Mumbai Nagpur Court May 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.
Fida Hussain Yahyabhai Bohra Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-05-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri S.Z. Qazi, advocate for the applicant and Shri K.R. Lule, A.P.P. for the non-applicant. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The applicant has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the application filed by the applicant seeking permission to leave India for pilgrimage purposes i.e. for performing Hajj and visiting Balalaika. 4. The applicant is being prosecuted for the offenses punishable under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7, 13(K)(D) I, II, III of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This Court by the order dated 14th March, 2013 granted bail to the applicant, however, imposed condition that the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. As the applicant intends to go for Hajj and to go to Balalaika. The applicant had filed applica...
Prabhabai and Others Vs. Fulchand
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-05-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Pursuant to the notice for final disposal of the appeal issued on 26-4-2016, the learned Counsel for the parties have been heard at length on the following substantial question of law: Whether the delay in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963? 2. The respondent is the original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.506 of 2003. This suit was filed for seeking specific performance of agreement dated 27-3-2002 in respect of the agricultural land admeasuring 0.31R. The original defendant Pandurang was served with the suit summons. He, however, expired during pendency of the suit and the present appellants who are his legal heirs were brought on record. The written statement filed earlier by Pandurang came to be adopted. The trial Court on 16-2-2008 decreed the suit. The respondent herein filed Special Darkhast No.159/2008 on 24-4-2008. The present appellants entered their appearance therein on 29-7-200...
Virendra @ Gijrya and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Police ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-05-2016
1. Heard Shri D.V. Chauhan, advocate for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.182/2016, Shri S.P. Gadling, advocate for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.197/2016 and Shri S.S. Doifode, A.P.P. for the respondents in both the writ petitions. 2. The petitioners, in both writ petitions, have challenged the order passed by the learned Special Judge designated under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (for short MCOC Act ) rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners have also challenged the order passed by the learned Special Judge directing that the remand papers along with bail warrant of the accused be transmitted to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and directing the accused to attend the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for further proceedings in the crime registered against them and directing the Jail Superintendent to produce the accused before the Court of A...
Dashrath and Others Vs. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-04-2016
Oral Judgment: (B. R. Gavai, J) : 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. The petitioners, who are employees in Group D on the establishment of Respondent No.1, have approached this Court praying for quashing and setting aside that part of Rule 29(b) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred as to the Rules of 2000 ) which provides for upper age limit for promotion to the posts of Clerks, Section Writer/Typist and the proviso thereto which restricts the number of promotees to 10 % of the vacancies in any year of recruitment. 3. The facts are not much in dispute. Twenty petitioners herein have been appointed on various posts in Group D category on various dates. The petitioners contend that, if the provisions of Rule 29 of the Rules of 2000 are read as it is, the petitioners and the similarly circumstanced employees in Group D category would be left at the mercy of the Registrar of the High Court and the Hon'ble Chief Justice wi...
Amar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-04-2016
Swapna Joshi, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 24.9.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge6 Nagpur in S.T. No.612/2011 thereby convicting the appellant (ori. accd.No.1-Sumit s/o Ramesh Chintalwar and appellant Amar @ Chhotu Ramesh Lohkare (ori. accd.No.2), under sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s. 4/25 of Arms Act and sentencing them to undergo (i) R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and, in default, to suffer R.I. for six months u/s. 302 r/ws. 149 of IPC; (ii) R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default, to suffer R.I. for six months u/s 147 of IPC and; (iii) R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 750/- and, in default, to suffer R.I.for two months, under section 148 of IPC and (iv) R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default, to suffer R.I. for two months, u/s. 4 (25) of Arms Act, the appellant Sumit Chintalwar has preferred the Appeal...
Gangadhar Nanaji Milmile and Others Vs. Western Coalfields Limited
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-02-2016
Common Judgment: 1. In all these appeals preferred under Section 20 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 ( said Act for short) the challenge is to the award passed by the Special Tribunal constituted under Section 14(2) of the said Act to determine the question of enhancement of compensation as provided under Section 73 of the said Act, to the extent it refuses to grant interest as contemplated by Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, which according to the appellants is made applicable by Circular dated 12th February, 1986 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Energy, Department of Coal. In all these matters the claim is for the interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum for a initial period of one year from the date of taking possession of the land and at the rate of fifteen per cent per annum after expiry of period of one year till the amount of compensation is paid or deposited by the acquiring body. 2. The point for determination in all...
Ramkrishna Uddhao Dhawas Vs. Western Coalfields Limited
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-02-2016
Common Judgment: 1. In all these appeals preferred under Section 20 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 ("said Act" for short) the challenge is to the award passed by the Special Tribunal constituted under Section 14(2) of the said Act to determine the question of enhancement of compensation as provided under Section 73 of the said Act, to the extent it refuses to grant interest as contemplated by Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, which according to the appellants is made applicable by Circular dated 12th February, 1986 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Energy, Department of Coal. In all these matters the claim is for the interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum for a initial period of one year from the date of taking possession of the land and at the rate of fifteen per cent per annum after expiry of period of one year till the amount of compensation is paid or deposited by the acquiring body. 2. The point for determination in al...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›