All Cases

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2008 Smt.Sakhubai Dnyanu Pukale ...Appellant vs. Shri Dnyanu Dadu Pukale ...Respondent None for the Appellant. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. AUGUST 25, 2011 P.C :- None for the appellant. Issue notice to respondent, returnable in six weeks. In addition to court notice, the appellant is directed to give advocate's notice to the respondent either personally or through RPAD/Speed Post and file an affidavit of service before the returnable date. The appellant is also directed to file appeal memo in substance forms along with decree forms within a period of six weeks failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the court. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.) (D.B. BHOSALE, J.)

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.688 OF 2019 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.984 OF 2019 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearance, Court's Court's or orders or directions & Judge's orders. Registrar's orders. Mr. Dilip Bodke for applicant. Mrs. Tanaya Goswami, AGP for respondent Nos. 5 to 7. Mr. Pradip Zende I/b Nandu Pawar for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 11 MARCH 2019. P.C. :- . Heard learned Counsel for parties. Advocate for respondent submits that they filed their caveat and in spite of that copies are not served. Hence, advocate for applicant is directed to serve the entire proceedings on respondent's advocate on or before 22.03.2019. Matter to appear on board on 29.03.2019. (K.K. TATED, J.)

Order - Status 9: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.688 OF 2019 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.984 OF 2019 Court's or Judge's orders Mr. Dilip Bodake for applicant. Mr. Nikhil Wadikar I/b Nandu Pawar for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mrs. Tanaya Goswami, AGP for respondent Nos. 5 to 7. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J DATE : MARCH 29, 2019 P.C.: . Heard learned Counsel for parties. By this Civil Application, applicant is seeking permission to file the present Appeal on behalf of present trustees of the appellant No.1-Shri.Nageshwar Bhairavnath Vithoba Deosthan Trust. Considering the submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicant, averments made in Civil Application, I am satisfied that the applicant has made out case for allowing this Civil Application. Hence, following order :- a) Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus :- "a. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant the leave to the Applicant Nos.4A to 7A to file the Appeal along with the Applicant Nos.1 to 3 thereby challenging the impugned Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2018 passed by the Ld. Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Satara, in Misc. Civil (Delay) Application No.135 of 2014 and further substituted them as Applicant Nos.4 to 7 by deleting the name of original Applicant Nos.4 to 7 from array of cause title of First Appeal and Civil Applications." b) Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly. c) No order as to costs. (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 8: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 309 OF 2015 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. J.G. Reddy, for applicant. Ms. S.S. Kaushik, APP for State. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 10th December 2015 P.C.: The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the connected application bearing no.310 of 2015 is placed for hearing on 6th January 2016 and requests that the present application may also be tagged along with it. At his request, stand over to 6th January 2015. (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPLICATION NO. 310 OF 2015 Mohammed Ishtiaque Ebrahim Bagban ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....Respondent WITH CR. APPLICATION NO. 309 OF 2015 Mohammed Ishtiaque Ebrahim Bagban ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....Respondent Mr. Jagdish G. Reddy For Applicant Mrs. A.A. Takalkar,APP for state CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 18th January, 2018 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the applicant, Stand over to 25/01/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2660 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.14873 OF 2009 Pratap Shivram Mandhare & Anr. ... Applicants V/s. Gulab Maruti Mandhare & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. Pramod J. Pawar for the Applicants. Mr. P.G. Karande for Respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 31 ST AUGUST, 2009. P.C.: This Civil Application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the First Appeal. The delay of 18 days has occurred on account of the certified copy of the judgment and order being misplaced. Therefore, the applicants applied for a fresh copy of the certified copy of the judgment which they received on 22nd June, 2009. For the reasons stated in the Civil Application, it is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). The First Appeal to be numbered and placed for admission on 16th September, 2009. The Civil Application is disposed of.

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20874 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. andrakant : Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Surendra Dhanji Shah & Ors. Dhanji S Shah & 01 rs. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20878 OF 2004 Vimal Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. & Ors. Applicants V/s. Hansa Hansa Jayendra Shah & Ors. )rs. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21020 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Bindu Bindu Kiran Sampat & Ors. t & Ors. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20891 OF 2004 Vimal Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Shah & Ors. Applicants Prami V/s. Pramila Dhirajlal Parekh & Ors. Parekh 6 Ors Respondents I Lamit Tarenn Q 015. ···Respondences WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20881 OF 2004 Vimal Cha Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Surendra Surendra Dhanji Shah & Ors. hah & Or rs. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21002 OF 2004 Vimal Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. t Shah & ( Ors. Applicants V/s. Tersi Tersih Keshavji Raigoga & Ors. Raigoga ι & Ors. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21007 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Bindu Kiran Sampat & Ors. ...Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21013 OF 2004 Vimal Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Kumud Kumud Tersih Raigoga & Ors. oga & O: rs. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.21016 OF 2004 Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Applicants V/s. Sangeet Vinay Raigoga & Ors. Respondents WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.20869 OF 2004 Vim Vimal Chandrakant Shah & Ors. Shah & Or Applicants V/s. Jay Jayendra Dhanji Shah & Ors. hah & 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.: Admit. Printing is dispensed with. Time of twelve weeks is granted to remove all office objections. If all the office objections are not removed within the stipulated time, the Appeal will stand dismissed for want of prosecution without further reference to the Court. Requisite number of copies of private paper-book alongwith Decree Form shall be filed by the appellant within a period of one year from today. If compliance is not made within stipulated time, the Appeal shall stand dismissed for want of prosecution without further reference to the Court. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1538 OF 2004 Kishor @ Lala Chetahmal Lalwani ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mrs.Smita Rajendra Kadu for Petitioner. Mr.A.S.Gadkari, A.P.P. for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. OCTOBER 15, 2004. P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. I find no reason to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction in the fact situation of the present case. While rejecting the application for furlough leave made by the Petitioner, the Authority has taken into account, recent recommendations made from appropriate quarters. The material which was gathered during the enquiry revealed that if Petitioner was to be released, he may be a threat to panch and witnesses of the criminal case, who had deposed against him. That reason qualifies the requirement of Rule 4(4) of the The Prisons (Bombay Furlough & Parole) Rules, 1959. It is not open for this Court to impose its views on the subjective satisfaction reached by the Authority on the basis of material gathered during the enquiry while considering the Application preferred by the Petitioner. There are other good reasons mentioned in the reply affidavit filed, which are supported by the recommendations received by the appropriate authority produced before me. To get over this position, learned Counsel contends that out of six grounds, most of the grounds were non-existing grounds. However, that statement does not commend to me. Indeed, the Petitioner may be right in contending that merely because his earlier application was rejected because of adverse report, the same cannot be the basis to reject his subsequent application, which ought to have been considered on its own merits. However, that is not the only reason on the basis of which the present Application has been rejected. For rejecting the present application, fresh report was called for, and the report received clearly spell out apprehension if the Petitioner was to be released. Taking overall view of the matter, no interference is warranted. Dismissed. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICTION NO.1321 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1322 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.995 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.347 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.346 OF 2006 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.1299 OF 2004 Kashinath Ramchandra Mokal and ors. : Applicants. Versus Sudhakar Narayan Mokal and ors. : Respondents. Mr. A S Rameshan for the Applicants. Mr.Pradeep M Patil for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : R M SAVANT, J. DATE : 04th May 2012 P.C. 1 The above Civil Application Nos.1321/08 and 1322/08 have been filed for restoration of the Civil Application Nos.347/06 and 346/06. The Civil Application No.995/05 has been filed for reinstating the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 as party Respondents. The Civil Application No.347/06 has been filed for bringing the heirs of the Respondent No.5 on record who are Respondent Nos.5A to 5E, and the Civil Application No.346/06 has been filed for bringing the heir of the Respondent No.6 on record who is the Respondent No.6A. 2 Though notices were issued in the above Civil Application Nos.347/06 and 346/06, this was possibly in view of the fact that the Court which issued the notice, was oblivious of the fact that in Civil Application No.237 of 2002 which has been filed for condonation of delay of 2 years and 144 days in filing the Appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants/Appellants had made a statement that he would delete the Respondent Nos.5 and 6. Accordingly the said Respondents were allowed to be deleted at the risk of the Applicants/Appellants. Thereafter the said Civil Applications were heard and the delay of 2 years and 144 days was condoned on the basis of deleting the Respondent Nos.5 and 6. In view of the said deletion of the said Respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the said Civil Application No.237 of 2002, the Civil Application No.995 of 2005 for their reinstatement is misconceived, as also no notice could have been issued in Civil Application Nos.347 of 2006 and 346 of 2006. 3 In view of the situation arising out of the deletion of the Respondent Nos.5 and 6, the learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that the Applicants desired to apply for reinstatement of the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 and since the said Respondents are already dead, the Applicants would file an appropriate application for the said purpose. 4 It is required to be noted that the said Civil Application Nos.347 of 2006 and 346 of 2006 have been dismissed for nonprosecution on account of a technical reason viz since the service was not effected on the heirs of the original Respondent Nos.5 and 6. The Civil Application Nos.1321 of 2008 and 1322 of 2008 are required to be allowed and are accordingly allowed, resultantly the Civil Application Nos.347 of 2006 and 346 of 2006 are restored to file. 5 On restoration of the said Civil Application Nos.347 of 2006 and 346 of 2006, by consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same are taken up on board for hearing. 6 The learned counsel for the Applicants seeks withdrawal of the said Civil Application Nos.347 of 2006 and 346 of 2006 along with Civil Application No.995 of 2005 to file an appropriate Application for review of the order dated 11/6/2004 so as to obtain relief of reinstatement of original Respondent Nos.5 and 6 in Civil Application No.237 of 2002, upon which the relief for bringing the heirs of the said Respondent Nos.5 and 6 would only be maintainable. The said Civil Application Nos.347 of 2006, 346 of 2006 and 995 of 2005 are accordingly allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. All the above Civil Applications are accordingly disposed of. [R.M.SAVANT, J]