All Cases

Order - Status 7: ingale IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6447 OF 2013 Smt.Ashwini Ravindra Pingle .. Petitioner Vs. Shri Sanjay Ramchandra Kamthe and another .. Respondents Mr.Avinash B.Avhad, for Petitioner. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 01st August, 2013 P.C. : . The application for amendment in the written statement is rejected. Mr.Avhad, the learned Counsel for petitioner states that simply because, the matter is at the stage of final argument, that could not have been reason for rejecting the application for amendment. It was only at that point of time, the petitioner got the knowledge of the other properties owned by the plaintiff and given for redevelopment. The defendant had given details in the application, only because the defendant could not get the relevant documents, that could not have been the ground of denying the amendment application. According to the learned Counsel, the ground for eviction agitated by plaintiff is bonafide requirement. The said amendment would be relevant and material for effective adjudication of the dispute. The plaintiff had filed say to the application denying the said fact. The Court has observed that not a single document is produced along with the application substantiating the factum of the plaintiff possessing the survey No. 87 and given it for redevelopment. The parties have concluded the evidence. The plaintiff has even advanced his final argument. The matter was adjourned thrice for the argument of the defendant and thereafter, present application has been filed. The Court has considered the said aspect of the matter. I do not see any error committed by the Court while passing impugned order. The petitioner may assail the said order in case is required to file the appeal, if in law as it is permissible, relying on section 105 of C.P.C. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) 909.wp.6447.13

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 981 OF 2018 Mrs. Aditi Arun Shinde Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. Prakash Wagh for the Applicant. Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : V. L. ACHLIYA, J. (VACATION COURT) DATE : 15th MAY, 2018. P. C. : Learned Counsel for the applicant, on instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the application with liberty to surrender before the Investigating Officer within five days. Allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed. The applicant shall not be arrested till 20.05.2018 to enable her to surrender before the Investigating Officer. Application stands disposed of as withdrawn. [V. L. ACHLIYA, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.72 OF 2005 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION ST. NO.16223 OF 2005 Shri Madhukar Narayan Karandikar (expired as on 13.4.2004 L/R on record) Smt.Lilabai Madhukar Karandikar &.. ors. Applicants v/s. Maharashtra Chittapavan Sandh, Pune.. & ors. Respondents Mr.A.P.Vanarase for the applicants. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. DATED : 10th October, 2005 P.C. Heard Mr.Vanarase, the learned counsel for the applicants. No.16223 stamp under Application Appli Revision R Civil 2. hence, and dly belatedly t 1 but filed been has 2005 of per As delay. of 0 ion condonation for ation application this The days. 32 of 5 ( is caused delay note, office the and age old be to stated stat been has delay for reason awarding ä by condoned hereby he is delay The illness. the to remitted re and 8 Rs.500/- at ed quantified cost two within ty Authority A Services Ser Legal Court High weeks. Place this Civil Revision Application for admission after vacation. (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CAUSE TITLES AND APPEARANCES AS NOTIFIED ...... CORAM : N.M. Jamdar, J. 15 July 2016. P.C. :- On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on daily board dated 15 July 2016, stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS as under :- For condonation of delay A/N Matter at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 64 05.08.2016 65 25.08.2016 For Orders (Restoration) Matter at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 66 to 71 72 to 74 75 to 80 81 to 84 25.08.2016 26.08.2016 29.08.2016 30.08.2016 For restoration (admitted) Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 85 to 86 30.08.2016 87 to 89 31.08.2016 For Orders (Early Hearing Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 90 & 91 31.08.2016 92 to 94 01.09.2016 For Orders Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 98 01.09.2016 99 05.08.2016 100,101 01.09.2016 102 22.03.2017 103 01.09.2016 104 & 105 05.08.2016 106 to 109 02.09.2016 110 06.09.2016 A.O. for Admission Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 111 19.09.2016 M.C.A. fresh Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 112 18.10.2016 112 10.10.2010 M.C.A. Admission After Notice Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date For Admission Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date For Admission Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date For Admission fresh Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 117 to 122 23.03.2017 123 to 127 24.03.2017 For Admission After Notice Matters at Sr.No. Next C.M.I.S. date 128 to 131 02.08.2016 132 to 135 03.08.2016 If in any of the above matters, ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If ad-interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (N.M. Jamdar, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1033 OF 2016 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 806 OF 2011 Sandeep Manohar Chavan ....Applicant V/s. 1. Smt. Suvarna Sudhakar Pawaskar and Ors. ....Respondents Mr. Devendra Pawar i/by. R.D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant. None for the Respondents. Coram :- N.M. Jamdar, J. Date :- 21 April 2017. P.C. :- The Second Appeal was dismissed in view of the order passed on 13th October, 2015 directing the Applicant to pay costs of Rs.5,000/-. Till date, the costs are not paid and restoration of the Second Appeal is sought. The restoration, will have to be on the payment of additional costs. Accordingly, the Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to the Applicant paying costs of Rs.10,000/- within a period of 4 weeks from today failing which the Appeal to stand dismissed for non-prosecution without reference to the Court. (N.M. Jamdar, J)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5538 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr.Sagar Kasar, for the petitioners. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 18/08/2009 PC: When the petition was called out, the learned counsel for the petitioners was not in a position to argue the petition. Stand over to 29.9.09. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5538 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. Sagar Kasar, for the petitioners. Mr Prakash M. for the respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 10/11/2009 PC: Mr.Kasar, learned Advocate, submits that he has instructions to appear for the sole respondent. Hence, service is complete. The petition to come up for admission on 1.12.09. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)

Order - Status 15: MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.5538 OF 2009 Shashikant B. Kamble & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. The Bharat Cooperative Bank Ltd. ...Respondents Mr.S.K.Shinde i/b. Mr. Sagar Kasar, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr.Prakash Mulky i/b. Gopal C. Poojary & Co. Advocate for the Respondents CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 20TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C. : Heard both sides. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The impugned orders relate to refusal of condonation of delay in filing an application for setting aside the Exparte Award passed by the Cooperative Court on 29th February 2008. The application has been filed since 10th October 2008. The delay was of 193 days. The case for condonation of delay was that in view of the Writ Petition filed concerning the Bank's powers under Multi State Cooperative Bank, the dispute was adjourned sine die. After the decision was rendered the Dispute was taken on board for hearing. At that time no notice was issued upon the Petitioners. They did not know of the Award passed. Hence, the application. Their case is that the case has been adjourned sine die and is reflected in the noting dated 24th October 2002 of the learned Cooperative Court, Mumbai. Though a date is mentioned against the noting it shows that the case was adjourned sine die. The fact remains that the substance of the noting shows that it was indeed adjourned sine die. It would have been prudent for the Bank to issue notice upon the Petitioners when the dispute reached hearing. The Petitioners were not represented by Advocates. Hence no Advocate could appear or be informed. Consequently, the duty of the Court as well as the Disputant would be doubled. The fact remains that an Exparte decree was passed which is open to challenge. The challenge is not seen to be completely devoid of merits. The Petitioners would be required to be heard on merits. The cause shown is justifiable. Hence both the orders of the Cooperative Court and the Cooperative Appellate Court which refused to condone the delay are required to be interfered with. Both the orders are set aside. The dispute shall be heard on merits. The Petitioners shall forthwith file their written statement, give inspection of the documents, produce copies of their documents and get themselves ready for trial. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

Order - Status 4: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO. 12814 OF 2019 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : V. R. Kachare REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : 18/06/2019 None present Three weeks time is granted to remove office objections. sd/- REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2019 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or Judge's orders orders or directions and Registrar's orders Shri S.S. Kulkarni for applicants. CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J. DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2019 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the applicants. The applicants to serve the respondents by Advocate's notice along with the copy of this order informing respondents that the application would be heard on 14/11/2019. It is made clear that an endeavour would be made to dispose of the application finally on 14/11/2019 considering the narrow controversy involved in this application. In the event, the respondents fail to appear despite service of Advocate's notice, the application would be heard on its own merits even in the absence of the respondents. 29.doc The applicants to file an affidavit of service before the returnable date. Stand over to 14/11/2019. (M.S.KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 9: Dond IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2019 Shri Inderpalsingh Rajendrasingh Chadha & Anr. ..Applicants Vs Shri Baljit Ramlal Manchanda & Ors ..Respondents Mr. Swapnil Mhatre i/b S.S. Kulkarni for Applicants. Mr. S.S. Shah i/b Prashant Darandale for respondent Nos.1 to 8. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 28th November 2019. P.C.: 1] It is submitted that, the Advocate on record for applicants has filed a leave note. 2] In view thereof, at the request of learned counsel for the applicants, stand over to 21st January 2020. (A.S.GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 11: Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2019 Inderpalsingh Rajendrasingh Chadha & anr. .Applicants Vs. P. C. Baljit Ramlal Manchanda & ors. .Respondents None for the Applicants Mr. Surel S. Shah i/b. Mr. Prashant Darandale, Advocate, for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 13.01.2020 . None appears for the Applicants. The aforesaid Application has been circulated by the learned counsel for the Respondents and hence, it appears that learned counsel for the Applicants is not present. In order to give one opportunity to the Applicants, stand over to 27.01.2020 . Till then, ad-interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2019 Shri. Inderpalsingh Rajendrasingh Chadha And Anr ....Applicant V/S Shri. Baljit Ramlal Manchanda And Ors ....Respondent Shriram S. Kulkarni For Applicant Prashant Darandale Res. No.1 To 8 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 27th January, 2020 P.C. : In view of the joint request made by the learned Counsel for the parties, stand over to 04/02/2020 . Ad-interim order, if any, to continue till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2019 Shri. Inderpalsingh Rajendrasingh Chadha And Anr ....Applicant V/S Shri. Baljit Ramlal Manchanda And Ors ....Respondent Swapnil Mhatre i/b Shriram S. Kulkarni For Applicant Prashant Darandale For Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 4th February, 2020 P.C. : Stand over to 14/02/2020 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 19: Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2019 Inderpalsingh Rajendrasingh Chadha & anr. .Applicants Vs. Baljit Ramlal Manchanda & ors. .Respondents Mr. S. S. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the Applicants Mr. S. S. Shah i/b. Mr. P. Darandale, Advocate, for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 14.02.2020 P. C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this Application, the Applicants have impugned the order dated 08.02.2019 passed by the learned 5th Jt. C. J. S. D., Nashik below Exhs. 54 & 55 in R. C. S. No. 420 of 2010, by which the Applicants' Application ( Original Defendant Nos. 9 & 10 ) seeking rejection of the plaint under O. VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( for short 'C. P. C.' ) was rejected. Learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that the Partition Deed entered into between the Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 8 is of 1982 and that pursuant to the said Deed, measurements were carried out in the year 1987. He submits that under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, right to sue accrued on the date when the Applicants learnt about the alleged bogus Partition Deed i. e. when measurements were done in 1987. He submits that the present suit is filed after 28 years and as such, is barred by the law of limitation. He further submits that even the cause of action disclosed in the plaint is vague. According to the learned counsel, the plaint does not reveal any cause of action and is clearly barred by the law of limitation and as such, the Applicants' Application, seeking rejection of the plaint under O. VII, Rule 11 of the C. P. C. ought to have been allowed. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 ( Original Plaintiffs ) opposes the Application and submits that no interference is warranted in the impugned order. He submits that the plaint clearly discloses the cause of action and as such, the learned Judge has rightly rejected the Applicants' Application seeking rejection of the plaint under O. VII, Rule 11 of the C. P. C.. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 states that it is the case of the Applicants that the Respondent No. 8 committed fraud on the Respondent No. 1, by entering into a Partition Deed in 1982, and carried out measurements thereafter, by practising fraud on the Respondents and others. He submits that admittedly, the Applicants are the co-owners of the property in question and had not signed the Partition Deed allegedly entered into between the Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 8, in 1982. He submits that the Respondents ( Original Plaintiffs ) filed the suit in 2010, only after learning that the Respondent No. 8 had entered his name in the revenue records, thus, giving rise to cause of action. Perused the papers. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are the Original Plaintiffs, who have filed R. C. S. No. 420 of 2010 in the Court of the learned C. J. S. D. , Nashik, for a declaration that the Partition Deed dated 25.09.1982 entered into between the Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 8 be declared illegal. The Applicants ( Original Defendants ) appeared in the said suit and filed their Written Statement. It appears that the aforesaid Applicants filed two Applications i. e. Exh. 54 and Exh. 55 in the aforesaid suit and sought rejection of the plaint under O. VII, Rule 11 of the C. P. C. on the premise that the suit was barred by limitation. A perusal of the plaint prima facie shows that the issue of limitation, is a mixed question of facts and law. No infirmity can be found in the impugned order dated 08.02.2019 passed by the learned 5th Jt. C. J. S. D., Nashik below Exhs. 54 & 55 in R. C. S. No. 420 of 2010 and as such, the Application being devoid of merit, is dismissed. All contentions of all parties are kept open with respect to the issue of limitation for being decided at the stage of final disposal of the suit. Accordingly, the Application is disposed of. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

Order - Status 2: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 14061 OF 2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : V. R. Kachare REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : $6/09/2018$ None present Three weeks time is granted to remove office objection. $sd/-$ REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Karnik SumitDigitally signed bySumit Ramesh KarnikRameshDate: 2018.09.12Karnik15:21:58 +0530

Order - Status 3: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 14061 OF 2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : V. R. Kachare REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : 28/09/2018 None present Three weeks time as last chance is granted to remove office objection. sd/- REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Sumit Ramesh Karnik Digitally signed by Sumit Ramesh Karnik Date: 2018.10.03 15:10:54 +0530

Order - Status 4: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 14061 OF 2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : V. R. Kachare REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : 22/10/2018 None present Three weeks time as last chance excluding Diwali Vacation is granted to remove office objections. sd/- REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Sumit Ramesh Karnik Digitally signed by Sumit Ramesh Karnik Date: 2018.10.25 17:07:48 +0530

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 14061 OF 2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : A.N. MARE I/c. REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : 7/12/2018 None present 4 weeks time excl. Christmas Vacation is granted to remove office objections, failing which S.A.St. shall stand refused for registration, alongwith all the C.A.Sts. filed in this S.A.St., without further reference to the Court. sd/- I/c. REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

Order - Status 7: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5593 OF 2012 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders. Registrar's orders Shri Tushar Bhavsar a/w R Bhatt a/w Ms Prerna Khirsagar i/b Mr Manoj Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.M.Patne, AGP for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr P.K.Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate i/b Mr R.K.Mendadkar, for respondent nos 3 to 11. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 28/06/2012 PC: Heard Mr Tushar Bhavsar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr R.M.Patne, learned AGP for respondent nos 1 and 2, Mr Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Counsel for respondent nos 3 to 11. In view of the order passed today in Writ Petition No.5460 of 2012, this writ petition is rendered infructuous and the same is disposed of as infructuous. All contentions of the parties are kept open. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) 2/2 WP/5593/2012