Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Judgments of 2026

20841 judgments · newest first · showing 1801–2000

VILAS MARUTI PAWAR AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners filed a contempt petition seeking action against Respondent No. 4 for alleged non‑compliance with an order dated 23‑Nov‑2021 concerning removal of an encroachment. The Court examined the order and found no specific direction issued to Respondent No. 4 nor any undertaking by that …

TUKARAM BHANUDAS MULEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners challenged notices dated 29‑12‑2018 and 10‑01‑2019 issued by the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council, Kallam, under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, alleging that they were served without any opportunity of being heard. The petitioners …

MOHANLAL ARJUNDAS SHAMNANIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

DISPOSED OFF

Mohanlal Arjundas Shamnani filed a contempt petition against the State of Maharashtra alleging non‑compliance with a court order to submit the Revised Development Plan. The court had directed Respondent No. 4 to submit the plan to the State Government for sanction. The Additional Government Pleader …

MAHA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONversusDATTARAM VIKRAM SUGAVE and ORS

DISMISSED

Maha Industrial Development Corporation appealed against Dattaram Vikram Sugave and others, seeking relief from a Civil Judge's award dated 2.1.2004. The appellant's counsel submitted that the dispute was identical to that decided in FA Nos. 348/2003 (Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation …

DATTATRAYA PANDHARINATH CHOLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner filed a contempt petition arising from an order dated 16‑02‑2012 that directed Respondent No.2 to decide a proposal filed by the petitioner. Respondents No.2 and No.3 submitted an affidavit stating that, should the petitioner file the proposal with the requisite documents, it would be …

DEVRAO YESHWANTRAO MADAVI AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED

The appellants challenged the award of Rs 70,000 per hectare for land acquired for a storage tank, arguing that a prior sale of a nearby hectare for Rs 2,50,000 should raise the market value. The Reference Court had fixed the market value at Rs 1,20,000 per hectare after a reference under Section 18 …

ASHOK LAXMAN DHIRDEversusAHMEDNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AHMEDNAGAR

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner was appointed as a temporary clerk by Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation and, after completing 180 days of continuous service, became a deemed permanent employee in July 1974 under Industrial Court Award No. 431/1969. Despite this, the corporation granted permanency benefits only from …

PRAKASH ARUN CHITTE.versusANURADHA GOVINDRAO ADIK.

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

The applicant had a decree for payment of Rs.1 crore in a special civil suit and was initially directed by the District Court to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.10 lakhs to obtain a stay of execution. The applicant appealed to the High Court, which on 10 December 2024 ordered a stay conditioned on …

SHAHURAO BABURAO KOLHEversusTHE STATE OF MAHRASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners filed a series of continuous petitions (Nos. 184, 186, 187, 188, 189, 200 of 2020) before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking enhanced compensation from the State of Maharashtra. The State had already paid the enhanced compensation to the petitioners before the hearing. …

RAMESH NAGNATHRAO RODEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The applicants, employees of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, were charged under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for allegedly obtaining personal loans and having the amounts deducted from their salaries. They filed anticipatory …

SITARAM SHRIMANT MASKE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHRASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

A batch of continuous writ petitions (Nos. 184, 186, 187, 188, 189, 200 of 2020) filed by various petitioners against the State of Maharashtra sought enhanced compensation. The petitioners informed the court that they had already received the enhanced compensation sought. The court examined whether …

MADHUKAR ASHRUBA MASKE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHRASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

Several continuous petitions (Nos. 184, 186, 187, 188, 189 and 200 of 2020) were filed by different petitioners against the State of Maharashtra seeking enhanced compensation. The petitioners, through their counsel, informed the Court that they had already received the amount of enhanced …

SUNIL SUDAM PARVE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHRASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners filed six separate writ petitions (Nos. 184, 186, 187, 188, 189 and 200 of 2020) challenging the award of compensation by the State of Maharashtra. On the petitioners’ own instruction, counsel informed the Court that the petitioners had already received the enhanced compensation …

ROHIT RAJAN SHINDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DISPOSED OFF

The applicant, a child in conflict with law, was convicted of murdering his father by assault with a dumbbell and stabbing with a knife, and sentenced to life imprisonment under IPC Section 302. He filed an application for bail pending his appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in its …

BALJITSING GAGASINGH MAJORversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The applicants, employees of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, were charged under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for allegedly obtaining personal loans that were deducted from their salaries. They filed anticipatory bail …

PRIYANKA YOGESH DIXITversusYOGESH PRAKASH DIXIT

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Priyanka Yogesh Dixit, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging certain matters arising from her matrimonial dispute with the respondent, Yogesh Prakash Dixit. The petition sought relief on the basis that the family court proceedings were either pending or …

JAGBIRSINGH BHAGWANSINGH KOTTIRTHWALE (SARDAR)versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The applicants, employees of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, were charged under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for allegedly obtaining personal loans that were deducted from their salaries. They filed anticipatory bail …

PARMESHWAR BAPURAO GODMALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The applicants, employees of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, were charged under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for allegedly obtaining personal loans that were deducted from their salaries. They filed anticipatory bail …

BALARAM NIVRATI KALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The applicants, employees of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, were charged under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for allegedly obtaining personal loans that were deducted from their salaries. They filed anticipatory bail …

ATMARAM BUDHOMAL TALREJAversusSUDHAKAR@SUDHIR GANESHRAO PATIL AND ORS

Transfer to other court

The appellant, Atmaram Budhomal Talreja, appealed against an order of acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial v. Ganasekaran (2025), he sought to have the appeal transferred to the District and Sessions Court. The …

KAPIL NAGNATHRAO JADHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The applicants, employees of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, were charged under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for allegedly obtaining personal loans that were deducted from their salaries. They filed anticipatory bail …

DR CHETAN SUNDARRAO ADMANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners challenged clauses 4.1, 4.3, 4.5 and 4.7 of a Government Resolution dated 7 August 2012 that barred medical officers in government, semi‑government and local self‑government hospitals from engaging in private practice. The High Court noted that it had already examined the same issue …

IMTIYAZ BASHIR TAMBOLIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petition challenged the 2018 order that disqualified a member of a municipal council in Maharashtra. The petitioner argued that the disqualification was improper. The court observed that fresh elections had already been conducted, rendering the issue moot. Consequently, there was no substantive …

VISHWANATH EKNATH YAMGARversusTHE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

The applicants, represented by Mr. Shahaji C. Nadare and Ramesh Vitthal, sought to withdraw portions of compensation amounts deposited by the respondent acquiring body, totaling several crores of rupees, based on a prior order allowing 75% disbursement subject to conditions. The respondents …

DILIP EKNATH MORALE AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

Petitioners Dilip Eknath Morale and another filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging actions of the State of Maharashtra and other respondents. The petition was pending when the counsel for Respondent No.4 informed the court that the dispute had been settled …

RAMKISHAN S/O. JALBA SHILEKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISMISSED

Ramkishan filed a criminal writ petition in 2020 seeking the court’s direction to initiate criminal proceedings and a departmental enquiry against respondents 6 to 9, and to order the Superintendent of Police, Nanded, to prosecute them. The petition remained pending for several years. The …

MANOJ SURESH PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DISPOSED OFF

Manoj Suresh Patil was convicted by a JMFC for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC arising from a 2014 road accident. The Additional Sessions Court acquitted him of the compoundable offences (337 and 338) on the basis of a compromise, but upheld the conviction under Section 279, a …

MANOJ MOHAN JADHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

DISPOSED OFF

Manoj Mohan Jadhav filed a criminal writ petition seeking, among other reliefs, that a 20% compensation be made a pre‑condition for suspension of his sentence (prayer clause‑B). The Court allowed him to withdraw that prayer and dismissed that part of the petition. He then offered to deposit …

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. OBADversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ORS

PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED

The Executive Engineer (Acquiring Body) filed multiple first appeals challenging judgments and awards of the Land Acquisition Reference Court relating to land taken for the Sina‑Kolegaon Medium Project in Domgaon and Sonari villages. The appellant argued that the same lands were acquired for the …

PARMESHWAR DNYANOBA MANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

DISPOSED OFF

Parmeshwar Dnyanoba Mane was convicted by the Additional Sessions and Special Judge in Latur under IPC sections 354 and 354‑B and POCSO Act sections 8 and 12 for sexual offences against a nine‑year‑old girl, receiving a three‑year concurrent sentence. He had been on bail throughout the trial, …

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. OBADversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ORS

PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED

The Acquiring Body filed multiple first appeals challenging judgments and awards of land acquisition made by the Reference Court in various reference numbers. The lands concerned were from the villages Domgaon and Sonari, acquired for the Sina‑Kolegaon Medium Project under the same notifications as …

PUSHPALATA MANOHAR KHAMBETEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners, Tukaram Dagadu Gaikwad and Pushpalata Manohar Khambe​te, filed writ petitions (Nos. 11663 and 11666 of 2017) challenging actions of the State of Maharashtra. The petitioners' counsel informed the Court that the substantive issue raised in the petitions had already been decided by a …

SHOBHABAI W/O. RAJU RATHODversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

Shobhabai, the widow of the late Raju Rathod, filed a criminal writ petition seeking a direction for the police to register a crime against relatives of her deceased husband who she alleged were harassing her. She had earlier lodged a report on 02-11-2019 at Pachod Police Station, but the police …

SHANKAR S/O. GANPAT KHANDAGALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Shankar Khandagale, filed a criminal writ petition seeking to quash a notice issued by an Executive Magistrate and to initiate an investigation based on his complaints. The petition was filed after the petitioner had died, as confirmed by a resource personnel report indicating his …

ANITA BABAN SHINDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Withdrawn

Anita Baban Shinde filed bail applications (Nos. 439, 449, 452 of 2025) before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking release from custody in a criminal case against the State of Maharashtra. After hearing, the court indicated it was not inclined to consider the applications. On counsel's …

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTDversusNANDKUMAR SHAMRAO KALE AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd filed a first appeal (No. 960 of 2026) against claimants Nandkumar Shamrao Kale and others, seeking to withdraw the appeal after accepting the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shrirampur (Petition No. 171 of 2020). The appellant submitted a withdrawal …

M I D C LATURversusMADHAVRAO GANUJI DHAGE AND OTHERS

DISMISSED

The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) heard several appeals challenging compensation awards in land acquisition proceedings dating back to 1993 for the establishment of a MIDC at Latur. The appellants contested judgments and awards dated 2004 and 2006, arguing that the compensation …

SONIKA GANESH DESHMUKHversusGANESH MOHAN DESHMUKH

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The wife, Sonika Ganesh Deshmukh, applied to the Bombay High Court seeking the transfer of a family law petition (Petition No. A‑40/2026) that was originally filed by her husband in the Family Court at Pune. She resides in Ahilyanagar, where two other proceedings involving the same parties are …

PRIYANKA ALIAS RANI GOLDENSING JADHAVversusGOLDENSING GOKULDAS JADHAV

DISPOSED OFF

The wife, Priyanka Jadhav, filed an application to transfer her pending marriage petition (No. A73/2025) from the Family Court in Jalna to the Family Court in Parbhani, about 140 km away. The husband was duly served but did not appear to oppose the transfer. The wife has also lodged an FIR under …

CHANDRABHAN SHAMRAO AGALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner filed a contempt petition in 2013 seeking rental compensation from Respondent No.2, who was later transferred and the notices remained unserved. No further action was taken by the petitioner, and the respondent claimed compliance with the contempt order by the time of the hearing. The …

ISAQ MANSURKHAN PATHANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Isaq Mansurkhank Pathan, filed a criminal revision seeking relief from his conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent (the State) indicated that the complainant had received full compensation and raised no objection to the petitioner's acquittal. …

ISAQ MANSURKHAN PATHANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Isaq Mansurkhan Pathan, filed a criminal revision seeking relief from his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent (the State) presented a compromise deed indicating that the complainant had received full compensation and raised no objection to …

AKSHAY S/O. BHAGWAN GHODAKE.versusJITENDRA S/O. BALKRISHNA KABADI AND ANR.

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

Akshay Ghodake filed a civil application seeking condonation of a 69‑day delay in filing his first appeal. The applicant’s counsel, Mr. Shashikant E. Shekade, submitted reasons for the delay, which the court found were not deliberate. The bench, after hearing the applicant, decided that justice …

SAYYAD RUKSANA DASTAGIRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Sayyad Ruksana Dastagir, filed Contempt Petition No. 100 of 2013 arising out of Writ Petition No. 9512 of 2011, alleging that an order of the Court had been contravened. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the respondent had complied with the impugned order. The Court examined …

KAKUJI RAMCHANDRA THAKREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, a member of the Bhill Scheduled Tribe, sought restoration of agricultural land that his father had sold in 1965 without the statutory permission required under the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. The land had subsequently changed hands and the …

SANTNATH GANPAT MANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

Santnath Ganpat Mane filed a contempt petition alleging disobedience of an interim order issued in his writ petition (WP/7271/2012). The writ petition was later held abated because the petitioner died on 28 February 2018. The court examined whether the contempt petition could continue in view of the …

RUKMINBAI GOVIND GAIKWADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners, Laxmibai Maroti Gaikwad and another, filed a writ petition challenging aspects of the Gram Panchayat elections in Aurangabad. They argued that the election process was flawed and sought relief from the High Court. The respondents, the State of Maharashtra and others, contended that …

DIGAMBAR KASHINATH PUTHEWADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The applicant, Digambar Kashinath Puthewad, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a fraud case (Crime No. 148/2025) alleging misappropriation of Rs.2,87,165 collected from bank customers. The FIR alleged he failed to deposit the collected sums, while the applicant contended that he had …

VITHAL SATWAJI GITEversusSUGREEV MANIKA YADAV AND ORS.

DISPOSED OFF

The appellant Vithal Satwaji Gite filed a second appeal along with several civil applications seeking condonation of substantial delays—11,219, 4,731 and 9,848 days—in filing applications to set aside an abatement and to bring the legal representatives of three respondents on record. The respondent …

NARAYANDAS SHANKARLAL AGRAWALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Narayandas Shankarlal Agrawal, filed Writ Petition No. 4869 of 2018 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging certain actions of the State of Maharashtra and others. The petitioner later sought the Court's permission to withdraw the petition. The learned counsel for …

ISMAIL CHANDSO MUJAWARversusSANDESH TADVI

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Ismail Chandso Mujawar, filed a continuation petition seeking directions, including his appointment as Mutawali of a Wakf institution, after a Wakf Tribunal order. The petitioner’s counsel requested a notice to the respondent, but the court observed that the petitioner had been …

ATMARAM RANGNATH TONDEversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS

DISPOSED OFF

The appellant, Atmaram Rangnath Tonde, filed a civil application which was linked to a first appeal (No. 398 of 2026). The first appeal was disposed of, and the court held that no issues remained pending in the civil application. Consequently, the court ordered the civil application to be disposed. …

SHIVRAJ DNYANOBA GHULEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Shivraj Dnyanoba Ghule, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging an unspecified action of the State of Maharashtra. During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel, Shri Nagargoje Ankush N., requested permission to withdraw the petition. The …

BALAJI CHINTAMANI KAKDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

DISPOSED OFF

The High Court considered a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed by Balaji Chintamani Kakde, accused of offences including Sections 333, 74, 107, 352, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, for the alleged …

USHA GANESH MORE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The applicants, Usha Ganesh More and Sushila Rajendra Maske, who are President and Vice‑President of Shri Saibaba Mahila Nagari Co‑operative Patsanstha Ltd., were charged with large‑scale deposit fraud under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Maharashtra Protection of Interest …

RAJESH ALIAS BHOLA BANDU NATKARversusTHE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BEED AND OTHERS

RULE ABSOLUTE

The petitioner, Rajesh Natkar, was detained for twelve months under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA) Act on the ground that he was a sand smuggler. The detention order relied on a single recent offence and two in‑camera statements of confidential witnesses, which the …

GOVIND NARAYAN SHINDEversusTHE COLLECTOR PARBHANI AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

Petitioner Govind Narayan Shinde challenged an order passed under Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code that allowed respondents to construct a road to access their land, claiming it would destroy his dwelling and mango trees. He filed a regular civil suit seeking a perpetual injunction …

LAXMAN DATTU RUPANARversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ANR

PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED

The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, considered appeals challenging compensation awards for lands acquired in 1998 for the Hangarga Minor Irrigation Tank project. The appellants argued that the earlier awards undervalued their semi‑irrigated (seasonally irrigated) lands. Relying on a …

AMOL SHIVAJI RUPNARversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ANR

PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED

The acquisition proceedings initiated in 1998 involved lands acquired for the Hangarga Minor Irrigation Tank project. The original civil judge awards were challenged in appeals seeking higher compensation. The Court considered a prior coordinate bench decision (First Appeal No.1117/2007) which had …

NAVNATH JAGNNATH MASKE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHRASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The Aurangabad Bench of the High Court of Bombay heard a series of continuation petitions (Nos. 184, 186, 187, 188, 189 and 200 of 2020) filed by various petitioners against the State of Maharashtra. All petitioners alleged that they were entitled to enhanced compensation. The petitioners, through …

Mayur Ravindra KambleversusDistrict Health Officer Zilla Parishad Latur

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

Mayur Ravindra Kamble filed a civil application seeking condonation of delay in filing a cross‑objection against the District Health Officer, Zilla Parishad Latur. The respondent was served but did not appear before the court. The applicant submitted reasons for the delay in a separate application. …

SHANTABAI GOVINDRAO JADHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ANR

PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED

The appellants challenged the compensation awarded for lands acquired for the Hangarga Minor Irrigation Tank project. The High Court examined a prior coordinate‑bench decision that had enhanced compensation rates for seasonally irrigated and dry lands. Applying that precedent, the Court held that …

RAMESH DIGAMBER DESHPANDE AND OTHERSversusHANUMANT DATTATRAY DESHMUKH

DISPOSED OFF

A writ petition (No. 3102 of 2015) was filed by Ramesh Digamber Deshpande and others. The petitioners failed to appear before the High Court on the dates scheduled, first on 25 August 2026 and again on 2 September 2026. The Court noted the absence and inferred that the petitioners were not …

VIKAS MADHUKAR JADHAV AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ANR

PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED

The appellants challenged the compensation awarded for lands acquired for the Hangarga Minor Irrigation Tank, contending that the lands should be classified as seasonally irrigated and thus attract a higher rate. The reference court had applied rates for seasonally irrigated and dry lands, but the …

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusSHANKAR LAXMANRAO KULKARNI

DISMISSED

The State of Maharashtra appealed against a Land Reference Court award that increased compensation for land acquired for a percolation tank from Rs.85 to Rs.500 per Are. The State argued that the Reference Court had not properly evaluated the evidence and had awarded an excessive amount. The …

SOPAN VISHWANATH GAIKWADversusVINAYAK SHRIDHAR PALKAR

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Sopan Gaikwad, filed a writ petition but failed to appear in court on the scheduled date of 13 August 2026, and no counsel was present to represent him. The court noted the absence of representation and, after listing the petition for dismissal, ordered it to be dismissed for want of …

BALASAHEB VENKATI DOKE AND OTHERSversusThe State of Maharashtra

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners, a group of Zilla Parishad teachers, challenged an order dated 01‑01‑2026 that withdrew their inclusion in the Special Category Teachers, Cadre‑I and transferred them, on the ground that they had only undergone angioplasty, not the "heart surgery" defined by a 2025 government …

STATE OF MAHAversusNARAYAN HARI SONWANE

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

The State of Maharashtra filed an application seeking condonation of a 1,550‑day delay in filing its first appeal in a civil suit concerning the death of Narayan Hari Sonwane. The application was heard by Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh, who examined the reasons provided for the extensive delay. Relying …

SAKHARAM EKNATH CHAVAN AND ANOTHERversusRATNAMALA RAMESH AHERKAR AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners, Sakharm Eknath Chavan and another, filed Writ Petition No. 3339 of 2015 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking relief against the respondents. The petition was argued by Ms. Vaishali S. Swami, assisted by Mr. Y.R. Barahate. The respondents were represented by Mr. …

SHIVA SITARAM BARDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Withdrawn

Shiva Sitaram Barde filed a bail application before the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench. The applicant's counsel, Ms. Sonawane Sunita G., sought to withdraw the application and requested that the trial court expedite the pending trial. The bench, disinclined to grant bail, allowed the …

MUDASSAR ABDUL KARIM QURESHIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Withdrawn

Mudassar Abdul Karim Qureshi applied for anticipatory bail before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking protection against arrest in a pending criminal case. The court, after hearing, indicated it was not inclined to grant the relief sought. Counsel for the applicant, acting on his …

SUNIL VITTHALRAO SUSUNDRE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners, Sunil Vitthalrao Susundre and others, filed a civil application in the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, in connection with Writ Petition No. 2836 of 2026. They informed the court that they intended to file a separate petition regarding the matters raised. The learned Advocate …

LAXMAN GAJARAM DATIR AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners, Laxman Gajaram Datir and another, filed a contempt petition (No. 885 of 2018) before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, alleging non-compliance with a prior order. The respondents, the State of Maharashtra and others, were directed to comply with the contempt order. The …

MINAKSHI PARAKASH PANDE AND OTHERSversusTHE COLLECTOR AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

Petitioners Minakshir Prakash Pande and others filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the delay by the Collector, Ahilyanagar in deciding their representation dated 19 December 2024. The petition raised the issue of whether the administrative authority was …

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD.versusSABERABEE ABDUL WAHED PATHAN and ANR.

DISPOSED OFF

The dispute between The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and the claimants Saberabee Abdul Wahed Pathan & Anr. was referred to the Lok Adalat for determination. The appellant filed a first appeal (No. 484 of 2005) but subsequently submitted a withdrawal pursis along with an authority letter. The Lok …

VISHNU DEORAO INGLE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking payment of the award amount and statutory interest due under Section 80 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The petitioners alleged that the State of Maharashtra had failed to …

SURESH HARIBHAU HAJAREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Suresh Haribha​u Hajare, challenged a Scrutiny Committee order dated 04‑03‑2026 that invalidated his claim to belong to the ‘Koli Mahadev’ Scheduled Tribe. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a tribe‑validity certificate. The Court noted that a …

NITIN BABANRAO SHANKPALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Nitin Babanrao Shankpal, filed a writ petition challenging a Scrutiny Committee order that invalidated his claim to belong to the “Thakur” Scheduled Tribe. He relied on earlier judgments that granted conditional validity to his close blood relatives – his cousin uncle Dinesh Bapurao …

CHANDRAKANT BHAUSAHEB AJBEversusASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Chandrakand Bhausaheb Ajbe, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging actions of the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The petitioner was represented by Advocate B. B. Kulkarni. The respondent State was represented by Advocate S. P. Sonpawale, …

ABARAO HARIBA MADJEversusTHE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Abarao Hariba Madje, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking relief against the Additional Commissioner and others. The petitioner, through counsel, later requested permission to withdraw the writ petition, stating an intention to pursue an …

VIJAY GOPICHAND JADHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

Vijay GOPICHAND JADHAV filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging actions of the State of Maharashtra and others. The petitioner later informed the court that the matter had become infructuous, meaning there was no longer any relief to be sought. The court examined the submission …

BHIMRAO ANANDRAO DHONDE and ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAH and ORS

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

The appellants' 6.85‑hectare agricultural land in Beed district was acquired for a village tank, with an initial compensation of Rs.870 per R fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The appellants challenged this amount before the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, …

MUKHTAR MAHEMOOD PATHAN AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISMISSED

The petitioners, Mukhtar Mahemood Pathan and another, filed a criminal writ petition seeking a court direction to register an FIR against respondents 5 and 6 based on a representation dated 09‑02‑2020. The High Court observed that the petitioners have an alternate remedy of approaching the concerned …

NAGORAO GUNAJI JATALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED

The appellants challenged the compensation awarded for land acquired for a bypass road in Nanded, arguing that a prior sale of similar agricultural land in the same village should be used to determine market value. The trial court had applied a 20% escalation to the Land Acquisition Officer's …

ABDULGANIKHAN FAZALKHAN PATHANversusMUSSAKHAN ABDUL GANIKHAN PATHAN AND ANOTHER

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, allowed the anticipatory bail application (No. 351/2026) and the related criminal application (No. 953/2026) after noting that the dispute between the father and son applicants had been settled through mediation. A mediation report and joint pursis confirming …

M/S RANA SAHEBRAO MANNURAMversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ORS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners, owners of land in Tisgaon, Aurangabad, challenged the acquisition of their property by the State of Maharashtra and CIDCO, alleging procedural violations under the Land Acquisition Act, including non‑compliance with the dual‑newspaper publication requirement of Section 6(2) and the …

JAYPRAKASH NERDEV KAPSEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISMISSED

The petitioner filed a criminal writ petition seeking a court direction to the second respondent to initiate criminal prosecution against respondents five and six and others. The court observed that the petitioner had been continuously absent since 2022 and had made no effort to circulate the …

Dilip Vishwanath Amale and anrversusGayabai Shivaji Phopase

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The appellant Dilip Vishwanath Amale and another filed a second appeal and a civil application seeking relief concerning a suit property. The respondent, Gayabai Shivaji Phopase, contested the claim. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff had proved possession of the suit property. The …

ANADA KERBA CHOPWADversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ORS

DISPOSED OFF

Anada Kerba Chopwad filed a writ petition (No. 2727 of 2009) before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking relief against the State of Maharashtra and others. The petition remained pending for several years. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the passage of time had rendered the petition …

SONALI NITIN RAIBOLEversusNITIN DIGAMBARRAO RAIBOLE

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The wife, Sonali Nitin Raibole, filed an application seeking withdrawal of Rs.1,80,000 deposited by her husband, Nitin Digambarrao Raibole, as arrears of interim maintenance. The court noted that the earlier order allowed the husband to lead evidence before the Family Court, resulting in the …

AJIT @ BALU S/O. RAMESHRAO SHETEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DISMISSED

Ajit Shete was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, for offences under IPC sections 354‑A, 354‑D, 506 and POCSO Act sections 8 and 11(iv) for repeatedly intercepting a minor girl on her way to school, threatening her with a knife, gagging her, pulling her veil and pressing her breasts. …

Sharad Dajisaheb JawalkarversusBhandpratap BasantSingh chouhan

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Sharad Dajisaheb Jawalkar, filed a contempt petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The Court expressed disinclination to entertain the petition. On the Court's indication, the petitioner's counsel sought leave to withdraw the petition. The Court allowed the …

NILEASH MANIKRAO KALEversusPANDIT RAMCHANDRA PAWAR AND ANOTHER

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Nileash Manikrao Kale, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The petitioner, through counsel Ms. A.D. Rakh, later sought permission to withdraw the petition. The sole issue before the court was whether the petition could be withdrawn at the …

RAJSHRI JITENDRA PATILversusSANJAY NARSINGH RAJPUT AND OTHER

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Rajshri Jitendra Patil, filed Writ Petition No. 5914 of 2024 in the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking relief against the respondents. The petitioner later moved the Court requesting leave to withdraw the petition. The Court, after hearing, granted leave to withdraw and …

SHREYAS INFRASTRUCTUREversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ORS

DISPOSED OFF

Shreyas Infrastructure filed a contempt petition (No. 117 of 2010) against the State of Maharashtra and others in 2010. The petition was not circulated after 2013 and the petitioner failed to appear before the court. The respondents appeared through counsel. The bench noted the lack of any …

RAHUL SAHEBRAO CHABUKSWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Withdrawn

Petitioner Rahul Sahebrao Chabukswar filed a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging actions of the State of Maharashtra and others. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Imale Ramesh Ramdas, requested to withdraw the petition. The Court …

MAYA ABHAY INDURKAR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR JALNA AND ORS.

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

The applicants, who are claimants in first appeals, filed civil applications seeking condonation of a 3861‑day delay in filing those appeals. The respondents opposed, arguing the delay was inordinate and not properly explained. The applicants clarified that they do not seek any statutory benefit or …

VYANKATESH KERBA GADADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Vyankatesh Kerba Gadade, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench. The petitioner, through Advocate Shantaram R. Dheple, sought leave to withdraw the petition. The Court considered the request and granted leave for withdrawal. …

GOVIND MANOHAR JOSHI AND ANRversusSURESH MANOHAR JOSHI AND ORS

DISMISSED

The appellants challenged the compensation awarded for land acquired in 1990 for the Andrud Percolation Tank, arguing that the reference court failed to consider sale transactions from the nearby village of Nipani and that the land was irrigated, warranting a higher rate of Rs.19,000 per acre. The …

Sahebrao Vinayakrao DeshmukhversusVenkatchari Bramhachari Vrenglam

DISPOSED OFF

Petitioner Sahebrao Vinayakrao Deshmukh filed a contempt petition against respondents. The respondents complied with a prior order of the Court. The petitioner’s counsel then moved to withdraw the contempt petition. The Court considered the compliance and the withdrawal request. It ordered that the …

ROHIT ASHOK GAWALIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

DISPOSED OFF

Rohit Ashok Gawali challenged the cancellation of his bail by a Special Judge, which was based on invoking the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime (MCOC) Act under Section 439(2) of the CrPC. Gawali argued that the investigation, including the filing of a charge sheet, was complete and no further …

BHIMRAO SAMBHAJI KADAMversusMAHADEV FAKIRA GORE AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner Bhimrao filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction and later applied to amend the suit under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to limit his claim to an equal share of water from a well. The trial court rejected the amendment, prompting a writ petition. The petitioner argued that the …

AKSHAY MESHOK INGALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

APPLICATION ALLOWED

Akshay Meshok Ingale was arrested on 13 June 2024 in connection with Crime No. 521 of 2024 for offences under IPC sections 420, 406, 409 read with 34 and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act. He filed a third bail application, offering to deposit Rs 5 lakhs …

DHONDIRAM @ KAILAS JAGANNATH SHINDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

DISPOSED OFF

The appellant was convicted by a Special Court for offences under Section 354A of the IPC and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. On appeal, the High Court examined whether the prosecution had proved that the victim was a child under 18, as required by Section …

RAMESH S/O. VITHOBA CHINCHOLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

APPLICATION ALLOWED

Ramesh was convicted by a Judicial Magistrate and an Additional Sessions Judge for offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code based solely on the car owner's claim that he was driving the vehicle that struck the complainant and his family. No witness positively identified Ramesh as …

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND OTHERSversusDUHSANT VITHALRAO SHINDE

DISPOSED OFF

The Executive Engineer (acquiring body) filed numerous First Appeals challenging awards granted by the Reference Court in land‑acquisition matters concerning trees on the acquired lands. The claimants, represented by advocates N. D. Kendre and J. Y. Solunke, appeared before the National Lok Adalat …

VIKAS KISHANRAO DHARURKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Vikas Kishanrao Dharurkar, filed a writ petition challenging the Election Commission's notification dated 17 February 2017 that delimited wards for the Parbhani City Municipal Corporation elections. The petition sought to set aside the notification on grounds of its validity. The …

SRIKANTH BALASAHEB KIRDANT AND OTHERSversusASHABAI SHRIKANT KIRDANT

DISPOSED OFF

The applicants filed a criminal application seeking condonation of a 150‑day delay in filing a criminal revision. The revision was intended to pre‑empt execution of an impugned order against the respondent wife, but the record showed no execution steps had been taken. The applicant argued that his …

SUNIL SANTOSH WARUDE AND ANRversusTHE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DHULE AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

Sunil Santosh Warude and another filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the actions of the District Collector, Dhule. The petitioners were represented by Mr A.R. Syed, appearing on behalf of Mr S.B. Akhade. During the pendency of the proceedings, subsequent events …

CHARUSHILA @ SHAILAJA BHIMRAO JADHAVversusBHIMRAO TARAKCHAND JADHAV

DISMISSED

The appellant, Charushila @ Shailaja Bhimrao Jadhav, filed two family court appeals (Nos. 26 and 24 of 2020) before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The appellant's counsel, Mr. Manoj M. Kadtu, repeatedly failed to appear at scheduled hearings on 29.01.2026, 13.02.2026 (after being granted …

VISHAL MADHAVRAO DONGAREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

APPLICATION ALLOWED

Vishal Madhavrao Dongare, a doctor, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, for offences under Sections 498‑A (dowry death) and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the IPC, based primarily on three dying declarations of his wife, who had set herself ablaze amid a dispute linked to his …

XYZversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

DISPOSED OFF

The appellant filed an appeal under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act challenging a pre‑arrest bail order granted to the respondent in a case involving alleged rape under a false promise of marriage. The FIR alleged that the respondent, a …

DINESH BABULAL MALIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

Dinesh Babulal Mali filed a criminal writ petition seeking a direction for a de novo investigation under FIR No. 273 of 2012. The Court observed that a Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 47 of 2024 is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule, where a 'C' summary report had been …

SUBHASH ANANDRAO PATILversusTHE SPECIAL LAND ACQ. OFFICER AND ANR

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

The appellants, heirs of the deceased Subhash Anandrao Patil, challenged the compensation awarded for their agricultural land (2.85 hectares) acquired for the Waghur Project. They relied on a prior decision (First Appeal No.706 of 2007) where similar lands were awarded higher compensation, invoking …