w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Shobha Atmaram Prabhu & Others v/s State of Maharashtra & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- MAHARASHTRA CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L71100MH1982PLC028750

Company & Directors' Information:- PRABHU AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909KL1953PTC000955

    Writ Petition No. 6344 of 2018

    Decided On, 03 July 2018

    At, High Court of Judicature at Bombay

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHANTANU KEMKAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN W. SAMBRE

    For the Petitioners: Sonia Prabhu, Advocate For the Respondents: R1, M.M. Pabale, AGP, R3, Purnima Atmaram Prabhu, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Nitin W. Sambre, J.

1. Heard Petitioner No.4 in person, who is a Lawyer by profession and who represents the interest of other Petitioners.

2. The Petitioner No.1 appears to be the mother of Petitioner Nos. 2, 4 and Respondent No. 3 and mother-in-law of Petitioner No. 3. The Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 appears to be husband and wife.

3. The Petition is filed with following prayers:

'(A) By an appropriate writ, order and/or direction of this Hon'ble Court, this Hon'ble Court be kind enough to assign C.A.No.1061/2012 to any appropriate Hon'ble Judge from District Court Shivajinagar Pune, other than the Hon'ble Judge hearing C.A.No.123/2016 and Hon'ble Shri S. M. Modak, the appeal may kindly be made time bound, preferably within 30 days, the parties may kindly be restricted to filing of purshis and applications of adjournment, that too on genuine grounds.

(B) Pending the hearing and order of prayer clause (A), this Hon'ble Court be kind enough to issue an appropriate writ, order and/or direction to say the proceedings of C.A.No.1061/2012.

(C) Adinterim and interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (B) may kindly be granted.

(D) This Hon'ble Court be kind enough to give guidelines, whether a Judge can rescue himself/herself from hearing a particular matter, on the ground that the Advocate/party of the pending matter before him/her, has visited his/her Facebook page and/or his account on any other social media.

(E) By an appropriate writ, order and/or direction of this Hon'ble Court, this Hon'ble Court be kind enough to take appropriate action against Hon'ble Shri S. M. Modak and Hon'ble Shri S. B. Bahalkar, for misusing their powers to violate the rights of the appellants of C.A.No.1061/2012, especially of 82 years old Appellant No.1.

(F) For such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.'

4. In Special Civil Suit No. 331 of 2010 filed by the Respondent No.2 against the present Petitioners, a decree came to be passed vide Judgment and Order dated August 13, 2012 which is the subject matter of challenge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 123 of 2016 at the behest of present Petitioners. The said Civil Appeal is pending on the file of learned District Judge-18 & Additional Sessions Judge, Pune.

5. In Small Cause Suit No. 71 of 2010 vide Judgment and Decree dated August 16, 2012 a decree for eviction and possession came to be passed against the Petitioners which is the subject matter of challenge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 1061 of 2012. Respondent No.2 – landlord moved Application (Exhibit – 25) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 1061 of 2012 seeking clubbing of both these Civil Appeals bearing Regular Civil Appeal No. 1061 of 2012 and Regular Civil Appeal No. 123 of 2016. Considering the issue involved in both these Appeals, the learned District Judge rejected the prayer for clubbing of both these Appeals.

6. On 13th April 2018 the learned Principal District Judge & Sessions Judge, Pune in exercise of powers under Section 24 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') passed an order on the administrative side directing transfer of the Regular Civil Appeal No. 1061 of 2012 to the Court of Mr. J. D. Wadane, District Judge-12 & Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. According to Petitioner, Mr. S. B. Bahalkar, the learned District Judge – 9 & Additional Sessions Judge, Pune who has already heard said Regular Civil Appeal, was transferred. On the basis of the ground narrated in the Petition, a prayer is made that Regular Civil Appeal No. 1061 of 2012 be transferred to any other Court than the Judge dealing with the hearing of Regular Civil Appeal No.123 of 2016 and also the Principal District Judge, Pune.

7. According to learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the subject matter of both the Appeals bearing Regular Civil Appeal No. 1061 of 2012 and Regular Civil Appeal No. 123 of 2016 are based on altogether different factual matrix. The issues which are required to be considered are also different and as such if both these Appeals are heard and decided by the same Judge, there is every likelihood that the Petitioners may suffer substantial prejudice. The Petitioners have also claimed that the then District Judge, Pune (Mr. S. B. Bahalkar) was dealing with the Appeal No. 1061 of 2012 for almost last three years and has completed the final hearing. As such, the matter should have been decided by the same Judge.

8. The Respondent No.3 who appears in person and being sister of Petitioner No.4, supports the aforesaid contentions.

9. If the submissions of the Petitioners are appreciated, the Petitioners have taken shelter of Petitioner No.1 i.e. their mother, who is at the advanced age of 82 years, for creating the case under Section 24 of the Code. It is the contention of the Petitioners that the power is vested in this Court under Section 24 of the Code to transfer the Regular Civil Appeal No. 1061 of 2012 to any other court at Shivajinagar, Pune other than the Hon'ble Judge hearing Regular Civil Appeal No.123 of 2016 and Mr. S. M. Modak, the Principal District Judge, Pune.

10. If the prayer is appreciated in the background of Section 24 of the Code, wherein the general power of transfer and withdrawal of the suit or appeal is vested in the High Court or the District Court, as the case may be, such power of transfer of proceedings can be exercised on an application of any of the parties and upon hearing the parties affected or even the court on its own motion without issuing notice at any stage of the said proceeding transfer the suit, appeal or such other proceedings which are pending before it for trial or disposal to any court subordinate to it and competent to try and dispose of the same.

11. The High Court or District Court has also power to withdraw the suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any court subordinate to it, and try or dispose of the same, or transfer the same for trial or disposal to any court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or if required, may retransfer the same or on its own may try or dispose of the same.

12. Subsection 3 of Section 24 provides that the courts of District Judge & Additional Sessions Judge are deemed to be subordinate to the District Judge. The power under Section 24 of the Code for ordering transfer of the proceedings, viz – appeal or suit or execution proceedings is not restricted to the extent of want of jurisdiction, but also on administrative ground or if there is likelihood of bias, the High Court or District Court has every authority to transfer the proceeding. What is required is, the court while exercising powers under Section 24 of the Code, needs to be act judicially as powers conferred are discretionary in nature. Appropriate support can be drawn by relying upon the Judgment of this Court in the matter of Bell Finvest (India) Limited V/s Official Liquidator of M/s. Rtec System(I) Pvt.Ltd. (2015(2) BomC.R.247).

13. In the aforesaid backdrop of provisions of Section 24 of the Code, what is required to be noticed is, the parties before this Court particularly Petitioners are Appellants in the Appeals wherein a dispute relates to possession and injunction in relation to an immovable property. On 13th April 2018 the learned Principal District Judge, Pune under his administrative powers issued an office order transferring Regular Civil Appeal No. 1061 of 2012 initiated by the Petitioners from the court of Mr. S. B. Bahalkar, District Judge9 & Additional Sessions Judge, Pune to the court of Mr. J. D. Wadane, District Judge12 & Additional Sessions Judge, Pune.

14. Before the said administrative order of transfer, the Respondent No.2 – original Plaintiff moved an Application (Exhibit – 25) pointing out that in Misc. Application No. 728 of 2011 under Section 24 of the Code in regard to the transfer of both the suits to the file of one and the same Judge which was allowed and suits were tried and decided by one and the same Judge. According to him, Regular Civil Appeal No. 123 of 2016 pending on the file of District Judge18, Pune needs to be transferred to the file of District Judge-15 & Additional Sessions Judge, Pune presided over by Mr. S. B. Bahalkar or to consolidate both the Appeals bearing Regular Civil Appeal No. 1061 of 2012 and Regular Civil Appeal No. 123 of 2016. The said application was rejected on 26th April 2017.

15. As a consequences of above, the Petitioners in the Petition claims that on 1st November 2017 the court of learned District Judge fixed the matter for arguments of the Respondents.

16. Thereafter the matter was adjourned time and again and on 28th March 2018 when the matter was adjourned on 16th April 2018, Mr. S. B. Bahalkar, the District Judge9, Pune, taking up the hearing of the matter, came to be transferred to Thane from Pune and Mr. J. D. Wadane, the District Judge-12, Pune was transferred from Pune to Osmanabad. According to the Petitioners, Mr. S. B. Bahalkar, the District Judge should have heard and decided the matter during the vacation, however, the matter before him take a different turn, as according to the Petitioners, it is the Respondent No.2 who awaited a conduct of the matter before the said Judge.

17. In the meantime, it appears that the Petitioner No. 4, a Lawyer by profession commented on a facebook post of the said Judge Mr. Bahalkar and as such the Judge was required to bring the said fact to the notice of learned Principal District Judge, who then ordered transfer of the matter on 13th April 2018.

18. In the aforesaid background, keeping in mind the scheme of Section 24 of the Code, the claim of the present Petitioners that Regular Civil Appeal No. 1061 of 2012 needs to be transferred to some other District Court Shivajinagar, Pune other than the Judge hearing Regular Civil Appeal No. 123 of 2016 and also to the court of Mr. S. M. Modak, the Principal District Judge, Pune is without any legal basis.

19. It is what to note here that the District Judge Mr. S.B. Bahalkar and Mr. J. D. Wadane both are transferred and as such the Principal District Judge, Pune, the administrative head has every power to allot the judicial business to be directed by each of the Judge who is posted under him. The claim of the Petitioner that the Principal District Judge or Judge taking up Regular Civil Appeal No.123 of 2016 should not hear the Regular Civil Appeal No. 1061 of 2012, is virtually amounting to forum-hunting which practice and approach on the part of the Petitioner No. 4 is deprecated, particularly when the Petitioner No.4 is practicing as a Lawyer.

20. The conduct of the Petitioner No. 4 in responding to the face-book post of a Judge who was hearing their Appeals, in the aforesaid background, for most unfault for conduct and could be viewed as professional misconduct upon examining the same in detail.

21. In the matter of Chetak Construction Ltd. V/s Om Prakash and Others (1998) 4 Supreme Court Cases 577) while dealing with the conduct of a Lawyer and the litigation, in paragraph nos. 16 and 17 has observed thus:

'16. Indeed, no lawyer or litigant can be permitted to browbeat the court or malign the presiding officer with a view to get a favourable order. Judges shall not be able to perform their duties freely and fairly if such activities were permitted and in the result administration of justice would become a casualty and rule of law would receive a setback. The Judges are obliged to decide cases impartially and without any fear or favour. Lawyers and litigants cannot be allowed to 'terrorize' or 'intimidate' Judges with a view to 'secure' orders which they want. This basic and fundamental and no civilized system of administration of justice can permit it. We certainly, cannot approve of any attempt on the part of any litigant to go 'forum-shopping.' A litigant cannot be permitted 'choice' of the 'forum' and every attempt at 'forum-shopping' must be crushed with a heavy hand.

17. At the same time, it is of utmost importance to remember that Judges must act as impartial referees and decide cases objectively, uninfluenced by any personal bias or prejudice. A Judge should not allow his judicial position to be compromised at any cost. This is essential for maintaining the integrity of the institution and public confidence in it. The credibility of this institution rests on the fairness and impartiality of the Judges at all levels. It is the principle of highest importance for the proper administration of justice that judicial powers must be exercised impartially and within the bounds of law. Public confidence in the judiciary rests on legitimacy of judicial process. Sources of legitimacy are in the impersonal application by the Judge of recognised objective principles which owe their existence to a system as distinguished from subjective moods, predilections, emotions and prejudices. Judges must always ensure that they do not allow the credibility of the institution to be eroded. We must always remember that justice must not only be done but it must also be seen to be done.'

22. In the aforesaid background, the order of the learned Principal District Judge in transferring the matter from the file of District Judge9, Pune to District Judge-12, Pune is justified, particularly looking to the pleadings raised by the Petitioners in the present Petition.

23. Apart from above, it is to be noted that the Petitioners in clear terms could establish that the Principal District Judge Mr. S. M. Modak should not be allotted such matter for hearing as a bias approach towards the Petitioners' case. As a consequences of above, the claim made vide prayer clause (A) for transfer of the proceedings, in our opinion, does not warrant any consideration, as same is devoid of merits and as such is rejected.

24. So far as the prayer clause (D), wherein the Petitioners have prayed this Court to issue guidelines as to the circumstances in which a Judge can be recuse himself from hearing of a particular case is concerned, recusal by a Judge in a case held to be an issue within his personal domain. A Judge may recuse himself on the basis of his personal or private interest in the subject-matter of the litigation, his intimacy with the party/parties to a lis which is brought before him, his own conscience about the matter or the parties or his perception about conflict of interest in taking up the matter etc. Such decision whether to recuse or not is purely within the domain of the said Judge who is dealing with the matter.

25. Asking a Judge to recuse himself by a party or a litigant is required to be viewed very seriously unless by such request certain issues are brought to the notice of the Judge taking up the matter which disqualifies him from taking such matter on the issues referred supra, viz – personal or private interest, intimacy with the party/parties to a lis etc.

26. The Apex Court in the matter of R. K. Anand V/s Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 106) in paragraph nos. 259, 264, 266 to 268 has observed thus :

'259. In one glance, the grounds on which recusal was asked for appear fit to be rejected out of hands. But the Court gave the matter far greater importance than it merited, apparently because it saw a personal angle in it. The petition was heard for three days before it was rejected by the order dated 4-10-2007. It is a long order running into twenty-seven pages authored by Sarin, J. The order dealt with all the grounds advanced in support of the recusal petition and effectively showed that there was no truth or substance in any of those grounds.

264. We are constrained to pause here for a moment and to express grave concern over the fact that lately such tendencies and practices are on the increase. We have come across instances where one would simply throw a stone on a Judge (who is quite defenceless in such matters)and later on cite the gratuitous attack as a ground to ask the Judge to recuse himself from hearing a case in which he would be appearing. Such conduct is bound to cause deep hurt to the Judge concerned but what is of far greater importance is that it defies the very fundamentals of administration of justice. A motivated application for recusal, therefore, needs to be dealt with sternly and should be viewed ordinarily as interference in the due course of justice leading to penal consequences.

266. This development provided R. K. Anand with another opportunity to carry on his offensive further. He unhesitatingly availed of the opportunity and filed an application(Cri.M.No.11677 of 2007) for clarification/review of the order dated 4102007 dismissing his recusal petition. Review was sought primarily on the ground that the order of Sarin, J. was not the order by the Bench since the other Judge had declined to concur with him.

267. After the other Judge opted out of the Bench, the Chief Justice put Lokur, J. in his place. Consequently, the clarification/review application came before Sarin, J., sitting with Lokur, J., and the first thing this Bench was told, and with some assertiveness, too, was that it was not competent to hear the application and it could only be heard by the previous Bench as it arose from an order passed by tht Bench. The clarification/review application was rejected by a long order dated 29-11-2007 authored by Lokur, J. As we shall see, henceforth all substantive orders in the proceeding were written, not by the Presiding Judge, but by Lokur, J. and the significance of it is not lost on us. The application for recusal though rejected was not completely unsuccessful. It left a lasting shadow on the proceeding.

268. Here, it may be noted that apart from filing an application for its clarification/review before the High Court, the order rejecting the recusal application was also sought to be challenged before this Court by filing SLP (Crl.) No. 7374 of 2007. The SLP was, however, withdrawn on 14-12-2007. Nevertheless, the challenge to the High Court order rejecting the recusal application is still not given up and Paras H and I of the grounds in the present memo of appeal expressly seek to assail that order.'

27. The issue of recusal is considered by the Nagpur Bench of this Court in the matter of Satish Mahadeorao Uke V/s Registrar, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur (2016(4) Mh.L.J.406). This Court in para no. 25 while dealing with the issue of recusal has observed thus :

'25. A Judge may recuse at his own choice from a case entrusted to him by the Chief Justice and it would be a matter of his own choosing. But recusal at the asking of the litigating party, unless justified, must never be acceded to. This is what the Apex Court has held recently in NJAC case instituted by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and another vs. Union of India, reported in 2015(11) SCALE 1. The question of recusal is normally decided by a Judge on the basis of his personal or private interest in the subject-matter of the litigation, his intimacy with the party/parties to a lis before him, his perception about conflict of interest in taking up the matter, and his own conscience. Such decision does not depend upon the dictates of lawyers or litigants. There can be numerous such cases, where the question of recusal arises, some of which can be broadly cited as under :

(i) The relations between the lawyers and their clients

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

are always considered to be professional. While in practice of law as a Standing Counsel of corporate or statutory bodies or authorities, may not deter taking up or dealing with the matters of such bodies or authorities as a Judge unless the subject-matter of the litigation was handled as a professional. Day in and day out, such matters are taken up and the orders are passed either in favour or against such bodies or authorities. (ii) Many times, personal matters of lawyers regularly practising in the Court, who are the members of the Bar Association, are required to be dealt with. Merely because some such lawyer was a professional colleague while in practice may not act as a disqualification for taking up his matter, and a Judge decides it on the basis of his intimacy with such lawyer and the subject-matter of the litigation or his conscience. (iii) The participation of lawyers in political activities or the activities of the Bar Association or in the voluntary organizations and the local bodies is phenomenal. Such lawyers frequently come before the Court as a litigant in public interest litigations to espouse or defend the common cause. The fact that such a lawyer is a regular practitioner before this Court, does not come in the way of adjudicating such matters, as the Court is concerned with the subject-matter of litigation and the beneficiaries of it. (iv) Many times, it happens that a lawyer having personal matter before the Court occupies the highest position in the Bar Association and shares the dais with the Judges in the official functions organized by the High Court or the Bar Association, or visits the Judges at their residence to express the condolences. These facts can hardly be a ground or reason for recusal by a Judge to take up the matters of such lawyers.' 28. Having regard to the observations made by the Apex Court and this Court in the above referred Judgments, a prayer clause (D) moved by the Petitioners seeking directions to frame guidelines in regard to the issue of recusal of a Judge in a given case cannot be entertained. 29. As such, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits. The same stands dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

19-06-2020 Vishwas Utagi & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-06-2020 Komal Hiwale Versus State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
12-06-2020 Mahesh Sambhaji Chafle Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Akheda Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-06-2020 M/s. Thakur Stone Quarries through its Partner Munesh Hotilal Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 Vishnupant Motba Kesarkar Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Versus Principal, College of Engineering, Pune High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-06-2020 Sahyog Homes Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-06-2020 Sachin @ Satish Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
01-06-2020 Citizen Forum for Equality, a registered NGO, vide registration no:-MH/645/11, through its President Madhukar Ganpat Kukde Versus The State of Maharashtra, through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
29-05-2020 The State of Maharashtra through Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad Versus Prabhakar Karbhari Ghatmale & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
26-05-2020 State of Maharashtra Versus Mangesh & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
26-05-2020 Bhagtam & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
26-05-2020 Abhinav Bharat Congress & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-05-2020 Ms. X Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-05-2020 Mohiuddin Vaid Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-05-2020 Grant Medical Foundation Ruby Hall Clinic, Pune Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-05-2020 Yogesh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Chief Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 A.P. Suryaprakasam Versus Superintendent of Police, Sangli District, Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-05-2020 The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Hubandary, Dairy Development & Fisheries Department, Mantralaya & Another Versus Madhukar Suryabhan Ingale In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 Amalner Municipal Council, Amalner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
08-05-2020 Chandrakant Kotecha Charitable Trust Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-05-2020 Pratik & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Mahur Dist. Nanded & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
05-05-2020 Prabhu & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary Department of Housing & Urban Development, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
05-05-2020 Zafar Jamal Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-05-2020 Shekhar @ Mukesh Sanadi Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-05-2020 Shobha Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Annexe, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
04-05-2020 Pradeep Gandhy Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others Supreme Court of India
03-05-2020 Mohammad Nishat Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
30-04-2020 Mohan Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through : The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Syed Salim & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantrayalay & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Shivray Kulkarni & Others Versus State of Maharashtra &Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Sardar Manjieeth Singh Jagan Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Babu Bhairu Ovhal & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Gajanan Shahu Keripale Versus The State of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, School Education & Sports Dept, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Natural Sugar and Allied Industries Limited & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary for Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Baban Gangaram Chirate & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2020 Shankar Sarvotam Pai & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2020 Abuzar Shaikh Abdul Kalam Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2020 Ajay Versus State of Maharashtra, through PSO In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
27-04-2020 Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar Versus Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Others Supreme Court of India
24-04-2020 Arvind Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
23-04-2020 High Court on its own motion Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-04-2020 Deodutta Gangadhar Marathe Versus The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-04-2020 The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-04-2020 Pankaj Rajmachikar Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-04-2020 Mohammad Zakir Mohammad Bashir Solanki Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Nilesh Shriniwas Baswant Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
08-04-2020 C.H. Sharma & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Sarva Hara Jan Andolan through Ulka Mahajan & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-04-2020 Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur, Ravindranath Tagore Marg, through its Registrar & Another Versus State of Maharashtra, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, through its Secretary & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Shahid Bhagat Singh Cooperative Housing Society Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-03-2020 Azam Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shankar Khandu Thombare & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Kondiba Bahiru Thambare High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-03-2020 Professor Smt. Manorama Prakash Khandekar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Higher and Technical Education Department, through its Secretary, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shivaji Shankar Bhintade High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 Manglam Roongta & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 Ritesh Rajendra Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra (Through – PI of Chavani Police Station, Malegaon, District - Nasik) Versus Dr. Baban Lahanu Gangurde & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Chetan Prabhakar Rajwade Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
17-03-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Through its Superintending Engineer, Admn. Versus M/.Pranavditya Spinning Mills Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 CEAT Limited (formerly known as Ceat Tyres of India Ltd.) Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 Jeevan Niwas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra through Department of Co-operation & Textiles, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 Bhavna Kisan Uradya & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2020 Ram Pralhad Khatri & Others Versus State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-03-2020 Chirag Sundarlal Gupta Versus The State of Maharashtra (through Kurar Village Police Station High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2020 Nagrik Samanvya Samiti & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-03-2020 Sheetal Medicare Products Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Ishwar & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Co-operation and Textile Department, Maharashtra State Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Nivrutti Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Dnyaneshwar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Sayyad Azim Sayyad Mnazur & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another Versus Mohd. Nazir & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-03-2020 Milind Bhimsing Shirsath Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Sanjay Devaji Ramteke Versus The State of Maharashtra, through PSO In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
09-03-2020 Kumari Shaikh Shashim Mhamulal Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Lahu Bhausaheb Sonwane Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-03-2020 Jaggu Sardar @ Jagdish Tirathsing Labana @ Punjabi Versus The State of Maharashtra (Through the Office of the Government Pleader, High Court, A.S. Mumbai) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Hasina Siraj Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra Secretary through Department of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-03-2020 Dr. Nishigandha Ramchandra Naik Versus State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-03-2020 Manohar Bhimraoji Mahalle & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Balaso Gulab Pendhari & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 Vikrant Vikas Raikar, Proprietor of M/s. Elegant Constructions Versus State of Maharashtra, through Government Pleader & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 Gopal Versus State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shaikh Jabbarlal Mohamad High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 Devyani Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
05-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Anant Dattatraya Pashilkar High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 Mohammed Aslam Azad Shaikh Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Home Department (Special) Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Dr. Anil D. Garje Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary Higher & Technical Education Department Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Radhabai Gabaji Rokade Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Kishor Laxman Lonari, Convict No. C/52 Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Prison – 3, State of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mantralaya In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
04-03-2020 Ravindra Manik Shinde & Another Versus State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Haseena Babu Sanadi @ Haseena Rasul Tadwal Versus State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Social Justice & Special Assistance Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-03-2020 Sainath Annasaheb Waghchaure & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
03-03-2020 Dadarao & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
03-03-2020 Priyanka Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Principle Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
02-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shivaji Daulu Patil & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Mansing Shankarrao Mane & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box