Mumbai Nagpur Court April 2016 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Farzana and Another Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the said Act) by the claimants who are aggrieved by the judgment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur dated 01/03/2003 dismissing the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the said Act. The facts in brief are that one Haroon, son of Gulam Ali was going along with one Raju Goswami as a pillion rider on a scooter. The said vehicle was dashed by a bus belonging to the respondent. Said Haroon lost his life in the accident. The mother and brother of said Haroon filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the said Act. The claim petition was opposed by the respondent by filing its written statement. During pendency of the proceedings, the present appellants filed an application for being impleaded as claimant Nos.2 and 3 in the proceedings. Said application was allowed. Thereafter by judgment dated 01/03/2003, the Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the ap...
Umme Habiba Begum Vs. Jamil Ahamad Khan Abdul Hamid Khan and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri Junaid Ahmed, Advocate for the applicant, Shri A.B. Mirza, Advocate for the non-applicant Nos.1 to 4 and Shri N.B. Jawade, Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.5-State of Maharashtra. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The applicant (wife) has filed this criminal revision application challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by which the criminal revision application filed by the non-applicant Nos.1 to 4 and Abdul Hamid Khan Abdul Karim Khan (father-in-law of the applicant) and Salma Khanam Abdul Hamid Khan (mother-in-law of the applicant) came to be decided. The Criminal Revision Application No.1 of 2012 is partly allowed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge granted the prayer of the non-applicant Nos.1 to 4 and discharged them from the prosecution and rejected the prayer of Abdul Hamid Khan Abdul Karim Khan and Salma Khanam Abdul Hamid Khan for discharge from the prosecution for the charges under Sec...
Shyam Sunder Mishra Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
1. Heard S.P. Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri R.K. Joshi, Advocate for the applicant and Shri A.D. Sonak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The applicant has filed this revision application challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the application filed by the applicant under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that he be discharged of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 465, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The relevant facts are as follows : The applicant had been working in the Indian Forest Services and was allotted to Maharashtra cadre. By the order dated 19-03-1991, the applicant was directed to assume additional charge of the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests, Nagpur and he accordingly held the additional charge for the period from 23-03-1991 till 22-08-1991. During this period, the office of the Deputy...
Harishchandra Vs. Kishor
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The applicant in Criminal Revision Application No.162/2012 is hereinafter referred to as "the applicant" and the non-applicant in Criminal Revision Application No.162/2012 is hereinafter referred to as "the non-applicant". 2. Heard Shri Ramesh Mohod, Advocate for the applicant and Shri A.R. Prasad, Advocate for the non-applicant. 3. The applicant filed complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the non-applicant be punished for the offence punishable under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, on the following accusations : The applicant who is Graduate in Arts and having experience of agricultural operations was employed as Diwanji with the non-applicant, however, as the requests made by the applicant about his needs were not taken cognizance of by the non-applicant, the applicant had left the employment of the non-applicant in October 2010 and taken up employment as Diwanji with Shri Vijaykumar Jain who owned agricultural field adjoin...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Dharampal
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri S.M. Bhagde, Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant. 2. The State of Maharashtra has filed this appeal challenging the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate acquitting the respondent-accused of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The case of the prosecution is : The complainant Alka Dharampal Gadpayale lodged complaint that she was subjected to cruelty, mental and physical ill-treatment by her husband-accused. On the basis of the complaint, crime came to be registered, investigation was conducted and charge-sheet was filed before the learned Magistrate. The charge came to be framed and explained to the accused. The accused did not accept the guilt and claimed to be tried. The learned Magistrate conducted the trial and by the impugned judgment concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused subjected his wife-complainant to cruelty as his illegal demand of money was not fulfilled. The learned Ma...
Suresh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri D.A. Sonwane, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri S.S. Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. The appellant has challenged the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for period of three months. 3. The case of the prosecution is : The complainant-Ku. Shalini (aged about 14 years 11 months 9 days at the time of incident) filed report with the police station stating that she was having love affair with the accused No.1 (appellant) and the accused No.1 assured her that he will marry her and had sexual intercourse with her forcibly. The complainant alleged that accused No.2-Sunil had embraced her on road and outraged her modesty. On the complaint made by ...
Shaila Parveen Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The applicant has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting her application by which the applicant prayed that the Investigating Officer be directed to return her passport which is deposited in compliance of the directions given by the Sessions Court while granting bail. The applicant is being prosecuted along with co-accused in Case No.58 of 2015 pending before the Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant is sister of husband of the complainant. The applicant is married to Dr. Abdul Wahid who is permanent resident of Hajipur, Post : Ghosipur, District : Meerut (U.P.) who at present is working as Assistant Professor in Jazzaan University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The applicant is pursuing her Ph.D. in Electrical En...
Ashok Namaji Sahare Vs. Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard Shri Shambharkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Hiwase, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Nobody appears for other respondents. 2. Shri Shambharkar, learned counsel submits that the petitioner claims promotion as Junior Clerk in view of provisions of Part 3 of Schedule 'F' of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as MEPS Rules, 1981). He contends that one post of Junior Clerk became vacant and as the petitioner was senior-most candidate, who had improved his educational qualification and was eligible for it, he needed to be given that post. He points out that this Court on 04/01/2005 directed the parties to maintain status quo. Though respondent No.5 was selected and appointed as direct recruit on that post, respondent No.5 did not report for duty and post is lying vacant since last about 10-11 years. He points out that the petitioner h...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Sarvdaman @ Manohar Bagmare
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri S.S. Doifode, Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Shri M.P. Khajanchi, Advocate for the respondent. 2. State of Maharashtra has filed the appeal challenging the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 163 and 164 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The case of the prosecution is : On 14-12-1999 at about 4-00 p.m., the accused obstructed the complainant - Aawadtabai Sahadeo Shamkule when she was taking she-buffaloes to cattle pond and the accused intentionally insulted her by abusing her on her caste. According to the complainant, the accused was knowing that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste and to humiliate her the accused had abused the complainant at a public place in public view. The accused had ...
ITC Limited and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
P.C. 1. Leave to correct the nomenclature of respondent no.4. Correction be carried out during the course of the day. Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 7.6.2016. 2. Prima facie, we are of the view that the notification would apply prospectively, i.e. from 1.4.2016 and the restriction in the notification imposed would apply to manufacture of the goods. As such, prima facie we are of the view that the restriction would apply only to such of the goods which are manufactured from 1.4.2016. 3. In that view of the matter, there shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) with a clarification that the said interim relief shall apply only to such of the goods which are manufactured prior to 1.4.2016. 4. Mrs. Mugdha Chandurkar, learned Advocate waives notice for respondent no.1. 5. Mr. D.P. Thakare, learned Addl. P.P. waives notice for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »