Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Judgments of 2026

20841 judgments · newest first · showing 6001–6200

GIRISH SURYAKANT ASHTAGIversusINCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 NANDED AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

A large number of writ petitions and associated civil applications were listed before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court following a Supreme Court judgment dated 10 April 2026 in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh v. Tej Pratap Singh. The petitioners, represented by Ms. Rutuja …

NIKHIL BALASAHEB SATPUTEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Withdrawn

Nikhil Satpute appealed against the State of Maharashtra in a criminal matter. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant was arrested. The appellant’s counsel argued that the arrest rendered the appeal infructuous. The court accepted this submission and held that the appeal could no longer be …

KANTA AMBADAS MAGAR AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The accused, Prabhakar Kale and others, were charged under sections 316(2), 318(2), 324(4), 329(3) r/w sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code for an alleged offence (Cr. No. 409/2026). An intervenor, claiming to be a purchaser of plots sold by the accused's father, sought to intervene in the anticipatory …

PRAKASH VAIJNATH SHINDEversusINCOMET TAX OFFICER WARD 1 AURANGABAD AND OTHERS

Transfer to other court

A large number of writ petitions and associated civil applications were listed before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court. The petitioners sought transfer of all these matters to the Principal Seat of the Court, invoking a Supreme Court judgment (Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh …

VISHNU SHESHRAO MOHITEversusINCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1 LATUR AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

A large number of writ petitions and associated civil applications were listed before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court following a Supreme Court judgment dated 10 April 2026 in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh v. Tej Pratap Singh. The petitioners, represented by Ms. Rutuja …

VISHNU SHESHRAO MOHITEversusINCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1 LATUR AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, ordered the transfer of a large number of writ petitions and associated civil applications to the Principal Seat of the Court. The transfer is in compliance with a Supreme Court judgment dated 10 April 2026 in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh v. Tej …

VISHNU SHEHRAO MOHITEversusINCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 LATUR AND OTHERS

Transfer to other court

A large number of writ petitions and associated civil applications were listed before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court. The petitioners sought transfer of all these matters to the Principal Seat of the Court, invoking a Supreme Court judgment (Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh …

PARSHURAM DNYANDEO RINDHEversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ORS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner challenged the order dated 11‑08‑2010 issued by the Minister, which allowed a review of the cancellation of a kerosene licence granted to respondent No.6. The licence had been cancelled by the Sub‑Divisional Officer after a complaint of irregularities, and the cancellation was upheld …

SHUBHAM SHAILENDRA JAISWALversusTHE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner filed a criminal writ petition seeking a direction from the High Court for the issuance of a passport in his name. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the court’s intervention was necessary to obtain the passport. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner was able to obtain …

Rajendra Zumbar PawarversusShakuntala Subhash Bhosale and ors

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The applicant filed Civil Application No. 8819 seeking condonation of a four‑day delay in filing a second appeal, and Civil Application No. 8820 seeking a stay of possession of the suit property pending the appeal. The court examined the condonation request and, finding sufficient cause, allowed the …

PARSHURAM DNYANDEO RINDHEversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ORS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner challenged the order dated 12‑08‑2010 issued by the Minister of Food and Civil Supply, which reviewed and set aside an earlier cancellation of a fair‑price‑shop licence granted to respondent No. 6. The licence had been cancelled by the Sub‑Divisional Officer after a complaint of …

Maharashtra Rajya Sarv Shramik Sangh Trade Union CentreversusUnion of India

DISPOSED OFF

The Maharashtra Rajya Sarv Shramik Sangh, Trade Union Centre filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking relief against the Union of India and other respondents. The petitioner had submitted a proposal on 17 July 2025 which remained pending with respondent No.3. The …

IBRAHIM EMAMSAB TAMOBOLIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Withdrawn

Ibrahim Emamsab Tamoboli filed an anticipatory bail application (No. 1347 of 2026) before the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, seeking protection from arrest in a criminal case instituted by the State of Maharashtra. Both parties were represented, with Mr. A. R. Dhore appearing for the …

UZEF VASIM KHANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Withdrawn

UzeF Vasim Khan applied for bail before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The State informed the Court that the investigation was complete, the charge‑sheet was ready but pending sanction, and would be filed shortly. The applicant sought liberty to withdraw the present bail application and …

ARUNA YUVRAJ SONWANEversusSHIVPRASAD DEVKISAN BAJAJ

Transfer to other court

The appellant Aruna Yuvraj Sonwane 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), the appellant sought to have the appeal transferred to the District and Sessions Court. …

ARUNA YUVRAJ SONWANEversusSHIVPRASAD DEVKISAN BAJAJ

Transfer to other court

The appellant Aruna Yuvraj Sonwane appealed against an acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial v. Ganasekaran (2025), the appellant sought transfer of the appeal to the District and Sessions Court. The High Court, …

Mahadev Kashinath GadeversusState of Maharashtra

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Mahadev Kashinath Gade, was terminated on 30 June 2006 and filed a writ petition in 2026 seeking the reference of his industrial dispute after a delay of 19 years, relying on a demand notice dated 9 June 2025 and a communication from the Deputy Commissioner of Labour dated 14 October …

SHIVA SUKHDEV SATHEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The applicant sought quashment of an FIR and charge-sheet for offences under sections 376 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that the informant, who had originally complained, had married the applicant and now wished to withdraw the prosecution. The informant and applicant filed a joint …

SHAIKH IRSHAD ABDUL RAZZAQUEversusRUBINA BEGAM MOHAMMAD GOUSS

DISPOSED OFF

Shaikh Irshad Abdul Razzaque filed writ petition No. 3048 of 2020 in the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad bench, against Rubina Begam Mohammad Gouss. The petitioner was represented by Advocate Siddharth B. Paikrao. While the petition was pending, the regular civil suit No. 47 of 2018, which formed the …

MUNJABHAU MUKUND UPADHYEversusMANJUSHA MUNJABHAU UPADHYE AND ANR

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner challenged a civil judge’s order rejecting his application for a DNA test to determine the paternity of a minor child. The petitioner argued that the court should direct a DNA test even at the interim stage of the proceedings. The High Court held that under Section 112 of the Indian …

RAMKISHAN JALBA SHILEKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

DISMISSED

Ramkishan Jalba Shilekar filed a criminal writ petition alleging that Police Inspector Somnath Shinde assaulted him and sought a court direction to initiate criminal proceedings and a departmental enquiry. The Court observed that the petitioner had already filed another writ petition concerning the …

BHAGATRAM RAVALMAL BALANI AND OTHERSversusPRASHANT SURESH ANIK AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging a decision of a local body. Over time, the term of the local body expired, rendering the subject matter of the petition moot. The petitioners' counsel submitted that the petition had become infructuous due to the passage of time and the expiry of the …

PAWAN SITARAM PARDHIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

APPLICATION ALLOWED

Pawan Sitaram Pardhi applied for anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered for alleged attempts to kill an informant with a wooden log, invoking sections 109, 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 352 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The informant claimed the applicant threatened him, but the …

NITIN GAJKUMAR MUKHEDKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

ABATED

Nitin Gajkumar Mukhedkar filed a criminal revision application before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. During the proceedings, the applicant's counsel informed the court that the sole applicant had died. The court was required to consider whether the pending revision could continue in the …

GOVIND UMAKANT JADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The original accused applied for regular bail in a case involving alleged forcible sexual intercourse and related offences under Sections 64(1), 74, 296 and 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. The prosecution alleged that the accused repeatedly forced the complainant, a married woman, to have …

NITESH RAM CHAVANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

APPLICATION ALLOWED

Nitesh Ram Chavan, a 23‑year‑old constable, was arrested for alleged sexual offences under Sections 64(2)(m), 69 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, involving a non‑consensual relationship and threats to circulate private photographs. After the investigation was completed and a …

KISHOR WAMANRAO BARGE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Withdrawn

The applicants, Kishor Wamanrao Barge and another, filed an anticipatory bail application before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. During the proceedings, the applicants' counsel informed the court that the application had become infructuous and sought permission to withdraw it. The court …

RAJENDRA BABURAO UBALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Rajendra Baburao Ubale, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. During the proceedings, the respondent corporation asserted that the petitioner had died, a claim the petitioner’s counsel denied having received any instruction about. The court examined …

ASHOK MADHAV KALYANKARversusTHE 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 Chandravijay, who was charged with murder, kidnapping and arms offences alleged to have been committed through a conspiracy. The prosecution’s case rested on the applicant’s …

ASHOK SAHEBRAO JADHAV AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The applicants sought anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered for theft, extortion and related offences under Sections 119(1), 308(2), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The FIR alleged that the applicants had taken away two motorcycles belonging to the informant and …

ARVIND UDDHAV DESHPANDEversusSHIRISH GOVINDRAO DESHPANDE AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

Arvind Uddhav Deshpande filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 15 July 2013 passed by the 4th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Osmanabad in Regular Civil Suit No. 583/2012. While the writ petition was pending, the underlying civil suit was finally decided by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior …

SONALI SAMARTH KADAMversusSAMARTH VIJAY KADAM AND ANOTHER

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Sonali Samarth Kadam, filed writ petition No. 8776 of 2016 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking relief against the respondents. The petition was initially listed and arguments were made by the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Gangakhedkar Shailendra S. During the …

PAVAN NANDU YADAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Withdrawn

Pavan Nandu Yadav filed an anticipatory bail application (No. 1359 of 2026) before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, seeking protection from arrest in a case instituted by the State of Maharashtra. Both parties were represented, with Ms. Ashwini Patil and Mr. Sudarshan J. …

AJINATH ALIAS AJAY DADA DINDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Withdrawn

The applicants, Ajinath Dinde and another, filed a bail application before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. Their counsel, Ms. Sakshi Dushing on behalf of Mr. Rahul R. Karpe, sought leave to withdraw the bail application and requested liberty to approach the trial court directly. The court …

PRAKASH RAMCHANDRA YEOLEversusTHE COLLECTOR, JALGAON AND ORS

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, heard a series of civil applications (CAs 9672‑9680 of 2025) filed by various applicants against the Collector, Jalgaon and others. After notice, the respondents were served but respondents numbered 3 and 4 did not appear in any of the matters. The applicants …

RAYSING PHOPARYA PAWARA AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking an injunction to restrain the respondents from disturbing their peaceful possession. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court examined whether such a prayer for injunction falls within the jurisdiction of the High …

NALINI RAMESH KOLHE AND ORSversusTHE COLLECTOR, JALGAON AND ORS

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) heard a series of civil applications (CAs 9672‑9680 of 2025) filed by various applicants against the Collector, Jalgaon and others. After service of notice, respondents 1 and 2 appeared, but respondents 3 and 4 did not appear in any of the applications. …

BHAGWAN S/O SHRIRANG CHORMALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DISPOSED OFF

The appellant, Bhagwan Chormale, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, for voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 IPC after an alleged assault with an axe that was also alleged to involve caste‑based abuse and violations of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The …

POONAM RAHUL JAISWAL AND ANOTHERversusPOOJA GAURAV JAISWAL AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

Petitioner Pooja Gaurav Jaiswal filed a criminal writ petition seeking transfer of the investigation of Crime No.251/2026 after a ‘B’ summary was filed by the Sadar Bazar Police Station, Jalna. The court noted that the filing of the ‘B’ summary rendered the request for transfer moot, but granted the …

ARJUN SABAJI THUBEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

APPLICATION ALLOWED

Arjun Sabaji Thube filed a criminal application seeking time to file a vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2. The applicant’s counsel, N.B. Narwade, argued for condonation of the delay. The court examined the reasons for the delay as set out in Criminal Application No. 2808 of 2025 and found them …

RAMA UTTAM GANGURDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

DISPOSED OFF

The applicant, Rama Uttam Gangurde, was charged under Section 103(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita for the murder of his wife. The FIR alleged that the applicant, after a quarrel over an extramarital affair, threatened his wife and later caused her death, with the informant (the applicant's son) …

CHANDRAKANT UKHA PATILversusTHE COLLECTOR, JALGAON AND ORS

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) heard a series of civil applications (CAs 9672‑9680 of 2025) filed by various applicants against the Collector, Jalgaon and others. After service of notice, respondents 1 and 2 appeared, but respondents 3 and 4 did not appear in any of the applications. …

CHETAN KOMALSING PARMAR AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DISMISSED

The appellants, Chetan and Yash Parmar, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, for assault under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, based on the allegation that they beat a fire‑brigade driver who refused to take the vehicle to a fire‑affected wheat field. …

PRAKASH BABURAO KADUSKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DISMISSED

The appellant, convicted under IPC sections 354, 376(2)(i)(j), 376(3), 506(2) and POCSO Act sections 4, 6, 8, appealed against his conviction for raping a girl who was alleged to be a minor. The trial court relied on the victim’s testimony, her birth certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, and …

SINDHUBAI BABANRAO ABUJ AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ANR

PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED

The appellants challenged the compensation awarded for lands acquired for the Jayakwadi Project, arguing that the reference court wrongly discarded a pre‑notification sale deed and failed to consider post‑notification sales. The court examined whether sale instances before and after the Section 4 …

KAMLAKAR PANDHARI KAMBLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

Kamlakar Pandhari Kamble, whose livelihood was lost due to compulsory land acquisition (Reference No.76 of 2003), was dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur and filed a first appeal for enhancement. The appeal was filed after a delay of 1,948 …

AMOL ARJUN KORADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Withdrawn

The applicant, Amol Arjun Korade, filed a bail application before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. During the pendency of the application, the charge-sheet in the underlying criminal case was filed. The applicant, through his counsel, sought to withdraw the bail application and requested …

MAYUR MADHUKAR MORE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The applicants, members of the same family, sought to quash FIR No. 506 of 2023 and the accompanying charge‑sheet for alleged assault under Sections 324, 326 and 323 IPC, claiming the dispute had been amicably settled. The incident was reported 19 days after it occurred, and no medical evidence from …

SANTOSH KISAN KORDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

APPLICATION ALLOWED

Santosh Korde was arrested in April 2026 for alleged diversion of funds allocated under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, involving false muster rolls and biometric withdrawals that routed money to his bank account and those of his relatives. The prosecution presented …

NITIN SUNIL SHELKEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The High Court considered the bail application of Nitin Sunil Shelke, arrested for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The victim was 17 years, 10 months old at …

MUDRIKABAI PANDHARINATH KENDREversusRAMAKANT SHRIPADRAO KULKARNI AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner Mudrikabai challenged a trial court order rejecting her application to amend her written statement after the plaintiffs were allowed to amend their plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The plaintiffs had been permitted to correct the description of the suit property, and the …

DHUDKABAI TAHNA BACHAV AND ANOTHERversusBUDHA RAMCHANDRA MALI AND ANOTHER

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners, Dhu... Tahna Bachav and another, filed a writ petition seeking relief after the civil suit R.C.S. No. 32 of 2016 pending before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Chalisgaon was dismissed on 11 March 2022 for non‑prosecution. They contended that, with the dismissal of the suit, there …

Kalpanabai Ananda ThakurversusThe State of Maharashtra STDDM

DISPOSED OFF

Kalpanabai Ananda Thakur filed Contempt Petition No. 526 of 2026 arising out of WP/12398/2025 against the State of Maharashtra and others. The petitioner, through counsel Wagh Mukulanand Ravikant, sought relief alleging contempt. The State, represented by Advocate General G. A. Kulkarni, produced a …

BALBHIM KHANDERAO GALANDE AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ANR

PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED

The appellants, a group of agricultural landowners, appealed against a Land Reference Court award that granted modest compensation for their lands and trees acquired for the Gunwati Brihat Laghu Sinchan Project. They argued that the court failed to assess the market value of the irrigated lands and …

ROHAN DATTATRAY SHINDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

APPLICATION ALLOWED

Rohan Dattatray Shinde was arrested on 14 June 2026 for allegedly possessing and transporting liquor manufactured for sale in Goa, and for tampering with the seal to suggest it was for Maharashtra, offences under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. He contended that he was falsely implicated and …

BALAJI PUNDLIK KENDREversusRAMESHWAR SHIVAJI KONDALWADE AND ANOTHER

DISPOSED OFF

The High Court considered a bail application by Rameshwar Shivaji Kondalwade, accused of rape (Section 64(1) BNS) and abetment of suicide (Section 108 BNS) along with a lesser offence under Section 3(5) BNS. The prosecution’s case rests mainly on a suicide note allegedly written by the deceased, …

ARBAZ MAZHER KHANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The High Court considered two regular bail applications filed by Arbaz Mazher Khan, 20, and Shahrukh Sattar Sayyed, 25, who were charged with offences under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act for an …

RAHUL GAJANAN DEVKATEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Withdrawn

Rahul Gajanan Devkate filed an anticipatory bail application before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. Both parties were heard, and the Court expressed reluctance to grant bail. On instructions, the applicant's counsel sought to withdraw the application. The Court accepted the withdrawal. …

MACCHINDRA BANDERAO PADALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

DISPOSED OFF

A writ petition (No. 10673 of 2026) was filed by Macchindra Banderao Padale challenging a decision of the State of Maharashtra. The petition was heard by a two‑judge bench of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad. The court examined the petitioner's claim and the appropriate forum for redress. It …

MAHESH RAJENDRA THORAT AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Withdrawn

The applicants, Mahesh Rajendra Thorat and others, filed a bail application before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. During the pendency of the application, the charge-sheet in the underlying criminal case was filed. The applicant's counsel sought permission to withdraw the pending bail …

SHAIKH RIZWAN SHAIKH SHABBIRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Withdrawn

The applicant, Shaikh Rizwan Shaikh Shabbir, filed a bail application in the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench. While the application was pending, the charge-sheet in the underlying criminal case was filed. The applicant’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the bail application and instead …

SACHIN RAOSAHEB MASKEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners challenged orders of Sub‑Divisional Officers who, under Sections 48(7), 48(8) and 48(9) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, seized four of their vehicles that were allegedly loading sand from the Godavari riverbank. Five identical writ petitions were filed, contending that the …

ASARAM GANGADHAR GIRIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners challenged orders of Sub‑Divisional Officers who, under Sections 48(7), 48(8) and 48(9) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, seized four of their vehicles that were allegedly loading sand from the Godavari riverbank. Five identical writ petitions were filed, contending that the …

PRALHAD S/O. GANPAT JADHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Pralhad Jadhav, filed a criminal writ petition which, on his counsel’s instruction, was reported to have become infructuous. The court, after confirming the Resource Personnel’s report dated 03‑07‑2026, held that the petition stands disposed. No substantive factual or legal issues …

KACHRU SOPAN GAWALIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

DISMISSED

The petitioner filed a criminal writ petition seeking reinvestigation of Crime No. 497/2017 registered at Newasa Police Station. The petition was filed in 2021, but the petitioner failed to pursue the matter thereafter. The High Court observed that the petitioner showed no interest in prosecuting …

ANILKUMAR RAJMAL BEDMUTHAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

The appellants challenged the compensation awarded for lands acquired in 1993 for the Terna Project Right Bank Canal, arguing that the rates should be aligned with those determined in a later 2008 case involving the same project. The State contended that the differing dates of notification justified …

RAJU MANSINGH RATHODversusGOPAL TRILOKCHAND AGARWAL AND ANOTHER

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The applicant, a partner in M/s. Ramanuj Ventures, filed an arbitration application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 invoking clause 20 of the partnership deed. Respondent No.1 contended that the applicant had waived the arbitration right by earlier instituting …

YOGESH NARAYAN PATIL AND ANR.,versusTHE COLLECTOR, JALGAON AND OTHERS.,

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, heard a series of civil applications (CAs 9672‑9680 of 2025) filed by various applicants against the Collector, Jalgaon and others. After notice, the respondents were served but respondents numbered 3 and 4 did not appear in any of the matters. The applicants …

MITHARAM S/O SHAMU NARKHEDE AND OTHERSversusTHE COLLECTOR JALGAON AND OTHERS

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, heard a series of civil applications (CAs 9672‑9680 of 2025) filed by various applicants against the Collector, Jalgaon and others. After notice, the respondents were served but respondents numbered 3 and 4 did not appear in any of the matters. The applicants …

GITESH UMAKANT KULKARNIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioner, Gitesh Umakant Kulkarni, filed a criminal writ petition seeking the court’s direction to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Omerga, for an expeditious hearing and disposal of RCC No.31/2021, which involves an offence under Section 498-A IPC and other IPC provisions. The case was …

SOPAN VISHNU NARKHEDEversusTHE COLLECTOR, JALGAON AND OTHERS

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, heard a series of civil applications (CAs 9672‑9680 of 2025) filed by various applicants against the Collector, Jalgaon and others. After notice, the respondents were served but respondents numbered 3 and 4 did not appear in any of the matters. The applicants …

UPENDRA MANOHAR JADHAV.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH COLLECTOR, OSMANABAD.

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

The applicant, Upendra Manohar Jadhav, filed a civil application seeking condonation of a 3,477‑day delay in filing his first appeal against a decree. The respondent State, represented by its Additional Government Pleader, opposed the condonation. The applicant explained the reasons for the delay in …

GOTIRAM RAMCHANDRA NARODEversusSUNIL KADU NARODE AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

Gotiram filed a writ petition (No. 7807 of 2014) against Sunil and others in the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad bench. The petitioner sought relief, but by the time of hearing, counsel submitted that the petition had become infructuous and that no cause of action remained. The court considered the …

PARAJI AABAJI LOKHANDE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The petitioners, Paraji Aabaji Lokhande and others, filed a criminal revision (ST) No. 8172 of 2026 challenging an order, but did so after a delay of 183 days. They sought condonation of this delay, arguing sufficient cause. The State, represented by M. A. Aher, opposed the condonation. The Court …

PRAVINKUMAR RAJMAL BEDMUTHA THR LRSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and ANR

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

The appellants challenged the compensation awarded for lands acquired in 1993 for the Terna Project Right Bank Canal, arguing that the rates should be aligned with those determined in a later case (First Appeal No. 355 of 2008) where the market value was fixed at Rs.1,800 per R for dry land. The …

RAJMAL SURAJMAL BEDMUTHA THR LRSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and ANR

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

The appellants challenged the compensation awarded for lands acquired in 1993 for the Terna Project, arguing that they should receive the same rates as in a later 2008 case where the market value was fixed at Rs.1,800 per R for dry land. The State contended that the differing dates of notification …

SURESH SHRIDHAR YEOLEversusTHE COLLECTOR JALGAON AND OTHERS

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) heard a series of civil applications (CAs 9672‑9680 of 2025) filed by various applicants against the Collector, Jalgaon and others. After service of notice, respondents 1 and 2 appeared, but respondents 3 and 4 did not appear in any of the applications. …

JALINDER SHANKAR TAMBARE AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED

The appellants challenged the compensation awarded for land acquired in 1997 for a minor irrigation tank, arguing that the award of Rs.210‑240 per R was inadequate. They relied on sale deeds (Exhibits 39‑41) to prove a higher market value, contending that post‑notification sales and sales of …

NAGNATH MUKUND JAGTAP AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners, Nagnath Mukund Jagtap and others, filed a contempt petition (Contempt Petition No. 421 of 2013) against the State of Maharashtra and related parties, alleging non‑compliance with a monetary claim. Respondent No. 3 filed an affidavit stating that the claim amount had been deposited …

CHARUSHILA W/O PRABHAKAR PARDESHIversusPARABHAKAR GABA PARDESHI

DISMISSED

Charushila, married to Prabhakar since 2008, filed a criminal complaint alleging that he contracted a second marriage and fathered a child, thereby committing the offence of bigamy under Section 494 of the IPC. The trial court acquitted Prabhakar on the ground that no evidence proved the existence …

RANGNATH BHANUDAS RUPNER AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED

The appellants challenged a compensation award for land acquired in 1997 for a minor irrigation tank, arguing that the award undervalued the dry land because the reference court improperly excluded certain sale comparables. The court noted that possession was taken before the Section 4 notification …

SARANGDHAR SUKHDEO JAIWALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

Sarangdhar Sukhdeo Jaiwal filed a criminal writ petition seeking the Court’s direction to act on his representations dated 21‑02‑2021 and 20‑08‑2021 for initiating an enquiry against respondents 8 to 13. Respondents 3 and 4 (Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad) produced a communication dated 03‑09‑2026 …

ROHIT DINKAR YADAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

APPLICATION ALLOWED

The applicant, Rohit Dinkar Yadav, was arrested in connection with a civil dispute over agricultural land and house property that escalated into an alleged assault where he allegedly pointed a pistol at the informant, forced him to a factory, and assaulted him with an iron rod, causing grievous …

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR, BEED AND ORSversusMAHADEO WAMAN KARDILE

Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

The Executive Engineer, Central Railway, Pune and others (Applicants) sought condonation of delay in filing over six hundred first appeals against judgments of the Reference Court. The Appeals were filed beyond the limitation period, and the Applicants submitted applications explaining the reasons …

SHAHABAJ HABIB SAYYADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Withdrawn

Shahabaj Habib Sayyad filed a criminal appeal before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. During the pendency of the appeal, the charge-sheet was filed against him. The appellant's counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal and to be allowed to file a regular bail application before the …

GULAB MOTIRAM BADGUJAR AND ANRversusRUKAYYABI MOHAMMAD IQBAL AND ORS

PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED

The claimants, family members of a deceased rickshaw passenger, sought compensation under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for a fatal collision involving a tractor and a trolley. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held the tractor and trolley owners jointly liable for Rs.6,20,000 but …

ANIL RAMKISAN SIKCHI AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners, a husband and wife, executed a power of attorney (POA) whereby the husband authorized his wife to manage, develop, and sell his undivided share of property. The POA was registered and stamp duty was paid under Section 48 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. The revenue authorities later …

BHAGWAN BHAU HULAWALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Withdrawn

The petitioner, Bhagwan Bhau Hulawale, filed a criminal writ petition and later sought the court's permission to withdraw the petition while retaining the liberty to raise all grounds during the trial. The petitioner’s counsel, H. A. Shinde, appeared on his behalf. The issue before the court was …

ZILHA PARISHAD JALNA THR EXE ENGINEER AND ORSversusKUSHAWARTA DATTA PALWE

DISPOSED OFF

The Zilla Parishad challenged several ex parte judgments of the reference court concerning land acquisition proceedings initiated in 2002. The appellant argued that it had been served but the reference court proceeded without its participation, rendering the orders void. The High Court observed that …

ZILHA PARISHAD JALNA THR EXE ENGINEER AND ORSversusBHASKAR SAMBHARAO GADADE

DISPOSED OFF

The Zilla Parishad Jalna appealed against several ex parte orders of the reference court relating to land acquisition proceedings dating back to 2002. The appellant argued that it had been served but the reference court proceeded without hearing it, violating principles of natural justice. The High …