All Cases

Order - Status 5: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1258 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant V/s. Bhimrao Mahadeo Kadam ...Respondent …. Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the appellant/State. Mr. Hemant Sharma i/b Mr. Ganesh Gole, advocate for the respondent. …. CORAM : N.B. SURYAWANSHI, J. DATE : 30TH AUGUST, 2019 P.C. : Learned advocate Mr. Hemant Sharma h/f advocate for the respondent prays for an adjournment. Stand over to 27/09/2019. ( N.B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPEAL NO. 1258 OF 2002 The State Of Maharashtra ....Appellant V/S Bhimarao Mahadeo Kadam ....Respondent Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, A.P.P.For Appellant Mr.Ganesh Gole ( For Res. No.1) For Respondent CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM, J DATE : 14th October, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 16/10/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPEAL NO. 1258 OF 2002 The State Of Maharashtra ....Appellant V/S Bhimarao Mahadeo Kadam ....Respondent CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM, J DATE : 16th October, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 17/10/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPEAL NO. 1258 OF 2002 The State Of Maharashtra ....Appellant V/S Bhimarao Mahadeo Kadam ....Respondent CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM, J DATE : 17th October, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 18/10/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.1258 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra …..Appellant Versus Bhimrao Mahadeo Kadam …..Respondent None for Appellant. None for Respondent. CORAM : SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATE : 29th NOVEMBER, 2019 P. C. : Neither the parties nor their counsel are present, stand over after four weeks. [ BHARATI DANGRE, J. ]

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1258 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra )….Appellant V/s. Bhimrao Mahadeo Kadam ) Age about 32 years, R/o. Gude, Tal.Panhala ) Dist. Kolhapur )....Respondent ---- Ms.Pallavi Dabholkar APP for appellant/State. Mr.Dheeraj Patil a/w Ms.Tanuja Parashave i/by Mr.Drupad S.Patil for respondent no.1. CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J DATE : 14.1.2020 ORAL JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal impugning an order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge & Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolhapur acquitting accused of offences punishable under sections 7 (Offence relating to public servant being bribed), section 13(1)(d) (Criminal misconduct by a public servant), read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (the said Act). The facts in brief are that accused was working as a candidate in record section in the office of Tahasildar, Panhala, Kolhapur. I am told, the candidate's role in the office of Tahasildar is to work as an Assistant to the Record Keeper. One Sambhaji Rajaram Jadhav-complainant (PW-1) had applied for certified copies of mutation entries on 22.9.1997. Photocopying charge etc. was actually coming to Rs.36.45/- but when complainant approached accused on 25.9.1997, accused demanded a sum of Rs.100/- which included Rs.36.45/- as copying fee and the balance as bribe/illegal gratification. Accused therefore, filed complaint to Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) for taking necessary action. After obtaining sanction, a trap was decided to be laid. Two panchas were called and necessary instructions and formalities were completed. The raiding party thereafter went to the office of accused on 29.9.1997 and caught accused red handed with the marked currency note of Rs.100/-. The post trap panchanama was also drawn and the crime was registered against accused. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was lodged, charges were framed, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The stand of accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was that when complainant had come to apply for certified copy, he did not have money with him so accused helped him by borrowing Rs.100/- from somebody else and on 29.9.1997 complainant came to return that money of Rs.100/-. I have to be candid that I find this stand rather strange because it is not the case of accused that complainant was known to him very well or is a close friend. At the same time, I am not discarding that stand as imaginary because one never knows there could be some good people who help others. To drive home the charge, prosecution relied on evidence of 5 witnesses viz. Sambhaji Rajaram Jadhav (PW-1), Complainant ; Dastagir Babasaheb Mulla (PW-2) who was the Stenographer in the office of Tahasildar ; Jaywant Vasantrao Kothawale (PW-3) Clerk/Record keeper in the office of Tahasildar ; Shivajirao Satyappa Kambale (PW-4) Nayab Tahasildar at Panhala ; and Vinayak Shivram Tilekar (PW-5), Police Inspector in ACB. The trial Court after considering the evidence and the documents that were filed, by giving a very detailed order and judgment dated 9.8.2002 acquitted accused and this order of acquittal is impugned in this appeal. For the sake of brevity, I am not going into all those details which the trial Court has gone into, because I feel certain facts as stated by Complainant and the prosecution witnesses itself are enough to dismiss this appeal. PW-1 who is complainant, in his examination-in-chief states that accused went through the contents of his application and asked him to attend the office on 25.9.1997 and when complainant went back on 25.9.1997 and asked accused, accused informed complainant (PW-1) that he will have to deposit a sum of Rs.36.45/- by way of legal charges against 3 mutation entries. PW-1 also says that accused asked him to deposit Rs.100/- so that the balance amount after paying Rs.36.45/- to the Government will be his bribe which is a condition precedent to issue the mutation extracts. As per PW-1 he did not have that much money with him and accused asked complainant to attend the office again on 27.9.1997 with money. In his cross-examination PW-1 says that it is not correct to say that accused demanded sum of Rs.36.45/- by way of copying fees and the remaining amount by way of bribe. This itself goes to the root of the matter and this contradiction itself is enough to knock the matter down. PW-3 is a Record Keeper in the office of Tahasildar. In his cross-examination he says that he received all the papers from accused on 25.9.1997 and thereafter no work remained with accused after 25.9.1997. He also says that employee candidates/accused used to sit outside the record room. The employee candidates were not empowered by him to collect money or copying fees and the employee candidates used to direct clients to contact PW-3 for paying the fees. Therefore, PW-3 who is the prosecution witness says that accused was never empowered to collect any money and all the applicants are directed to him for paying the necessary fees. PW-4 who is Nayab Tahasildar says that copying candidates like accused are not paid by Government and they do not receive salary or remuneration from Government and he was also not a Government employee or Government servant. Therefore, the applicability of section 7 of the said Act itself is in question. Prosecution has not led any evidence to prove PW-4 wrong. Exh.14 is copy of the application made by complainant and Exh.15, 16 & 17 are the extract of mutation entries. PW-4 says that extract was ready on 25.9.1997 and all compliance was done. He also says that he has endorsed papers and sent them to record section for delivering copies. PW-4 says that general record book is maintained by record keeper and record keeper used to deliver copies to applicant. PW-4 also endorsed what PW-3 says that it is the responsibility of record keeper to receive fees from applicant, issue receipt and receive amount. He says that Exh.15, 16 & 17 are the copies that were ready and prepared on 25.9.1997 under his signature. PW-4 also says it is not the responsibility of the employee candidate to receive fees, prepare copies and deliver the copies. If one looks at Exh.15, 16 & 17 it says the application was received on 22.9.1997 [ uDdy vtZ vkyk rkjh[k ], the copies were ready on 23.9.1997 [ uDdy r;kj rkjh[k ] and the copies were given on 25.9.1997 [ uDdy fnyh rkjh[k ]. Therefore, Exh.15, 16 & 17 state that those extracts were given to applicant on 25.9.1997. This means that on 22.9.1997 itself or latest by 25.9.1997 itself the photo copying charges have been paid, because Exh.15,16 & 17 also indicate the photo copying charges paid. It is therefore, difficult to believe the case of the prosecution that on 25.9.1997, complainant did not have money with him and accused asked him to bring money on 29.9.1997. The onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused committed the offence as prescribed under Section 13(1) (d) read with section 13(d) of the said Act. Prosecution has failed in discharging this burden. There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption in favour of accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to accused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. For acquitting accused, the Trial Court observed that prosecution had failed to prove its case. In the circumstances, in my view, the opinion of the trial Court cannot be held to be illegal or improper or contrary to law. The order of acquittal, in my view, cannot be interfered with. Appeal dismissed. (K.R.SHRIRAM,J)

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1258 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra )….Appellant V/s. Bhimrao Mahadeo Kadam ) Age about 32 years, R/o. Gude, Tal.Panhala ) Dist. Kolhapur )....Respondent ---- Ms.Pallavi Dabholkar APP for appellant/State. Mr.Dheeraj Patil a/w Ms.Tanuja Parashave i/by Mr.Drupad S.Patil for respondent no.1. CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J DATE : 14.1.2020 ORAL JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal impugning an order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge & Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolhapur acquitting accused of offences punishable under sections 7 (Offence relating to public servant being bribed), section 13(1)(d) (Criminal misconduct by a public servant), read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (the said Act). The facts in brief are that accused was working as a candidate in record section in the office of Tahasildar, Panhala, Kolhapur. I am told, the candidate's role in the office of Tahasildar is to work as an Assistant to the Record Keeper. One Sambhaji Rajaram Jadhav-complainant (PW-1) had applied for certified copies of mutation entries on 22.9.1997. Photocopying charge etc. was actually coming to Rs.36.45/- but when complainant approached accused on 25.9.1997, accused demanded a sum of Rs.100/- which included Rs.36.45/- as copying fee and the balance as bribe/illegal gratification. Accused therefore, filed complaint to Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) for taking necessary action. After obtaining sanction, a trap was decided to be laid. Two panchas were called and necessary instructions and formalities were completed. The raiding party thereafter went to the office of accused on 29.9.1997 and caught accused red handed with the marked currency note of Rs.100/-. The post trap panchanama was also drawn and the crime was registered against accused. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was lodged, charges were framed, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The stand of accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was that when complainant had come to apply for certified copy, he did not have money with him so accused helped him by borrowing Rs.100/- from somebody else and on 29.9.1997 complainant came to return that money of Rs.100/-. I have to be candid that I find this stand rather strange because it is not the case of accused that complainant was known to him very well or is a close friend. At the same time, I am not discarding that stand as imaginary because one never knows there could be some good people who help others. To drive home the charge, prosecution relied on evidence of 5 witnesses viz. Sambhaji Rajaram Jadhav (PW-1), Complainant ; Dastagir Babasaheb Mulla (PW-2) who was the Stenographer in the office of Tahasildar ; Jaywant Vasantrao Kothawale (PW-3) Clerk/Record keeper in the office of Tahasildar ; Shivajirao Satyappa Kambale (PW-4) Nayab Tahasildar at Panhala ; and Vinayak Shivram Tilekar (PW-5), Police Inspector in ACB. The trial Court after considering the evidence and the documents that were filed, by giving a very detailed order and judgment dated 9.8.2002 acquitted accused and this order of acquittal is impugned in this appeal. For the sake of brevity, I am not going into all those details which the trial Court has gone into, because I feel certain facts as stated by Complainant and the prosecution witnesses itself are enough to dismiss this appeal. PW-1 who is complainant, in his examination-in-chief states that accused went through the contents of his application and asked him to attend the office on 25.9.1997 and when complainant went back on 25.9.1997 and asked accused, accused informed complainant (PW-1) that he will have to deposit a sum of Rs.36.45/- by way of legal charges against 3 mutation entries. PW-1 also says that accused asked him to deposit Rs.100/- so that the balance amount after paying Rs.36.45/- to the Government will be his bribe which is a condition precedent to issue the mutation extracts. As per PW-1 he did not have that much money with him and accused asked complainant to attend the office again on 27.9.1997 with money. In his cross-examination PW-1 says that it is not correct to say that accused demanded sum of Rs.36.45/- by way of copying fees and the remaining amount by way of bribe. This itself goes to the root of the matter and this contradiction itself is enough to knock the matter down. PW-3 is a Record Keeper in the office of Tahasildar. In his cross-examination he says that he received all the papers from accused on 25.9.1997 and thereafter no work remained with accused after 25.9.1997. He also says that employee candidates/accused used to sit outside the record room. The employee candidates were not empowered by him to collect money or copying fees and the employee candidates used to direct clients to contact PW-3 for paying the fees. Therefore, PW-3 who is the prosecution witness says that accused was never empowered to collect any money and all the applicants are directed to him for paying the necessary fees. PW-4 who is Nayab Tahasildar says that copying candidates like accused are not paid by Government and they do not receive salary or remuneration from Government and he was also not a Government employee or Government servant. Therefore, the applicability of section 7 of the said Act itself is in question. Prosecution has not led any evidence to prove PW-4 wrong. Exh.14 is copy of the application made by complainant and Exh.15, 16 & 17 are the extract of mutation entries. PW-4 says that extract was ready on 25.9.1997 and all compliance was done. He also says that he has endorsed papers and sent them to record section for delivering copies. PW-4 says that general record book is maintained by record keeper and record keeper used to deliver copies to applicant. PW-4 also endorsed what PW-3 says that it is the responsibility of record keeper to receive fees from applicant, issue receipt and receive amount. He says that Exh.15, 16 & 17 are the copies that were ready and prepared on 25.9.1997 under his signature. PW-4 also says it is not the responsibility of the employee candidate to receive fees, prepare copies and deliver the copies. If one looks at Exh.15, 16 & 17 it says the application was received on 22.9.1997 [ uDdy vtZ vkyk rkjh[k ], the copies were ready on 23.9.1997 [ uDdy r;kj rkjh[k ] and the copies were given on 25.9.1997 [ uDdy fnyh rkjh[k ]. Therefore, Exh.15, 16 & 17 state that those extracts were given to applicant on 25.9.1997. This means that on 22.9.1997 itself or latest by 25.9.1997 itself the photo copying charges have been paid, because Exh.15,16 & 17 also indicate the photo copying charges paid. It is therefore, difficult to believe the case of the prosecution that on 25.9.1997, complainant did not have money with him and accused asked him to bring money on 29.9.1997. The onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused committed the offence as prescribed under Section 13(1) (d) read with section 13(d) of the said Act. Prosecution has failed in discharging this burden. There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption in favour of accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to accused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. For acquitting accused, the Trial Court observed that prosecution had failed to prove its case. In the circumstances, in my view, the opinion of the trial Court cannot be held to be illegal or improper or contrary to law. The order of acquittal, in my view, cannot be interfered with. Appeal dismissed. (K.R.SHRIRAM,J)

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1258 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra )….Appellant V/s. Bhimrao Mahadeo Kadam )....Respondent CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J DATE : 21.1.2020 P C. . :- 1 Suo motu called for speaking to the minutes. 2 In the order dated 14th January 2020, after paragraph 13, add the following as paragraph 14 : The State Government/Appropriate Authority shall pay over to respondent, within a period of 30 days from today, all pensionary or other benefits/dues stalled, in view of pendency of this appeal. No authority shall demand certified copy for reimbursing the benefits/dues as directed above. All to act on authenticated copy of this order. Certified copy expedited. 3 Rest of the order remains unaltered. Original order to be corrected accordingly. (K.R.SHRIRAM,J)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 704 OF 2019 Mr. Dhulappa Jagannath Shelke And Ors ....Petitioner V/S The Prin. Secretary, The Gen. Administration ....Respondent Dept. And Ors Dr Sudhakar Avhad i/by Mr Chetan R Nagare, Advocate For Petitioner Mr Y S Khochare, AGP for Respondents-State. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATE : 21st January, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 24/01/2019. Writ Petition No. 92/2019 to be heard along with this Writ Petition. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 704 OF 2019 Dhulappa Jagannath Shelke & ors. Petitioners Versus The Principal Secretary, The Gen. Adminsitration Department & ors. Respondents Mr. Chetan Nagare, I/b Dr. Sudhakar Avhad, for the Petitioner. Mr. Y. S. Khochare, AGP for the State/Respondent. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATED: 25th January, 2019 PC: 1. The Petitioner has directly approached this Court bypassing the alternate remedy available to him of filing an Original Application before the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. 2. The petition is, therefore, rejected with liberty to file an application before the appropriate forum. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

Order - Status 7: ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4296 OF 2015 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.1089 OF 2015 The National Insurance Co.Ltd. ...Applicant vs. Smt.Anuja Ramachal Patel & Ors. ...Respondents Ms Poonam Mittal for the Applicant CORAM :K.K.TATED,J. DATE : AUGUST 27, 2019 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. By this application the applicant is seeking stay of operation and implementation Judgment and Award dated 2nd August 2014 passed by MACT,Mumbai in Claim Petition No.2370 of 2007 holding that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.11,86,671/ with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. 2 The learned counsel for the applicant submits that they have challenged the impugned Judgment on quantum basis. She submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. She further submits that if the entire amount is recovered by the respondents by filing execution application, then nothing survives in the present application. She submits that the applicant is ready and willing to deposit the entire amount with interest within three weeks from today. Statement is accepted. She submits that pending the final disposal of the present First Appeal, this Court be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned Judgment. 3 It is to be noted that in the present proceedings accident occurred on 3rd July 2007. Claimant No.1 lost her husband and the claimant Nos.2 and 3 lost their father. At the time of accident the age of the deceased was 45 years. He was running the medical shop under the name and style of Ashish Medical and General Stores,Kandivali, Mumbai. He was earning nearby 1,10,943/ p.a from his business. Considering this aspect, the claimant No.1wife and claimant Nos.3 and 4 being minors, I am of the opinion that they can be permitted to withdraw the amount. 4 Hence I pass the following order : (a) The operation and implementation of the impugned Judgment and Award dated 2nd August 2014 passed by MACT,Mumbai in Claim Petition No.2370 of 2007 is stayed during the pendency of the First Appeal with condition that the Applicant to deposit entire compensation amount with interest in MACT, Mumbai on or before 21st September 2019 failing which Civil Application shall stand dismissed. (b) If the entire amount of compensation with interest is deposited within stipulated time, Applicant No.1Smt.Anuja Ramachal Patel and claimant No.2Master Gaurav Ramachal Patel are entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.2 lakh each with accrued interest thereon without furnishing any security subject to final outcome of the First Appeal. (c)The Tribunal is directed to invest remaining amount in Fixed deposit in any nationalised bank initially for a period of one year and to continue till further order. (d)Liberty is granted to the respondents claimants, if they so desire, to apply for withdrawal of the amount, which shall be decided on its own merits. (e)Civil Application is disposed of with no order as to costs. (K.K.TATED,J.)

Order - Status 8: Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3097 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20874 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Surendra Dhanji Shah & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3099 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20878 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Hansa Jayendra Shah & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3101 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21020 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Bindu Kiran Sampat & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3103 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20891 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Pramila Dhirajlal Parekh & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3105 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20881 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Surendra Dhanji Shah & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3109 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21002 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Tersih Keshavji Raigoga & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3116 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21007 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Bindu Kiran Sampat & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3118 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21013 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Kumud Tersih Raigoga & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3120 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21016 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Sangeet Vinay Raigoga & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3122 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20869 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Jayendra Dhanji Shah & Ors. Respondents Mr.Vimal Chandrakant Shah, Applicant, present in person. . Mr.Ramesh Jain, Advocate, for the Respondents. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 21ST JANUARY, 2008. P.C.: Heard applicant appearing in person and Advocate for the original plaintiff. The impugned decree is a money decree passed in a Summary Suit. Hence, execution of the said decree cannot be stayed unless the entire decretal amount is deposited by the applicant. Hence, Application is disposed of by passing following order:- "O R D E R" (a). There will be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to condition of applicant depositing the entire decretal amount with the Trial Court within a period of six weeks from today. (b). If the entire decretal amount is not deposited with the Trial Court within stipulated time, the interim stay will stand vacated without further reference to the Court. (c). If decretal amount is deposited within stipulated time, the Trial Court will permit the original plaintiff to withdraw the said amount on furnishing adequate security. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16 OF 2014 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2013 Mr.Kobad Dorabji Davierwalla ...Applicant / Orig.Respondent No.1 In the matter between Mrs.Perin Hoshang Davierwalla & Anr. ...Appellants vs. Mr.Kobad Dorabji Davierwalla & Ors. ...Respondents AND REVIEW PETITION (STAMP) NO. 19448 OF 2014 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2013 WITH CIVIL APPLIATION NO. 171 OF 2014 Mrs.Perin Hoshang Davierwalla & Anr. vs. Petitioners / Orig.Appellants Mr.A.V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Prathamesh Bhargav i/b. Mr.S.B. Deshmukh for Applicant (Original Respondent No.1). Mr.Darius Khambata, Senior Advocate with Mr.J.B. Sen, Senior Advocate, Mr.Akshay Patil i/b. M/s.Federal & Rashmikant for Respondent No.1 and 2 (Original Appellants). Mr.Priyanka Vegad for Respondent No.2 in Review Petition No**.**19448/2014, Arb.Appeal No.42/2013, Respondent No.3 in CA 16/2014. Mr.B.K. Bali i/b. M/s.Bali Associates for Respondent No.3. CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J. 01 SEPTEMBER 2014 P.C. : The delay of fourty-five days in taking out the review petition is condoned, and the review petition is taken up for hearing. 2 The review petition is filed by the original Appellants seeking a review of paragraphs 16 and 17(ii) of the order passed by this Court on 7 May 2014 and modification of the same by directing Respondent No.1 to vacate the two rooms in the hotel premises, currently in occupation of Respondent No.1 as agent of the Court Receiver without payment of royalty and security. The application is made in the following facts. 3 The Appellants and Respondents are partners in a partnership firm called IL Palazzo Hotel running a business of lodging and boarding house at Panchgani in Maharashtra. During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings between the parties for adjudication of disputes arising out of dissolution of this partnership firm by the Appellants, by an order passed by this Court on 7 May 2014, Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay has been appointed as a receiver of the assets and business of the partnership firm. The Appellants have been appointed as agents of the Court Receiver for conducting the business of IL Palazzo Hotel on payment of royalty. Paragraph 15 of this order inter alia records that Respondent No.1, who was carrying on business on the date of this order, not only had the suit business as the only source of livelihood, but even lived in two rooms within the building where the partnership business of lodging and boarding house was carried on. The order records the plea of Respondent No.1 that the residence of Respondent No.1 inter alia needs to be protected since he was actually using the two rooms. Accordingly, paragraph 17(ii) of the order provides that Respondent No.1 would be entitled to retain these two rooms presently in his personal use for the residence of himself and his family as agent of the Court Receiver without payment of any royalty or security. 4 It is a case of the Appellants in the present review petition that on or about 20 April 2014, after the conclusion of the hearings in the appeal, the Appellants came to know that Respondent No.1 has been in possession of a two storied apartment bungalow with a workable basement in Khinger village (about 3 to 4 km from IL Palazzo Hotel) admeasuring an area of more than 2000 sq.ft.; that this bungalow was in the name of Respondent No.1 and his wife; that the bungalow has a telephone installed therein; that the Respondent has been paying telephone and electricity charges; that this bungalow has been used by Respondent No.1 for the residence of himself and his family since much before the passing of the order dated 7 May 2014 and till today; that in the premises, Respondent No.1 has never actually resided in the hotel premises even once after the charge of the hotel was handed over to the Appellants, as agents of the Court Receiver and that, on the other hand, Respondent No.1 and his wife have only visited the two rooms occasionally during all this period; that the wife of Respondent No.1 had been interfering with the administration and functioning of the hotel and ordering around the staff and interacting with the hotel guests; and that in the premises, it is necessary and in the interests of justice that the directions in the order dated 7 May 2014 be modified and Respondent No.1 and his family be directed to vacate the rooms occupied by them in the hotel premises. 4 Along with the review petition, there is an application filed by Respondent No.1 himself inter alia for certain modifications to the order of 7 May 2014. It is prayed by Respondent No.1 that he should be allowed to use all common facilities, services, amenities, etc. provided in the hotel such as common hot and cold water, appliances, common generators and other infrastructure and utility services without any charge. Respondent No.1 has also applied for use of boarding facilities and services provided by the hotel at a charge of Rs.10,000/ per month. By an amendment proposed in the affidavit dated 22 June 2014, Respondent No.1 sought to amend the prayer inter alia providing for payment of charges in the sum of Rs.3500/- per month for use of the common and shared amenities and services provided in the hotel. Respondent No.1 does not press his prayer for provision of boarding facilities against payment of Rs.10,000/- per month, as originally proposed in his civil application. Thus, the application is now for permission to use all common amenities and facilities provided by the hotel on payment of a charge of Rs.3500/- per month. 5 It is obvious that the original application for permission to retain the two rooms claimed to be in occupation of Respondent No.1, as agent of the Court Receiver and without payment of royalty or security, was on the express footing that Respondent No.1 had all along been using, and even now requires, the two rooms for residence of himself and his family. At no stage in the pending appeal, before the order was passed on 7 May 2014, had the Respondent indicated that he was in possession of, and using, a bungalow of more than 2000 sq.ft. at Khinger village near IL Palazzo Hotel. In fact, in his reply filed in the review petition, Respondent No.1 has not disputed his residence in the bungalow at Khinger. All that the Respondent mentions in his reply to the review petition is that the two rooms in the hotel are his permanent residence; that all official documents, fax documents and administrative documents have the address of the hotel as his permanent residence; and that it would cause great difficulty to Respondent No.1 if this permanent address has to be changed temporarily. It is also submitted by Respondent No.1 that the bungalow at Khinger is not habitable round the year; that residence at this bungalow is not practicable due to its distant location, extreme weather conditions, etc. However, Respondent No.1 has not said that he does not actually use the bungalow as his residence. 6 Secondly, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 that photographs of this bungalow were shown to the Court by the Appellants, before this Court passed its order on 7 May 2014. Since these photographs were before the Court, it is submitted that the attention of the Court was invited to the existence of this bungalow and that therefore, the facts narrated before the Court in the review petition are neither new nor brought for the first time before the Court to enable the Appellants to apply for review of the order. It may be that the photographs were shown to the Court when this Court passed its order on 7 May 2013. The photographs were, however, not shown by Respondent No.1. The contest as to whether this bungalow was actually used as residence by Respondent No.1 throughout the relevant period was not before the Court when the order of 7 May 2014 was passed. The Appellants have claimed in the review petition that this fact came to light after the hearing of the matter concluded on 23 April 2014 and the order was reserved. On the basis of their knowledge acquired subsequently, the Appellants have averred in the review petition that Respondent No.1 and his family have been residing in the bungalow at Khinger and have not used the two rooms for residence at any time during the period of pendency of the arbitration appeal. There is no effective denial of this fact in the reply of Respondent No.1. Secondly, it is submitted that right from inception, four rooms have been kept for three groups of partners of the firm for their residence and that these rooms have been kept for residence of the parties in spite of the fact that even the Appellants have their bungalow at Panchgani, not very far from IL Palazzo hotel. It is submitted that even today, two rooms are in occupation of the Appellants. Whether or not the two rooms are in occupation of the Appellants, it is a fact that these two rooms have been treated to be a part of the hotel premises under the order of 7 May 2014 and the compensation payable by the Appellants as agents of the Court Receiver has been worked out on that basis. Whether the rooms are, in fact, used as guest rooms to be rented out for the hotel business or whether they are actually used for occupation of the Appellants, is immaterial as long as these two rooms are in occupation of the Appellants as agents of the Court Receiver for conducting the hotel business and the Appellants are paying compensation for the same as agents of the Court Receiver. In fact, the fact that two rooms in occupation of the Appellants for their residence have been made part of the hotel premises, in occupation of the agents of the Court Receiver and for which compensation is payable by the agents, supports the Appellants' case that the two rooms which are in occupation of Respondent No.1 and which are not actually used for his residence ought to be made over to the Court Receiver for conducting the hotel business. The Appellants have offered to pay an additional royalty of Rs.6 lakhs per annum for the two rooms to be vacated by Respondent No.1 and allowed to be used for the hotel. This additional royalty is offered with a view to account for the additional revenue that may accrue to the agents, if these two rooms are allowed to be used for the hotel. 7 Lastly, it is submitted that the Court Receiver has not been appointed of the four rooms which were in occupation of the partners for their respective residence. This submission is made on the basis of the licence issued by the authorities, which is in respect of 17 rooms only. It may be that the licence for renting out room to the guests exists in respect of 17 rooms for the lodging business of the hotel, but there is nothing to indicate that these two rooms are not part of the assets of the partnership firm of which Court Receiver is appointed. In fact, it is on the basis that the Court Receiver is appointed also of these four rooms that the two rooms in occupation of the Appellants have been made part of the agency business and for which the Appellants have been asked to pay compensation. So also, it is on the same basis that Respondent No.1 is directed to be appointed as agent of the Court Receiver without any royalty for the two rooms purportedly in his occupation. There is no substance in the plea that the Court Receiver is not appointed of these four rooms. 8 In the premises, the review petition filed by the Appellants deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the order of 7 May 2014 is modified by directing Respondent No.1 to vacate the two rooms in his occupation and make over the same to the Court Receiver for being used as part of the hotel premises. With effect from the expiry of a period of 45 days after the rooms are vacated and possession thereof is handed over to the Court Receiver by Respondent No.1, the Appellants shall pay an additional royalty of Rs.6 lakhs per annum for use of these two rooms as part of the agency agreement. This amount shall be paid on a quarterly basis as in the case of royalty of Rs.70 lakhs payable per annum for the agency of the hotel. 9 At the time of handing over of the two rooms by Respondent No.1 to the Court Receiver, the Court Receiver shall prepare an inventory of the furnitures and fixtures lying within the premises. Respondent No.1 shall be at liberty to make a claim in respect of these furnitures and fixtures at the hearing before the District Court or before the Arbitrator, as the case may be. The Court Receiver will, of course, permit Respondent No.1 to take away his movables lying within the two rooms. 10 Having regard to the order passed on the review petition, the civil application of Respondent No.1 for use of additional amenities and facilities provided by the hotel in connection with the two rooms in his occupation as agent of the Receiver, does not survive and is disposed of. 11 There shall be no order as to costs. 12 On the application of the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, this order is stayed for a period of five weeks from today. (S.C. Gupte, J.)

Order - Status 5: ata IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.785 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST)NO.574 OF 2011 Devendra @ Bittya Bhausaheb Padale and ors ..Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent None for the Applicants. Adv. P. S. Hingorani, A. P. P. for State. CORAM : NARESH. H. PATIL, & K. U. CHANDIWAL, J J. DATE : JULY 8, 2011 P.C. The Applications were called out twice. None appears for Applicants. S.O to 18.07.2011. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) ( NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 785 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST) NO. 574 OF 2011 Devendra @ Bittya Bhausaheb Padale and Ors... Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondents Mr. Abhaykumar Apte i/by Mr. Avinash Kamkhedkar for the applicants. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATED : JULY 18, 2011 P.C. Heard. Perused the application. Delay is condoned. Application disposed off. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.374 OF 2004 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL ST.NO.21588 OF 2004 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5247 OF 1989 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd.,& ors. ..Applicants V/s. Engineering Workers' Association & Anr..Respondents Mr.G.B.Shetty i/by Crawford Bayley & Co. for the applicants. Ms.Bina Dholakia for Respondents. Coram : R.M.LODHA & R.S.MOHITE,JJ Date : 30.3.2005. PC . Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1. The Respondent no.2 is the formal party. There is delay of 18 days in filing Letters Patent Appeal. The cause for delay is set out in paragraph-1(c) of the application. The respondent no.1 has not objection if delay is condoned. We accordingly, grant Civil application in terms of prayer clause-(a). : 2 : Prayer clause-(a) reads thus :- That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to condone the delay of 18 days in filing the present Appeal. Civil application stands disposed of. (R.M.LODHA,J) (R.S.MOHITE,J)