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.
Rishabhkumar Vs. Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Roa ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Shri Ghare, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 National Highways Authority of India seeks permission to withdraw Civil Application (CAM) No.4 of 2016 and seeks further permission to substitute it by another application, which he has tendered. The request is accepted. The Civil Application (CAM) No.4 of 2016 is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh application which is tendered in the Court. The application is taken on record and it be registered accordingly. 2. This appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( said Act for short) challenging the order dated 28.08.2015 passed under Section 34 by the learned Principal District Judge setting aside the arbitral award dated 29.08.2015. The preliminary objection is with regard to payment of Court fee on the appeal. The appellant has paid Court fee of Rs.25/- in terms of Article 13 under Schedule II of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act ( Court Fees Act for sh...
Mahadeo and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra Through its Collector and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
Oral Judgment : 1. This appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code) is by the original plaintiffs who are aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Court rejecting the application that was filed for bringing on record the legal representatives of respondent No.4. The appellants are also aggrieved by the order passed below Exhibit-1 by the Appellate Court disposing of the said appeal as having abated. The appellants-original plaintiffs had filed R.C.S. No.160 of 2003 for cancellation of sale deed dated 20/04/2003 along with a prayer for permanent injunction. The trial Court dismissed the suit by judgment dated 19/04/2004. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Appeal No.160 of 2010. During pendency of said appeal, the appellants learnt on 19/10/2013 the respondent No.4 had expired on 12/08/2011. Hence, an application for bringing on record the legal representatives came to be filed. On 17/01/2014, the Appellate Court reject...
State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Incharge and Another Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
Oral Judgment:(B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Since the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur vide his Judgment and Order dt.3.12.2015 passed in Sessions Case No.81 of 2014 has awarded death sentence to the appellant/accused herein and directed him to be hanged by neck till death, present reference has been made to this Court. The Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of sentence as recorded by the learned trial Judge thereby holding him guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to death and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years respectively and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-; in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months respectively. 2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, as could be gathered from the material placed on record, is thus: The accused is husband of deceased Shamshad. Deceased Isana was daughter of deceased Shamshad and the appellant. Deceased...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Prashant Sahebrao Thool
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The Advocates representing the respondent-accused have filed Pursis Stamp No.1475/2016 seeking discharge. Accepting the reasons stated in the counsel note, Shri G.G. Modak, Shri R.S. Subhedar and Shri R.D. Dharmadhikari, Advocates are discharged from representing the respondent-accused. 2. Heard Shri N.B. Jawade, Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State of Maharashtra. 3. The State of Maharashtra has filed this appeal challenging the judgment passed by the Sessions Court acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The case of the prosecution is : The prosecutrix-Ku. Namrata Prabhakarrao Sawadh (aged about 18 years at the time of incident) filed complaint with the police station that the accused, being neighbour of the prosecutrix and having taken land owned by father of the prosecutrix for cultivation on "batai", used to visit the house and field of the prosecutrix. That on 28-12-1999 at ab...
Dr. Rajendra Vs. Takhatmal Shrivallabh Brothers and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The respondent No.1-Takhatmal Shrivallabh Brothers firm filed Criminal Complaint Case No.4291/2010 praying that the accused be tried and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. After verification of the complainant and examining the complaint and the documents on record, the learned Magistrate passed order on 15th June, 2011 directing issuance of process against the petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the above order filed Criminal Revision No.120 of 2011 before the Sessions Court which is dismissed by the impugned order. The petitioner, being aggrieved in the matter, has filed this writ petition. 5. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and have ex...
R.K. Wine Shop Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Issue notice to the respondents for final disposal. Learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 3. Upon going through the impugned order, I find myself in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner when he submits that the order does not spell out any reason for which the licence in question has been suspended until further orders by the respondent-Collector. 4. It appears that the respondent-Collector has been swayed away only by the fact that some persons were found in illegal possession of bottles of country liquor in a district, district of Chandrapur, where policy of prohibition of liquor is being implemented and that these persons made a statement that they purchased the bottles of country liquor from the shop of the petitioner. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner had made any attempt or had indeed sold the country liquor bottle...
M/s. Shilpa Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Employees State Insurance Corpora ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal filed under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, the said Act) takes exception to the order dated 4-10-2006 passed by the learned Judge, Employees State Insurance Court, Nagpur in proceedings under Section 75 of the said Act. 2. The appellant is a private limited Company to which the provisions of the said Act have been made applicable. In the matter of contribution payable by the appellant for the years 1993-94 and 1994-95 inspection was carried out by the Officers of the respondent Corporation. On 23-12-1997, a show cause notice came to be issued by the Corporation calling upon the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.1,74,983/-. In the said show cause notice, the dues claimed were on account of contribution for the difference in the payments made to contractors as well as on the difference on the amount paid to Security Guards. The appellant appeared before the Corporation and contested the proceedings. After grant of necessary ...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Haribhau and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri S.S. Doifode, A.P.P. for the appellant and Shri V.S. Kukdey, advocate for the respondents. The respondent No.3 is reported to be dead. The appeal against the respondent No.3 stands abated. 2.The State of Maharashtra has filed this appeal challenging the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the respondents/ accused of the offence punishable under Section 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.The case of the prosecution is : On 28th August, 1997 around 7.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m., Deochand Gomase and his son Sanjay were returning from weekly market, at that time Haribhau and Sheshrao caught hold of Deochand and Mahadeo, assaulted Deochand by sword causing injuries on his head, chin and ear. Umesh was also present at that time. Haribhau (accused) is elder brother of Deochand (victim) and Mahadeo and Umesh are sons of Haribhau. Sanjay took his father to Rural Hospital, Arvi where PSI Ambhore recorded his statement in presence of Dr. M...
Abdul Azim Vs. Ammra Firdos and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri A.B. Mirza, Advocate for the applicant and Shri A.D. Sonak, Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.3. None appears for the non-applicant Nos.1 and 2. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The applicant has filed this revision application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act challenging the order passed by the Family Court, directing the applicant to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1(wife) and Rs.1,000/- per month to the non-applicant No.2 (minor son) towards maintenance. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that the non-applicant No.1(wife) is living separately without any justification and this has been endorsed by the Court by passing decree for restitution of conjugal rights in Regular Civil Suit No.123/2012 on 13-11-2013. Relying on the judgment given by this Court in the case of Rajendra Wamanrao Dhomne vs. Smt. Jaishri Rajendra Dhom...
Anand Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri Mohd. Shakir, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri N.B. Jawade, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 and Shri A.M. Kukday, Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioner has challenged the interim order passed by the Sessions Court imposing conditions while allowing the application filed by the petitioner praying for stay to the effect, operation and execution of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is suspended and therefore, is not in a position to pay the amount of maintenance as directed by the learned Magistrate. It is further submitted that the petitioner is having the responsibility of maintaining his old parents and this factor is not taken into consideration either by the learned Magistrate or the learned Additional Sessions Ju...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »