Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Judgments of 2026

20841 judgments · newest first · showing 2801–3000

SHRIDHAR PUNJAJI BHUKANversusSTATE OF MAH

PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED

The claimants' lands in Alhanwadi village were acquired for a percolation tank and initially compensated at Rs.120 per R by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Dissatisfied, they sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, presenting two sale instances: Exhibit 53 (20 R …

MUNAF ALI YASEEN ALI AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners, teachers appointed in a school managed by respondent No.6, filed writ petitions alleging that internal management disputes prevented their appointment proposals from being forwarded to the Education Officer for approval. The State of Maharashtra issued a Government Resolution on …

UTTAM SHANKAR BHUKANversusTHE STATE OF MAH

PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED

The claimants' lands in Alhanwadi village were acquired for a percolation tank and the Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation at Rs.120 per R. Dissatisfied, they sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The reference court rejected a same‑village sale of 20 …

VIVIDH KARYAKARI SEVA SAHKARI SOCIETY YENKI THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN RAMRAO VENKATRAO BIRADARversusSTATE CO OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY MAHARASHTRA STATE THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER

DISPOSED OFF

Petitioners Prabhakar Venkatrao Patil and Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahkari Society filed writ petitions before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking relief against the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Latur and the State Co-operative Election Authority respectively. No appearance …

HARISHCHANDRA KONDIBA PAWARversusSTATE OF MAH and ANR

PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED

The claimants' lands in Alhanwadi village were acquired for a percolation tank and initially compensated at Rs.120 per R by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Dissatisfied, they sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, presenting two sale instances: one from the same …

VISHNU LEKHRAJ TANWANIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Vishnu Lekhraj Tanwani, filed a criminal writ petition seeking a direction that the Commissioner of Police, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, decide a complaint/representation he lodged on 30‑December‑2025. The respondent State, through its APP, indicated that the Commissioner would decide …

RAMESH AJINATH WANVE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

DISPOSED OFF

The Aurangabad Bench of the High Court of Bombay, on 8 January 2026, issued an interim order concerning a large number of pending criminal applications and writ petitions filed against the State of Maharashtra. The Court extended the deadline for filing amendments by four weeks, granting a final …

DNYANESHWAR JAGANNATH PAWAR (PATIL) AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Withdrawn

The applicants, Dnyaneshwar Jagannath Pawar (Patil) and others, filed a bail application before the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench. Their counsel, Mr. Bhushan Mahajan, sought the court's permission to withdraw the bail application. The respondent, the State of Maharashtra, was represented by …

GULAB KISAN KADAMversusRAMRAO BHAURAO RATHOD AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners purchased portions of land in Wanjarkheda, Latur, which had been allotted under a consolidation scheme finalized in 1974 under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. In 2012, a co‑sharer (Respondent No. 3) sought correction of the revenue …

CHANDBI MARDA MAJAR KHA MOMIN AND OTHERSversusNIMBA ARJUN MALI MAHAJAN

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners challenged the Tahsildar's order fixing a purchase price of Rs.1,862 for a 2.71‑hectare agricultural plot, arguing that the land is Class‑III Devasthan Inam and a Waqf property, and that the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (MTAL) Act does not apply because of Section 88CA, …

MANISHA HEMANT SALIversusHEMANT CHUNNILAL SALI

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Manisha Hemant Sali, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Adhoc District Judge, Shahada, which dismissed her civil appeal (No. 22 of 2009) for want of prosecution after her counsel was absent. The appeal concerned a decree of divorce previously granted by the Civil …

ASIF KHAN NAWAB KHANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

DISPOSED OFF

The applicant, Asif Khan Nawab Khan, sought additional time to take instructions regarding photographs and NCs presented by the second respondent. He subsequently filed an affidavit voluntarily undertaking not to enter the local limits of Aurangabad, not to contact the informant or her family, and …

BHIMRAO SURESH BHANDWALKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Withdrawn

The applicant, Bhimrao Suresh Bhandwalkar, filed a bail application before the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench. During the pendency of the application, the charge-sheet in the underlying criminal case was filed. The applicant's counsel sought leave to withdraw the bail application, requesting …

KHAMRUNNISA BEGUM SHAIKH HASANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DISPOSED OFF

The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, allowed two criminal appeals filed by Mohammad Shafik and Khamrunnisa Begum against convictions recorded by the Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 77 of 2018 for offences under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court set aside the …

THOGYA RUPA VALVI AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISMISSED

The Valvi family filed a criminal writ petition seeking to quash an order dated 29 January 2021 in which the Tahsildar, acting under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, held the respondents in possession of disputed agricultural land. The petitioners argued that the revision under Section …

SWATI DNYANESHWAR VIRGAONKARversusDNYANESHWAR SOMNATH VIRGAONKAR

DISPOSED OFF

Swati Dnyaneswar Virgaankar applied to transfer her divorce proceedings (Marriage Petition No. A-298/2025) from the Family Court in Nashik to the Family Court in Dhule. The respondent did not appear, indicating no opposition. The applicant argued that she has no income, a minor daughter, and the 120 …

BHAGWANT CHANDRAKANT THUBEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The applicants, who are directors of a cooperative society, feared arrest in connection with FIR No. 532/2024 alleging a Rs. 66 crore embezzlement and offences under IPC sections 409, 420 with section 34, and the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act. An audit under Section 81(3)(c) …

SANJAY VITHALRAO JADHAVversusTHE COLLECTOR AURANGABAD AND ORS

DISPOSED OFF

Three writ petitions (Nos. 752, 3929, and 764 of 2007) were filed in the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging actions of the Collector, Aurangabad and other respondents. Counsel for the respondents, Ms. Anagha Pandit, submitted that the petitions had become infructuous. The Court …

MAHARASHTRA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICERversusSUBHASH LAKSHMAN PATRADHAN DIED THR HIS SOLE LR HARSHAL S PATRADHAN THR SUNIL S BHENDALE AND ANR

DISPOSED OFF

The Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation (MTDC) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 19‑02‑2026 that issued a notice under Section 28‑A of the Land Acquisition Act against it. The petitioner relied on earlier judgments (First Appeal Nos. 10 of 2003 and 1109 of 2002) which held …

VINAYAK SAKHARAM THAVILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

DISPOSED OFF

Two criminal applications (Nos. 897/2021 and 984/2021) were filed before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, by Narendra @ Sandip Kanhiyalal Musale and Vinayak Sakharam Thavil respectively, against the State of Maharashtra and another respondent. The applicants sought relief under the criminal …

SAMIR LUKMAN SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

DISPOSED OFF

The appellant, Samir Lukman Shaikh, was charged under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for the murder of Ravi, who died from a head injury inflicted with a floor tile. The appellant argued that he did …

AJAY AVDHUT GIRI AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Withdrawn

The nine applicants sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged alleging that they threatened a complainant and aided the main accused, Sant Harigir Dattagir Giri, in sexual relations under false pretences of marriage. The FIR charged offences under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya …

SUDHAKAR RAMRAO AHIRRAOversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, a qualified Shikshan Sevak, was appointed to a school in 2006 but was discharged in 2008 due to reduction of school divisions. He sought reinstatement and later re‑appointment, invoking Clause 5 of the Government Resolution dated 10‑06‑2005 and the Maharashtra Employees of Private …

RASHEED KHAN MOHAMMED HANIF KHANversusABDUL GAFFAR SHAIKH AHMED AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

Rasheed Khan filed a writ petition challenging observations made by the Joint Charity Commissioner on 26.08.2021 regarding his position as secretary of a trust. The petitioner argued that subsequent developments, namely a change report, rendered the petition infructuous, but sought a declaration …

BALAJI MARUTI PAVIKAR ALIAS TENGETOL AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The appellants, Balaji and Dnyaneshwar Ravikar, were arrested in December 2025 for assaulting the informant's father with a deadly weapon, causing grievous injuries. They filed a bail application after the investigation was completed and a charge‑sheet filed. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the …

BABAN SHANKAR BHOSALE AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners sought relief concerning the loss of vital evidence (muddemal) by Constable Durge, which pertained to accused Bhagchand Lalchand Sakla, who had died, rendering the criminal proceedings against him abated. The State argued that the misplaced documents were irrelevant as the accused …

BHAGWAN S/O. TRAMBAKRAO BHEREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DISMISSED

The appellant, a police head constable, was convicted under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding a Rs 1,000 bribe to release a complainant's seized mobile phone and motorcycle. The prosecution’s case relied on the complainant’s testimony that the accused …

SHAIKH HAMID PEERMOHAMMADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISMISSED

The petitioners filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 533 of 2021 seeking a direction to register an FIR against respondent No.5. The Court ordered a report from the Resource Personnel, which indicated that after filing the petitions, the petitioners never appeared for taking circulation. The Court …

SHAIKH HAMID PEERMOHAMMADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISMISSED

The petitioners filed two criminal writ petitions seeking a direction to register an FIR against respondent No.5. After filing, the petitioners failed to appear for any further proceedings, including taking circulation of the petitions. The Resource Personnel report confirmed that the petitioners …

PRAVIN VITTHALRAO JADHAV AND ANRversusRUKHMINIBAI VITTHALRAO JADHAV AND ORS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners challenged an order of the Senior Citizen Maintenance Appellate Tribunal that directed them to hand over possession of a house to respondent No.1, who had purchased the property under a registered sale deed. The Tribunal, and subsequently the Appellate Authority under Section 16 of …

ABOLI AJINKYA KESKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner filed a criminal writ petition seeking a direction to restore the investigation of a complaint lodged on 31.01.2026 with MIDC Police Station, Latur. The investigation had already been completed by Ravet Police Station, and a charge sheet (FIR No.30/2026) was filed, leading to the …

MAHESH SATISH TODKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Withdrawn

Mahesh Satish Todkar filed a bail application before the High Court, Aurangabad Bench. During the pendency of the application, the investigating agency filed a charge sheet against the applicant. The applicant, through his counsel, sought permission to withdraw the bail application, stating that he …

QUAZI AFFAN AHMED AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DISPOSED OFF

The applicants, Quazi Affan Ahmed and another, applied for anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 0685 of 2025, which alleged offences under several sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR was based on a complaint by Muskan Salim Pathan, who claimed to be an advocate and …

Sajida Nasir Khan.versusArun Haribhau Mhaske and Ors.

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

The applicant, Sajida Nasir Khan, filed a civil application seeking the withdrawal of an amount she had deposited with the Court pursuant to an earlier judgment and award. The application was filed after the insurance company, which had appealed the judgment, withdrew its appeal. The court noted …

HAMED BIN SALIM CHAUS AND OTHERSversusSALIM BIN MOHAMMAD CHAUS

DISPOSED OFF

The applicants, Hamed Bin Salim Chaus and others, filed a criminal revision application against Salim Bin Mohammad Chaus. During the hearing, the applicant's counsel informed the court that the parties had reached an amicable settlement outside the court. Consequently, the cause of action to …

ASHOK MAGAN MARATHEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

DISPOSED OFF

Ashok Magan Marathe appealed against the denial of regular bail in a murder case linked to a dispute over election promises and alleged caste-based atrocities. The deceased was found dead on 1 July 2025, and the FIR was lodged on 3 July 2025 after a delay. The prosecution relied on CCTV footage, …

KHANDAPPA SIDDHAPPA DHANGAR (DIED) T/R L.RS. BALBHIM KADANDAPPA DHANGAR @ BALBHIM KHANDU BHALEversusThe State of Maharashtra through Collector, Osmanabad and Others

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

The claimants, heirs of the deceased Khandappa Siddappa Dhangar, filed a civil application seeking to withdraw the amount deposited by the acquiring body in a land‑acquisition proceeding. The acquiring body had deposited 75% of the required amount on 15 July 2025, which was a condition for a stay …

AJIT MOTIRAM VARPEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Withdrawn

Ajit Motiram Varpe filed a criminal revision application against the State of Maharashtra and another respondent. The applicant's counsel initially sought a pass‑over to take instructions and later requested to withdraw the revision. The respondent's counsel argued that the revision was not …

ABDUL RAHIM ABDUL KARIMversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Transfer to other court

The applicant, Abdul Rahim Abdul Karim, filed an application under Section 378 of the CrPC seeking leave to appeal an acquittal order. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025), counsel argued that the victim’s right to appeal under the proviso to …

MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusRENUKA MANOJ CHAVAN AND ANR

DISPOSED OFF

The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation filed a first appeal (No.31 of 2012) against Renuka Wd/o Manoj Chavan and others. The appellant’s counsel, Smt. R.D. Reddy, along with the corporation’s law officer, submitted a withdrawal petition. The High Court, noting the withdrawal, disposed of …

GAHININATH DUDHAJI BADE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners, a group of landowners, filed a writ petition seeking payment of compensation for land acquired by the State of Maharashtra. While petitioners 1‑5 had already received compensation, petitioner No. 6, a priest of Shrikshetra Nagnath Sansthan, had not, alleging that a change of name …

ASLAM MANI KAZIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Withdrawn

The applicant, Aslam Mani Kazi, filed a bail application before the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench. The applicant's counsel sought permission to withdraw the writ petition and the bail application. The court considered the request for withdrawal. The judge granted leave to withdraw the …

KESHAVRAO PATILBA DAPKEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Keshavrao s/o Patilba Dapke, filed a writ petition (No. 4975 of 2015) along with a civil application (No. 858 of 2022) before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The court initially granted leave to amend the petition, directing the amendment to be filed within four weeks. …

OMKAR KALURAM SASANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Withdrawn

The applicant, Omkar Kaluram Sasane, filed a bail application before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The applicant's counsel, on instructions, moved the court seeking withdrawal of the bail application. The court considered the request and found no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, …

MANISHA SANJAYKUMAR SATHE AND ANRversusSANJAYKUMAR BABASAHEB SATHE

DISPOSED OFF

Manisha Sanjaykumar Sathe and another filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking relief against Sanjaykumar Babasaheb Sathe. The petitioners were represented by Advocate P. P. Chavan. The respondent, through Advocate Prajakta P. Deshmukh (holding the brief of …

PRADEEP BHAUSAHEB KALHAPURE AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners were served notices dated 08.08.2018 by the State under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act and faced further externment proceedings. They filed a criminal writ petition challenging the validity of those notices and the subsequent proceedings. The High Court examined whether the …

SHAIKH JAMEEL SHAIKH NIZAMversusUTTRESHWAR GUTTE AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, dismissed a contempt petition filed by Shaikh Jameel Shaikh Nizam against Uttreshwar Gutte and others. The petition arose from an order dated 14 July 2020 which issued a simple notice to the respondents but clarified that the Court had not taken cognizance …

BABASAHEB BHAGWANRAO BAGLANEversusDR ASARAM RAOJI NAKALGAONKAR AND ORS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner filed a civil revision application under the Civil Revision Act arising from Regular Civil Suit No.143 of 2021 pending before the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Beed. The petitioner’s advocate informed the court that the original suit had been withdrawn. The court examined …

AASHA MADHUKAR BHUJANGE AND OTHERSversusRAJARAM KONDIBA GAIKWAD AND ORS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners challenged the 2004 order of the Deputy Collector and its 2005 endorsement by the Divisional Commissioner that mutated the names of the respondents into the ownership column of a 7/12 extract for Survey No. 67, a Mahar Hadola service Inam land protected under the Bombay Inferior …

TANAJI SADHU SHENDGEversusBHAUSAHEB MARUTI RAUT AND ORS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Tanaji Sadhu Shendge, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. During the pendency of the case, the parties reached a settlement. The petitioner’s counsel, Ms. Vaibhavi S. Sarode, on behalf of Mr. Chapalgaonkar Shailesh S., sought to withdraw the …

BALAJI DANYANOBA MULE.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE COLLECTOR.

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

The applicant, an agriculturist of modest means, filed a civil application seeking condonation of a 3,515‑day delay in filing his first appeal against a decree of the State of Maharashtra. He explained that financial constraints prevented timely filing and asserted that the delay was neither …

GOPAL TRILOKCHAND AGRAWALversusSHIVAPRAKASH NAIR AND ANOTHER

DISPOSED OFF

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad considered anticipatory bail applications filed by Shivaprakash Nair and Somnath Biswas in connection with FIR No. 0436/2025 alleging offences under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to alleged forgery, fraud and misappropriation in a …

GOPAL TRILOKCHAND AGRAWALversusSOMNATH BISWAS AND ANOTHER

DISPOSED OFF

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad considered anticipatory bail applications filed by Shivaprakash Nair and Somnath Biswas in connection with FIR No. 0436/2025 alleging offences under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to alleged forgery, fraud and misappropriation in a …

SANTOSH PANDIT RATHODversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

Santosh Pandit Rathod filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking relief against the State of Maharashtra and others for not deciding his representation dated 9 April 2021. The petitioner alleged that the respondents had failed to consider his representation on its merits, violating …

NANDA MURLIDHAR DESHMUKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Nanda Murlidhar Deshmukh, filed Contempt Petition No. 348 of 2020 in WP/1431/2019 against the State of Maharashtra and others. The matter was heard before a bench of Justice Sandipkumar C. More and Justice Vaishali Patil‑Jadhav at the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court of Bombay. …

SHAIKH FARIDA ANWAR SHAIKHversusGORIBEE KARIM KHAN AND OTHERS

DISMISSED

The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, issued a procedural order in a batch of writ petitions (Nos. 8910, 10011, 13170 of 2025 and 281, 283, 289, 1400 of 2026). The petitioners were directed to furnish spare copies of the petitions for service on the respondents within three weeks. If the spare …

BHAIYASAHEB LIMBAJI SHITOLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

Petitioners Bhaiyasaheb Limba​ji Shitole and Sunil Zoting Bhalerao filed writ petitions before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The Court granted them a final opportunity to appear, setting a deadline of 23 January 2026, and warned that failure to appear would result in dismissal. The …

SANJAY NARAYAN HANGEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DISPOSED OFF

The High Court considered the bail application of Sanjay, a Revenue Assistant Officer, who was arrested in connection with a FIR alleging forgery of arbitration awards and collusion with the Collector, resulting in a loss of Rs 73.4 crore. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, had …

CHANDRAKANT BHAGWAT GOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DISMISSED

The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad bench, dismissed a fresh bail application filed by Chandrakant Bhagwat Gore within two months of an earlier order that had allowed him to file a new application after one year if the trial did not progress. The court noted that the one‑year period granted in the …

DR SHANKAR DHANSINGH CHAVANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, considered a large group of writ petitions (numbers 904‑931) that raised the issue of whether Medical Officers are entitled to engage in private practice and receive a Non‑Practising Allowance. The Court noted that the matter had already been decided in a …

MANGALBAI BALAJI KARANJEversusBHAGIRATHIBAI BALAJI SARKALE

DISPOSED OFF

The parties, Mangalbai Balaji Karanje and Bhagirathibai Balaji Sarkale, entered into compromise and consent terms which were verified before the Judicial Registrar. The High Court, upon verification of the compromise, disposed of the second appeal filed by the appellant. No further orders were made …

VITTHAL KUNDLIK KHEDKARversusDINKAR KISAN KHEDKAR AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Vitthal Kundlik Khedkar, challenged a trial court order that dismissed his application for the appointment of a Court Commissioner to measure agricultural land in a suit concerning ownership and possession. The respondents had filed a suit seeking a declaration of ownership and a …

SUBHASH S/O MANIKRAO MOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

The applicants filed civil applications seeking condonation of a 1,044‑day delay in filing their first appeals against orders of the State of Maharashtra. The court noted that the applicants had been unable to file earlier due to poor financial condition and difficulty in arranging court fees and …

VIJAY RAMDAS MUNJWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

The petitioners, a group of claimants, filed civil applications seeking condonation of a 1,044‑day delay in filing their first appeals against orders of the State of Maharashtra. The delay was attributed to the claimants' poor financial condition, which hindered payment of court fees and obtaining …

SHAKIL ABDUL RAHEMAN QURESHIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Shakil Abdul Raheman Qureshi, filed a writ petition (30-WP-6574-2016) before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. An order dated 09.01.2026 required the petitioner to appear, but he failed to do so. The court noted the non‑appearance and, under procedural rules, dismissed the …

AMER KALEEM BAGWANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Withdrawn

The applicant, Amer Kaleem Bagwan, filed a criminal application before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The applicant's counsel sought the Court's permission to withdraw the application, requesting liberty to re‑approach the Court if needed. The Court considered whether it could grant such …

SHIVAJI DINKARRAO JADHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Shivaji Dinkarrao Jadhav, filed a contempt petition (Contempt Petition No. 209 of 2014) challenging an interim order dated 30 April 2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 3971 of 2010. The petition was scheduled for hearing, but the petitioner failed to appear even after a second call, and …

CHANDRAKANT SAKHARLAL SURATWALAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Chandrakant Sakharlal Suratwala, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued by a bank under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The court examined whether the petitioner could contest the notice and whether an alternative remedy existed. It held that the petitioner has an …

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusJAYSING CHANGDEO KAMBLE AND ANOTHER

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

The State of Maharashtra appealed against a reference court’s enhancement of compensation for land acquired in 1994 for a percolation tank at Bhavanwadi. The original award by the State Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) granted Rs.15,000 per hectare, which the claimants sought at Rs.40,000 per acre, …

SUHAS UTTAMRAO JADHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, a member of a cooperative society, challenged an interim order dated 22 February 2019 issued by the Assistant Registrar under Section 102(i)(c)(ii) and (iv) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, which directed the winding up of the society and appointment of a …

SANDEEP PANDURANG GAJAREversusSHEELA @ JYOTI SANDEEP GAJARE

DISPOSED OFF

Sandeep Pandurang Gajare filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking relief against Sheela @ Jyoti Sandeep Gajare. The petition was listed for hearing on 12 June 2026, but the petitioner failed to appear. The Court adjourned the matter to 10 July 2026, giving the …

RAVINDRA BALIRAM CHAVANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

Ravindra Baliram Chavan filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking that the State authorities consider his representation dated 20 March 2014. The petitioner argued that the authorities had failed to act on his representation, causing prejudice. The respondents, the State of …

SHARIF BHAIYA SHAHAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISMISSED

The petitioner, Sharif Bhaiya Shaha, filed a criminal writ petition seeking Rs.1,50,000 compensation for alleged malicious prosecution by the State of Maharashtra and others. The petitioner later claimed that the petition was filed by forging his signature and that he had not given any instructions …

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusRAMDAS SAMBHAJI NITNAWARE

DISMISSED

The State of Maharashtra appealed the acquittal of Ramdas Sambhaji Nitnaware, a senior clerk, who was charged under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding a Rs 500 bribe to release a demand draft. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the …

AJITKUMAR PATILSAHEB DENGALEversusBHAGWAT CHANDRBHAN DHOKCHOULE AND ORS

DISPOSED OFF

Multiple writ petitions (Nos. 1947, 4293, 5823, 5863, 6348, 6353, 6474, 6480 of 2026) were filed before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The Court directed the petitioners to furnish spare copies of the petitions for service on the respondents within two weeks of the order. If the …

MADHAV VISHWANATH BENDRIKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

DISPOSED OFF

The applicant, Madhav Vishwanath Bendrikar, sought bail in a case involving alleged arson and murder under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with co‑accused, poured petrol on an informant and set him on fire, with two dying declarations attributing …

ROHAN DATTU PATIL AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The applicants filed a criminal application seeking quashment of FIR No. 361 of 2025, the accompanying charge‑sheet and the pending criminal case, alleging that the dispute with Respondent No.2 had been settled. The parties produced a consent term and a report of the Judicial Registrar confirming …

PRADIP ALIAS BALU VISHWAS GARJEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench considered a bail application filed by Pradip alias Balu Vishwas Garje, who was in custody for offences under Sections 103(1), 140(1), 115(2), 352, 315(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 relating to an alleged abduction, suicide and homicide …

Mangala Shankar Shinde and AnotherversusKailas Soma Koli (Shirsath) and Others

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

The applicants filed a civil application seeking condonation of a 97‑day delay in filing their first appeal. The court examined the reasons provided and found the delay was not deliberate. Consequently, the court allowed the application and condoned the delay in the interest of justice. An issue …

SURYAKANT ARJUNRAO SABLEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, considered a large group of writ petitions (numbers 904‑931) that raised the issue of whether Medical Officers are entitled to engage in private practice and receive a Non‑Practising Allowance. The Court noted that the matter had already been decided in a …

SOMNATH GOARAKH PANDITversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The applicant, Somnath Goarakh Pandit, a cashier of Maheshwari Multipurpose Credit Co-operative Society, was charged with embezzlement of approximately Rs 8 crore, alleged to have benefited Rs 8.5 lakh. He sought bail, offering to deposit the amount he allegedly gained within three weeks. The State …

DEVENDRAKUMAR SOHANLAL SONIversusMOHANLAL SOHANLAL SONI

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Devendrakumar Sohanlal Soni, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The petitioner’s counsel later informed the court that the petition had become infructuous. The court, upon noting the petition was no longer viable, disposed of it as infructuous. No …

LATAKANBAI BHILESING GIRASEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

Gaidal Lotan Patil appealed against the State of Maharashtra and related officials concerning land acquisition. The original judgment dated 08.01.2026 inadvertently omitted the enhanced compensation for 49 acres of dry land. The appellant’s counsel, K. G. More, sought a correction to include the …

GAIDAL LOTAN PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTR AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

Gaidal Lotan Patil appealed against the State of Maharashtra and other officials regarding land acquisition. The trial court awarded enhanced compensation for 49 acres of dry land, but the judgment dated 08.01.2026 inadvertently omitted this award. The appellant moved a motion for the court to speak …

SANGITA ANIL RAIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The applicant, Sangita Anil Rai, filed a criminal application seeking restoration of Criminal Application No. 698 of 2021. The applicant argued that the second respondent had not caused appearance in the original proceedings and therefore notice to that respondent could be dispensed with. The court …

KISAN VITHOBA GAIKWADversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ORS

PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED

The appellants, claimants in land acquisition proceedings dating back to 1986, appealed the Civil Judge's awards of April 2007 which had refused their claim for enhanced compensation. The High Court, noting a recent decision (First Appeal No.871/2007) on the same project, adopted the same reasoning …

ANAND BANSHIDHARAO DESHMUKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The applicant sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging abetment of suicide. The FIR alleged that the applicant received Rs.22 lakh for a property transaction in 2012 but failed to transfer the property, leading the …

SHRIRAM DHANAJI KORADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

DISPOSED OFF

The applicant, Shriram Dhanaji Korade, filed a criminal application before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The applicant’s counsel sought the Court’s permission to withdraw the application while retaining the liberty to file a separate application for discharge before the trial court. The …

JEEVAN S/O. MADHUKAR SAWANEversusBANSILAL S/O. PURUSHOTTAM PRESSWALA

DISPOSED OFF

Jeevan was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the dishonour of a Rs.1.20 lakh cheque issued as security for a gold loan. The trial court sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a compensation of Rs.1,50,000, a decision affirmed by the Additional Sessions …

UDHAV NARAYAN KALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and ORS.

DISPOSED OFF

Petitioner Uday Sahebsing Pawar and others filed a writ petition in 2001 challenging actions of the State of Maharashtra. No petitioner appeared before the court, and due to the lapse of time the matter was deemed infructuous. The court held that the petition could not proceed without the …

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER AND ORSversusBALU RANGNATH BHAGAT

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

The Executive Engineer, Central Railway, filed applications seeking condonation of delay for over six hundred first appeals filed beyond the limitation period against judgments and awards of the Reference Court. The court examined the applications, noting no serious challenge to the averments and no …

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER AND ORSversusUSHABAI DATTU JADHAV

DISPOSED OFF

The Union of India, represented by the General Manager of Central Railway, filed several civil applications (Nos. 7058, 7061, 7065, 7067, 7069 of 2024) against various respondents. These applications were pending alongside first appeals (Nos. 11501 of 2024, 192 of 2025, 196 of 2025, 798 of 2026, 805 …

KISHOR AASARAM MISALversusCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The applicant, Kishor Aasaram Misal, filed a civil application seeking restoration of a writ petition that had been dismissed because his counsel could not attend due to another case. The applicant argued that the dismissal was procedural and that the writ should be reinstated upon payment of costs. …

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusSANDIP S/O. BAPURAO NAROTE

DISPOSED OFF

The State of Maharashtra sought leave to appeal an acquittal of a talathi accused of demanding a Rs.1000 bribe for a mutation entry. The trial court had found that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of bribery, namely a clear demand and acceptance, noting that the alleged demand …

VISHWANATH KONDIBA GOJEWADversusMAROTI VENKATI GOJEWAD AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Vishwanath Kondiba Gojewad, filed a writ petition in 2018 but failed to appear before the court for several years. On 25 February 2026, the court noted that the petitioner had not appeared and placed the matter under the caption ‘For Dismissal’ in the urgent orders category. The …

XYZversusTHE 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, relating to the …

SATISH S/O. MAROTI HAZAREversusASARAM S/O. JANARDHAN JADHAV

Transfer to other court

Satish appealed against his acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He sought transfer of the appeal to the District and Sessions Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial v. Ganasekaran. The High Court, after considering the precedent, ordered that …

BASUDEO MATOLIRAM AGRAWALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Basudeo Matoliram Agrawal, filed a criminal writ petition seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of RCC No. 279 of 2023 pending before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) in Basmat, Hingoli. The petition argued that the case was suffering from undue delay. The Court …

REKHA AMOL NAIKversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking action against alleged encroachments on municipal property and a public road. The Court directed Respondent No.10, the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council, Shevgaon, to appear and file a reply. Respondent No.10 appeared, submitted an …