hindi Prachar Samiti & Ors. .... Respondents Shri N.R. Bubna for the Petitioner. Shri C.K. Thomas for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Sarvasri M.S. Lagu i/b R.S. Apte for the Respondent No.3. CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 30, 2006 P.C: Heard. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the School Tribunal dated 7-5-2005 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of limitation, without disclosing sufficient cause for the same. The Tribunal has arrived at the clear finding that the services of the petitioner were terminated from 30-4-2002 and has disbelieved the claim of the petitioner that he was rendering services in the school till 16-8-2003 and therefore the appeal filed in the year 2003 has been held to be barred by the law of limitation. In spite of repeated queries, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has not been able to point out cogent material on record which could reveal the said finding of the School Tribunal to be either perverse or contrary to the materials on record. Considering the limited scope for interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in such orders, and where the order rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay in filing the appeal discloses the finding arrived at on the basis of analysis of the materials on record and which cannot be said to be either perverse or contrary to the materials on record, there is no case made out for interference in the impugned order. The discretion exercised by the School Tribunal while rejecting the request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal also cannot be said to be either perverse or having been exercised in arbitrary manner. Mere reference to the letter of 16-11-2002 by the Education Officer or the affidavit of one of the assistant teachers of the school claiming the petitioner having been in employment till 16-8-2003 cannot prove that the petitioner had rendered services till 16-8-2003, particularly in view of the undisputed fact that the petitioner was not allowed to sign the muster roll after 30-4-2002. The affidavit of the teacher, apart from making a bald claim about continuing service rendered by the petitioner in the said school during the period from 13-6-2001 till 16-8-2003, nowhere discloses as to what subjects the petitioner was teaching in the school and what was the time-table allotted to him. So also, the letter of 16-11-2002 of the Education Officer merely brings to the notice of the management about some complaint made by the petitioner on 8-11-2002 about refusal on the part of the management to allow the complainant to sign the muster roll as well as failure on the part of the management to pay the salary to the teachers. It does not specifically refers to the grievance of the petitioner himself as such. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the finding arrived at by the School Tribunal and it does not warrant any interference in writ jurisdiction. The petition, therefore, fails and is rejected. (R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.) sjs/1130wp4688.5

Order - Status 4: Uday S. Jagtap IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2022 Nana Bhondiba Desai & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ..... ….. None for the petitioners Mr. Y.M. Nakhwa, APP for the respondent - State CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. DATED : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2022. P.C. The aforesaid petition has been circulated by the petitioner no.1, who appears in person. However, the petitioner is absent. Stand over to 16th November, 2022. PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 5: 902-WP-2150-2022.doc SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Digitally signed by SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Date: 2022.09.30 14:39:38 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2022 Nana Dhondiba Desai and Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Nana Dhondiba Desai – Petitioner in person. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & S. M. MODAK, JJ. DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER 2022 P.C. : Heard. Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 17th November, 2022 . Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the respondent no.1. In addition to Court notice, the petitioner who appears in person to serve the respondent no.2, by private notice and file affidavit of service before the next date. S. M. MODAK, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 8: 117-wp.2150.2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2150 OF 2022 Nana Dhondiba Desai and Ors. Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. Respondents Mr. Nana Dhondiba Desai, Petitioner No.1 in-person. Mr. K. V. Saste, A.P.P for the Respondent No.1–State. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & $R. N. LADDHA, JJ.$ : 17 th NOVEMBER 2022 $DATE$ $P.C.:$ Mentioned out of turn at 10:30 a.m. The petitioner No.1, who appears in person requests for taking up the matter today itself. Considering, there are 176 matters on board as well as $2.$ fixed and part-heard matters at 2:30 p.m., it is not possible to take up the aforesaid matter today. $overline{3}$ . Hence, list the matter under the caption 'For Direction' on 3 rd January 2023 at 2:30 p.m., for fixing date of hearing. $R. N. LADDHA, J.$ REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2022 Nana Dhondiba Desai & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ..... Mr. Nana D. Desai, petitioner no.1 in person present in Court Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for the respondent - State ….. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. DATED : 3rd JANUARY, 2023. P.C. Vide order dated 29th September 2022, notice was issued to the respondents returnable on 17th November 2022. In addition to the Court Notice, the petitioner who appears in person, was directed to serve the respondent no.2 by private notice and file affidavit of service before the next date. We are informed by the petitioner no.1, who appears in person, that he has filed an affidavit of service in the Registry. So far as the office noting is concerned, perusal of the same shows that notice issued to the respondent no.2 is received back unserved with the remark "respondent is admitted in hospital for treatment of brain stroke". Hence, considering the office noting, we deem it appropriate to issue fresh notice to the respondent no.2, returnable on 23rd February, 2023. Notice to indicate that an endeavor shall be made to dispose of the petition finally at the stage of admission, time permitting. Learned APP to also ensure that the concerned officer of the concerned police station informs the respondent no.2 of the next date. In the meantime, till the next date, the trial Court shall defer the proceeding pending against the petitioners. [PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.] [REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.]

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2022 Nana Dhondiba Desai & Ors. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra $&$ Anr. Respondents Nana Dhondiba Desai – Petitioner No.1 in person. Mr. Y.M.Nakhwa, A.P.P for the Respondent-State. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : $23^{rd}$ FEBRUARY, 2023 $P.C.$ : Mentioned out of turn at 10.30 a.m. The petitioner No.1, who appears in person, requests for a fixed date. Stand over to 20 th March, 2023 at 4.00 p.m. $2.$ PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 15: nob-wp-2150.22.doc BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Digitally signed by BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Date: 2023.03.21 13:59:09 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2022 Nana Dhondiba Desai & Ors. … Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents ****** Mr. N. D. Desai - Petitioner No.1, present in-person. Mrs. Sharmila Kaushik, APP for the Respondent-State. ****** CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & R. N. LADDHA, JJ. DATE : 20 th MARCH, 2023 P.C. :- . Not on board. Taken on board, as the regular bench is not available. Petitioner no.1, appearing in-person, states that he has come from Balgaum (Karnataka). He states that this matter was to be taken up today. He intends that the matter be listed on 23 March 2023, and be placed on the Supplementary Board, as previously ordered by the regular bench. Stand over to 23 March 2023, to be placed on Supplementary Board. [R. N. LADDHA, J.] [G. S. KULKARNI, J.]

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2150 OF 2022 Mr. Nana Dhondiba Desai & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Nana D. Desai, Petitioner No.1 in person. Mr. Swarup D. Patil for Respondent No.2. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for Respondent No.1-State. CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & M.M. SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 27th MARCH, 2023. P.C. : Mr. Swarup Patil, learned counsel appears for Respondent No.2 seeks time to file his Vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent No.2 and also to file reply. Time is granted. Stand over to 10th April, 2023 High on Board. The interim order passed on 03.01.2023 is extended till the next date. [ M.M. SATHAYE, J ] [ SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J. ]

Order - Status 18: GAIKWAD Date: 2023.04.11 10:24:08 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2022 Nana Bhondiba Desai and Ors. … Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. … Respondents ------------------- Mr. Nana D. Desai-petitioner in person . Mr. J.P. Yagnik-APP for the State. CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & M.M. SATHAYE, J.J. DATED : APRIL 10, 2023. P.C. : . Petitioner is present in person. Nobody is present for respondent no.2. On 27th March 2023, Mr. Swarup Patil, learned Advocate had appeared for respondent no.2, he had sought time to file Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.2 and also to file reply. So far Vakaltnama has not been filed, reply also has not been filed on behalf of respondent no.2, as stated earlier respondent no.2 is absent and nobody is present on behalf of respondent no.2. In order to grant further opportunity to respondent no.2, put up on 25th April 2023 'High on Board'. Meanwhile, Investigating Officer to personally remain present before this Court on the next date together with copy of the charge-sheet. Interim relief granted earlier to continue till the next date. (M.M. SATHAYE, J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J)

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2150 OF 2022 Mr. Nana Dhondiba Desai & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Nana D. Desai, Petitioner in person. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Shantanu Raktate a/w. Mr. Amar Parsekar, Mr. Saurav Katkar i/b. Mr. Swarup Patil, for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & M.M. SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 25th APRIL, 2023. P.C. : For the reasons separately recorded, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (1), which reads as under:- "Wherefore the petitioners most humbly pray that F.I.R.No.49 of 2015 & charge-sheet / complaint lodged by Respondent No.2 / original complainant within the Chandgad Police Station vide F.I.R.No.49 of 2015 and Charge Sheet U/S 379, 411 R/w 34 of I.P.C., please be quashed and set aside, on such terms & conditions, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit & proper." Rule is made absolute in the above terms. [ M.M. SATHAYE, J ] [ SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J. ]

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2022 Mr. Nana Dhondiba Desai and Ors. ..Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Nana Desai Petitioner-in-person. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for Respondent No.1/State. Mr. Shantanu Raktate a/w Mr. Amar Parsekar, Mr. Saurav Katkar i/b Swarup Patil for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND M.M.SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 25th APRIL 2023 : JUDGMENT (PER: M.M.SATHAYE,J.): Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service for Respondent No.1/State. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 waives service. Heard finally by consent of parties. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrP.C.), the Petitioners are praying for quashing of FIR No. 49 of 2015 registered with Chandgad Police Station, District Kolhapur for offences punishable SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2023.05.30 17:38:28 +0530 under Sections 379, 411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and also for quashing of the consequent Criminal Case bearing RCC No. 65 of 2015 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Chandgad, District Kolhapur. Office report shows that pursuant to interaction dated 02.06.2022, the Petitioner No.1 Mr. Nana D. Desai was found to be able to put forth his case appropriately before the Court and as such requirement of scrutiny by the Registrar under the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, is duly passed by the Petitioner No.1. Accordingly, heard Petitioner No.1 Mr. Nana D. Desai, who appeared in person for and on behalf of all the Petitioners as their power of attorney holder. Heard Mr. Yagnik, learned APP for Respondent No.1- State and Mr. Raktate for Respondent No.2 original complainant/informant. Perused the record. Petitioner No.1 has taken us through the averments in the FIR filed by the Respondent No.2 as well as other documents produced by him on record. It is the case of the Petitioners that Respondent No.2 along with other persons who are members of Chamber of Commerce, were demanding illegal amount of Rs.25,000/- from Petitioner No.2, who refused to pay and therefore, Respondent No.2 has falsely implicated the Petitioners in this case. Be that as it may. Since this is a petition for quashing, we have to go by the averments in the FIR, considering them at face value. Perusal of FIR dated 10.04.2015 shows that it is the case of Respondent No.2 that he has a karkhana by named Bell-steel Industries in the Industrial Estate at Shinoli. It is alleged that on 09.04.2015, at evening time when Respondent No.2 was strolling around the premises of his karkhana, he found that two couplings from his karkhana (worth Rs.5,000/- according to FIR) were missing. Therefore, it is alleged that he went to the Chamber of Commerce office and informed the committee members and they went to the The Petitioner No. 1's shop, who is a scrap dealer and inquired about it. It is alleged by Respondent No.2 that he found the two couplings in Petitioners' shop, which were stolen from his karkhana. So also it is alleged that some more stolen goods from one 'Dipanjali Metals' were also found in the shop of the Petitioners. It is alleged that when he inquired with Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 about the presence of the alleged stolen goods in their shop, no satisfactory answers were received and therefore, the FIR was lodged against the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and unknown people. It is argued on behalf of the Petitioners that this FIR is based on assumption that the Petitioners have purchased goods stolen from Respondent No.2's karkhana and one Dipanjali Metals. It is argued that Respondent No.2 himself has acted as if he is an Investigating Officer and has already concluded the issue about alleged theft and on this conclusion of theft, the FIR is filed. It is further argued that the police or the investigating agency is supposed to look into the veracity of the claim before registering the FIR and without that being done, the impugned FIR is registered under Section 379 (theft) and 411 (receiving stolen property dishonesty) of IPC. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2/informant opposed this petition contending inter alia that the averments in the FIR are sufficient to attribute specific role to the Petitioners and that coupled with material collected during investigation, is sufficient to show that the Petitioners must face trial. Learned APP has taken us through the material collected during investigation. Careful reading of Section 378 of IPC (defining theft), shows that whoever intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. Taking these allegation in the FIR at its face value, it is not disclosed therefrom, how the Petitioners have taken dishonestly the alleged two couplings from karkhana of Respondent No.2. The FIR is filed after Respondent No.2 has himself taken up a role of investigating agency by gathering people from Chamber of Commerce, directly going to the shop of the Petitioners who are scrap dealers, finding out the alleged stolen couplings and identifying them, asking questions to Petitioners and then not being satisfied with their answers. This all is done without involvement of actual investigating agency i.e. police. We fail to understand how the police have accepted this usurpation of role by a private citizen such as Respondent No.2. It is not the case that Respondent No.2 has lodged complaint against unknown persons after finding that certain goods were missing from his karkhana and then during investigation, the Petitioners are found to be in possession thereof with stolen goods identified and therefore, they are accused. Also perusal of Section 410 of IPC (defining stolen property) shows that property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft is stolen property, but if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to it, then it ceases to be stolen property. In the matter at hand, the averments in FIR do not disclose clearly, how the so-called lack of satisfaction of Respondent No.2 about possession of the goods in the shop of Petitioners, can have any bearing on the issue of Petitioners being legally entitled to possess those goods or otherwise. In other words, the necessary ingredients of 'stolen property' and its alleged receipt by the Petitioners dishonestly (Section 411 of IPC), are not at all fulfilled. Another aspect worth noting is that the impugned FIR makes a reference to finding out certain goods allegedly stolen from Dipanjali Metals for which the Petitioners are accused. It is not case that this Dipanjali Metals have also filed any such complaint of theft. Overall, the manner in which Respondent No.2 has filed the impugned FIR and the manner in which its cognizance is taken, can not be sustained. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that this is a fit case to quash the impugned FIR and the consequent criminal case. The facts of this case, clearly cull-out a situation that falls in one of the exceptions carved out in the case of State of Haryana v/s. C. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. Therefore, the Petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, we pass following order: ORDER The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (1), which reads as under:- "Wherefore the petitioners most humbly pray that F.I.R.No.49 of 2015 & charge-sheet / complaint lodged by Respondent No.2 / original complainant within the Chandgad Police Station vide F.I.R.No.49 of 2015 and Charge Sheet U/S 379, 411 R/w 34 of I.P.C., please be quashed and set aside, on such terms & conditions, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit & proper." Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (M. M. SATHAYE, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE,J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 17th January, 2020 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 07/02/2020 . 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 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar And Ors ....RESPONDENT for Petitioner for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 30th November, 2022 P.C. : Wrongly on board. Remove from the Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 11: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 439 OF 2022 Parekh Market Premises Co-op Ltd. ....APPLICANT V/S Shree Padmanabh Builders, Ghatkopar And Ors. ...RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh And Ors PETITIONER V/S Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar And Ors RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15545 OF 2022 Mr. Nirmal Madanlal Tater And Anr PETITIONER V/S Shri Padmanabh Builders And Ors RESPONDENT Mr. Amit Shroff a/w Ashna Shah i/by HARISH SHROFF AND CO for Petitioner Kishore D. Shah for Respondent No.1 & 2 Mr. Karl K. Shroff i/by Mr. Kalpesh Nansi Adv. for R. No. in wp No.15545/22 & Petioner in WP 11053/2019 Mr. Sachin Punde, Adv. for R. No. 6 & 7 in CRA & Petitioner in WP CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 23rd January, 2023 P.C. : S. O. to 06/02/2023 ( at 2.30 pm). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 439 OF 2022 Parekh Market Premises Co-op Ltd. ....APPLICANT V/S Shree Padmanabh Builders, Ghatkopar And Ors. ...RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15545 OF 2022 Mr. Nirmal Madanlal Tater And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Shri Padmanabh Builders And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 20th February, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 10/04/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.439 OF 2022 [Parekh Vs. Shree Padmanabh] WITH WRIT PETITION NO.15545 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.11053 OF 2019 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders. Mr. Amit Shroff, Advocate a/w. Ashna Shah i/b Harish Shroff & Co. for Applicant in CRA/439/2022. Mr. Sachin S. Punde, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP/15545/2022. Mr. Karl K. Shroff, Advocate i/b. Kalpesh J. Nansi for the Petitioner in WP/11053/2019. Mr.V.V. Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate a/w. K.D. Shah for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in all matters. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 25th APRIL, 2023 P.C.: Due to paucity of time, both sides agree that the matters can be heard post-vacation. By way of interim arrangement, learned counsel of both sides agree that the affidavit-in-evidence can be filed in the suit, however, the cross-examinations may not be conducted till these matters are heard by this Court on the next occasion. Therefore, this arrangement shall continue till the next date of listing before this Court. Stand over to 25.7.2023. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) Deshmane (PS)

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 439 OF 2022 Parekh Market Premises Co-op Ltd. ...Applicant. Versus Shree Padmanabh Builders, Ghatkopar & Ors. ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15545 OF 2022 Nirmal Madanlal Tater & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus Padmanabh Builders & Ors. ...Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh & Ors. ...Petitioner. Versus Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar & Ors. ...Respondent. Mr. Amit Shroff i/b Harish Shroff and Co. for the applicant in CRA & respondent No.1 in WP 11053/2019. Mr. Kishore D. Shah for the respondent No. 1 & 2 in CRA and respondent no.1 in WP 11053/2019. Mr. Kalpesh Nansi for respondent No 3 & 5. in CRA & WP 15545/2022 & Petitioner in WP 11053/2019. Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : July 25, 2023. P. C. : Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on production board. $Patil_{SR}$ 1 of 2 Application has been moved seeking extension of ad-interim relief granted vide order dated 25th April 2023. List the matter on 31st July 2023 . Interim arrangement recorded in the order dated 25th April 2023 to continue till the next date. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Amit Shroff i/b Mr. Kalpesh Nansi for the Petitioners. Mr. Virendra V. Tulzapurkar i/b Mr. Kishore D. Shah for Respondent No. 1. Ms. Ashna Shah i/b Mr. Harish Shroff & Co. for Respondent No.4. —————— —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : July 31, 2023. P. C. : Heard. The challenge in the Petition is to the order dated 24th April 2019 allowing the Notice of Motion No. 3320 of 2015 preferred by the original Respondent No. 1 seeking recall of the order dated 15th July, 2015. Heard Mr. Amit Shroff, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Dr. Virendra V. Tulzapurkar, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 and Ms. Ashna Shah, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4. Mr. Shroff, Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submit that the Petitioners are one of the unit holders of first floor of the property known as Parekh Market and would submit that in view of termination of the Power of Attorney by Respondent No. 2 on 7th February, 2000 the Respondent No. 1 does not acquire any right to continue with the proceeding. He would further submit that the termination was challenged by the Respondent No. 1 which was taken right up to Apex Court in an application filed by Respondent No. 2 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and has been held to be time barred. He has taken to this Court to the order 24th November, 2006 passed by the Single Judge of this Court holding that the counter claim which was filed on 9th August, 2004 will not be maintainable in terms of the provisions of the Limitation Act. He would further submit that the Power of Attorney was in respect of the tenants who were occupying part of the property admeasuring 2455 sq. ft. and has nothing to do with the Respondent No. 4 society in which the Petitioners are one of the Unit holders. He has invited the attention of this Court to the Power of Attorney dated 8th June, 1990 which is at page No. 204 of the Petition and would submit that the proceedings in question have been instituted on the basis of this Power of Attorney. He would submit that the power which was given under the Power of Attorney was to file against the occupants of the structures which forms part of the portion of land admeasuring 2455 sq. ft. He would further submit that the said Power of Attorney having been terminated which challenge has failed right up to Apex court, Respondent No. 1 does not acquire any right to act on behalf of Respondent No. 2. He would further contend that the agreement which was executed with the unit holders was on 6th February, 1987 which was prior to the execution of the Power of Attorney. He would further urge that the Trial Court while allowing the Notice of Motion has failed to take into consideration the orders of the Single Judge of this Court as well as the Apex Court which upheld that the counter claim filed was barred by limitation. He would urge that as the challenge to the termination of the Power of Attorney has failed, the Power of Attorney cannot be said to be subsisting. He would further assail the finding of the Trial Court on the ground that the Trial Court has erroneously recorded that the affidavits filed by Defendant Nos. 2 to 4, no ground has been taken that the Power of Attorney concerned only the tenants and not the Defendant Nos. 2 to 4. He would further submit that the Trial Court has given specific findings in respect of the Power of Attorney being an irrevocable Power of Attorney was given for consideration coupled with interest. He would urge that by these findings, the challenge if any, to the Power of Attorney has been foreclosed by the Trial Court. Per contra, Dr. Virendra Tuljapurkar, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent-Plaintiff submits that the Notice of Motion was taken out by the Respondent for setting aside the order dated 15th July, 2015 listing the matter for dismissal under Order 39 Rule 11 of the CPC. He would further contend that the entire issue which was for consideration before the Trial Court was the application of provisions of Order 39 Rule 11 of the CPC and it is in that context, that the Trial Court has examined the Power of Attorney and has held that the provisions of Order 39 Rule 11 is not attracted in the present case. He would further submit that the order dated 15th July, 2015 was passed as the Trial Court had directed the original Plaintiff to appear in the Court. He would submit that the original Plaintiff, if required, will appear before the Court and in the present case, the only inquiry is the impugned order permitting recall of order of dismissal. He would further urge that in exercise to the power under Article 227, this Court may not go into the merits of an interlocutory order. Considered the submissions and perused the papers. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has made submissions as regards the validity of the Power of Attorneys which have been executed by the Respondent No. 2 in favour of Respondent No. 1. Perusal of the impugned order dated 24th April, 2019 discloses that the application was moved seeking recall of the order dated 15th July, 2015 keeping the matter for dismissal for non compliance of the order directing presence of the original Plaintiff by invoking the powers under Order 39 Rule 11 of the CPC. The Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion seeking recall of the order contends that there was a development agreement entered into in favour of the Respondent No. 1 and the possession was handed over for valuable consideration on a partly developed property and building was constructed thereon and various tenements were sold. The contention advanced was that Respondent No. 1 was granted irrevocable Power of Attorney as well as other Power of Attorney as required for development of the said properties and as such, considering the provisions of section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 the Power of Attorney is a power coupled with interest and hence, irrevocable. Apart from the prayer of seeking recall of the order an alternate prayer was sought that the Applicant be substituted in place of the Plaintiff under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which was not allowed and only the relief of recall of the order of dismissal was sought. It is in the context of the contentions taken up by the Respondent No. 1 for the purpose of assailing the order of dismissal that the Trial Court has gone into the issue as to whether the Power of Attorney is a power coupled with interest. After observing the provisions of section 2022 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 the Court has held that at this stage the Defendant No. 2 to 4 cannot challenge the validity of the power of Attorney which would otherwise be the matter in issue and can only be decided when both the parties will get an opportunity to lead evidence into that effect. The order of the Trial Court is clear in paragraph No. 10 that the issue which was being considered by the Trial Court was only the order dated 15th July, 2015 listing the matter for dismissal by invoking the provisions under Order 39 Rule 11 which according to the Trial Court was not applicable in the given circumstances. The Trial Court specifically observed that the documents place on record by the parties are subject matter of the evidence and therefore, for continuation of the suit on merits, the order dated 15th July, 2015 needs to be recalled and the suit needs to be proceeded on merits. In my view upon reading of the impugned order 24th April, 2019 it cannot be said that by the said order, the Trial Court has conclusively held that the Power of Attorneys which have been pressed into service by the Respondent No. 1 are irrevocable Power of Attorney given for consideration coupled with interest. On the contrary it appears that the Trial Court has held that the documents which are placed are the subject matter of evidence and only for the purpose of continuation of the suit on merits, at that stage, the order dated 15th July, 2015 was recalled. Considering that the impugned order only recalls the order of dismissal dated 15th July, 2015 no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition being devoid of merits stand dismissed. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1944 OF 2003 Shri Devidas Sadashiv Savale aged adult, P.B. No.9684, H.A.L. Aircraft Division, Nasik ... Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032 Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims Nasik Division, Nasik through its Deputy Director (R) and Member-Secretary, having its office at Adivasi Vikas Bhavan Old Agra Road, Nasik Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. through its Deputy General Manager (Planning and Tooling) and Disciplinary Authority, Aircraft Division, Nasik Executive Magistrate Niphad Dist., Nasik ... Respondents Mr.R.K. Mendadkar for Petitioner Mr.C.R. Sonawane, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 Mr.A.M. Vernekar for Respondent No.3 CORAM: V.G. PALSHIKAR & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: JANUARY 27, 2005 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.): . The Petitioner questions the invalidation of his caste certificate by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The facts in this case are not disputed. The Petitioner is in employment with Respondent No.3 Hindustan Aeronautics Limited since 1978. The Petitioner claims that he belongs to the Mahadeo Koli tribe which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe under the Presidential notifications issued under Article 342 (1) of the Constitution of India. He was issued a caste certificate by the Executive Magistrate, Niphad, who was then the Competent Authority to issue such a certificate. It appears that the caste certificate was then sent for verification by the employer to the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe claims. This was done in 1994. The Petitioner appeared before the Committee without prejudice to his contention that the Committee was acting without jurisdiction. The caste certificate of the Petitioner was invalidated by the Committee on coming to the conclusion that the Petitioner did not belong to the Mahadeo Koli Tribe on 19.10.1995. Consequent upon the caste certificate being invalidated, the employer issued a chargesheet to the Petitioner alleging misconduct on the part of the Petitioner for having obtained employment on the basis of a false caste certificate. A domestic enquiry was held. The enquiry officer found the Petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. A second show-cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on 27.1.2003 directing the Petitioner to show cause against the proposed punishment of dismissal. The Petitioner thereupon filed the present petition. When the petition was admitted on 25.8.2003, interim relief was granted injuncting the Respondents from terminating the services of the Petitioner. Earlier, the petitioner furnished an undertaking on 22.8.2003 averring that he would not claim any benefit as a member of the Mahadeo Koli tribe while in employment with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. The principal contention raised in this Petition is that the caste certificate has been invalidated by a Committee which had no jurisdiction to do so. There is no dispute that it was only by a Government Resolution issued on 11.6.1998 that such certificates could be verified by the scrutiny committee. These Committees which were functioning earlier by the Government Resolution of 23.1.1995 were reconstituted and conferred a specific jurisdiction enabling them to verify the caste certificates of employees of Central Government undertakings. By this Government Resolution, the Committee has been given wider powers than the earlier committee. The contention of the Petitioner that the jurisdiction to scrutinise the claims of employees of Respondent No.3 was conferred upon the Committee only by Resolution of 11.6.1998 therefore, must be accepted. In our opinion, therefore, the invalidation of the Petitioner's caste certificate by the Committee by its order dated 19.10.1995 cannot be sustained as the Committee had no jurisdiction to entertain the Reference made by the employer. In the case of Bhaskar Sitaram Koli v/s. Executive Magistrate, Thane & Ors., (W.P. 1414 of 1995) the Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us Palshikar, J. was a Member), this Court has already held that the jurisdiction of the Committee to scrutinise the claims of the employees in respect of their caste was conferred upon it for the first time on 11.6.1998. The reference made in 1994 by the employer to the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the invalidation of the certificate by the Committee is therefore, set aside. The action taken by the management pursuant to the invalidation of the caste certificate also cannot be sustained and, therefore, must be quashed and set aside. However, it would be open to the employer to refer the certificate obtained by the Petitioner in 1975 for verification by the Caste Scrutiny Committee which has been constituted pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 11.6.1998. Assuming the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds that the certificate issued to the Petitioner needs to be invalidated, the Petitioner who has been in service since 1978 will be continued in service and not be subjected to any disciplinary proceedings on this count. Rule is, thus, made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.

Order - Status 8: Dusane 1/1 wp6529.2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6529 OF 2016 Fernandes John Salestin .... Petitioner Vs. Dy. Collector (ENC) & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. V.S. Deokar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A.R. Mitkari, AGP for Respondent no.1 – State Mr. R. Narula i/by Jhangiani Narula & Associates for Respondent no.2. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 17th June, 2016 P.C. 1 Mr. Deokar, the learned advocate for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the writ petition. The petition is allowed to be withdrawn. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)