Mumbai Nagpur Court June 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.
Zainab Bee Vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharwade
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Since both these writ petitions raised challenge to the judgment of the appellate Court between the same parties, they are being decided by this common judgment by issuing Rule and making the same returnable forthwith. Respective Counsel waive notice. 2. Writ Petition No.211 of 2015 has been filed by the original plaintiff - landlady who had filed suit for eviction of the respondent - original defendant under provisions of Section 15, 16(1)(a),(g),(h) and (i) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,1999 (for short, the said Act). The suit was decreed by the trial Court while the appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent partly and set aside the decree for eviction. The landlady being aggrieved by setting aside of the decree for eviction has filed the said writ petition. Writ Petition No.6734/2015 is filed by the tenant challenging the judgment of the appellate Court to the extent of determination of standard rent @ Rs.5000/per month. For the sake of conve...
Mohd.Iqbal @ Munna s/o Abdul Sattar and Another Vs. State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-30-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. These two appellants are before this Court since they are aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, dated 3rd of April, 2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge - 4, Nagpur in Session Trial No.548 of 2009. By the said judgment, the appellants are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were directed to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- by each of them and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The prosecution case which was unfurled during the course of the trial is stated herein under :- The Criminal Law was set into motion on 9th of August, 2009 by Smt.Sk.Jamila wd/o Sk.Abid, first informant, by lodging her report at Exh.62. When first informant had been to Police Station Lakadganj that time Pandurang Rangari, A.S.I., (PW 8) was on duty as a Night Officer. He registered the Crime vide Crime ...
Pradeep Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. The appellant is questioning his conviction and consequent sentence imposed upon him by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha dated 19.09.2013 in Sessions Trial No.6/2012 by which he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and is directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC and on that count, is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month, the appellant is before this Court. 2. We have heard Mr. R.M. Daga, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. T.A. Mirza, learned A.P.P. for the State. Both of them took us through in detailed, notes of evidence and record and proceedings of the sessions trial. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the present case is based on the c...
Ajay Sukhdas Kumbhare Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. Being aggrieved by his conviction and consequent sentence imposed upon him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - 12, Nagpur, in Sessions Trial No.327 of 2009, the appellant is before this Court. 2. By the impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. He was further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and on that count he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a ...
Mrudul and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. A common question has been raised in all these Writ Petitions filed by the students, and hence we have heard these matters together. The said question is Whether facility of fee reimbursement can be declined to the students who are admitted at Institute level, though their admissions are duly approved by the Admission Regulatory Committee (Pravesh Niyantran Samiti)? 2. The basic facts are not in dispute. As per Government Resolution dated 04.03.2014, a reimbursement scheme has been extended to all students, who have taken admission to degree course in any of the Health Sciences in First Year after competing in Common Entrance Test (CET), through Association of Management of Unaided Private Medical and Dental Colleges of Maharashtra. The Scheme is applicable to such a student till he completes the Course. 3. On 30.03.2015, a proviso has been added to this Clause and it stipulates that students who are admitted on seats remaining vacant after co...
Dhananjay Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. This criminal writ petition has been very strongly opposed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5. However, on merits of the case, I find that no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in jail for any longer period of time. The reason is that on 15.4.2013, the petitioner was granted bail on the ground that his role was secondary to the role of the main accused Mukesh Jadhav and that investigation was so far as this petitioner was concerned, was also over. It was also noted by this Court that by 15th April, 2013, this petitioner had spent time of about 40 days in custody. 6. Subsequently, an application was filed by the prosecution seeking cancellation of bail so granted to the petitioner on the ground that the summons issued by the Investigating Officer for attending the police station was disobeyed by this petitioner. The bai...
Mangesh and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) The appellants in the present appeal are convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad in Session Trial No.19 of 2011 on 30th of November, 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 447, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. All the appellants were directed to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two years on account of their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of a fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. All the appellants were directed to suffer simple imprisonment for two months on account of their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 447 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for seven days. All the appellants were also directed to suffer imprisonment for life on account of their...
Abhishek Vs. Dr. Ashwinikumar Arvind Deshmukh and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
Z.A. Haq, J. 1. Heard Shri. N.R. Kanungo, Advocate h/f Shri. S.S. Voditel, Advocate for the petitioner original defendant No.1, Shri. J.T. Gilda, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 original plaintiffs and Shri. A.S. Kilor, Advocate for the respondent Nos.9 and 10 original defendants 8 and 9. Petition is dismissed against respondent Nos.3, 4 and 7. None appears for the other respondents. 2. The petitioner defendant No.1 has challenged the order passed by the trial Court allowing the application (Exh. No.86) filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 original plaintiffs and directing exclusion of counter-claim made by the petitioner defendant No.1. 3. The plaintiffs filed the civil suit praying for decree for specific performance of contract or in the alternative for refund of consideration, for damages and interest. According to the plaintiffs, the family of defendant Nos.1 to 7 owned property admeasuring about 8508 Sq. Ft. with the house thereon, out of which the defendant Nos.2 and 3 ha...
Himmat Shriram Maghade Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-23-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is not having any intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss to anybody and, therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Judge that the appellant has committed an offence punishable under Section 4 read Section 3 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (for short the Prize Chits Act) and also under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code is illegal. 3. Learned APP supports the impugned judgment and order and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 4. On going through the impugned judgment and order and record and proceedings, I find that the learned APP is right when she submits that there is a ample evidence on record which clearly establishes beyond reasonable doubt the intention of the appellant, which was to run a scheme in violation of the prohibition of Section 3 of the Prize Chits Act. The scheme that was floated was to the effect th...
Mehboobiya Education Society, Buldana, No.F7184, through its President ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-23-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri P.B. Patil, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Abhay Sambre, learned Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4, Shri Tushar Darda, learned Advocate for respondent No.5 and Shri H.R. Dhumale, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. The petitioner is administering a primary school in a rented premises. The petitioner-society applied for grant of lease in respect of land out of Survey No.74 and the Municipal Council by Resolution No.15 passed on 08/11/2012 and Resolution No.9 passed on 22/03/2013 decided to allot 1748 sq. mtrs. of land out of Survey No.74 to the petitioner-society on lease for three years. These resolutions came to be challenged before the Collector, Buldana and the learned Collector exercising powers under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1965') suspended the operation of above referred resolutions passed ...