Mumbai Court July 2014 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.
Dr. Suren Vijay Thenge Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2014
Oral Order: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) 1. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges circular dated 07.10.2013 issued by the Commissioner of Transport, Maharashtra State to the extent it bars medical practitioners having the qualification of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery - B.A.M.S. from being authorized to issue medical certificate of fitness in terms of Rule 5 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. 2. The petitioner who has obtained the degree of B.A.M.S. has been duly registered with the Maharashtra Council of Indian Medicine and has been issued a certificate of registration in that regard. According to the petitioner as per notification dated 25.11.1992, the State Government has held Ayurvedic practitioners eligible to practice modern system of medicine known as allopathic system of medicine. In view thereof, medical practitioners holding the degree of B.A.M.S. were entitled to issue a medical certificate in terms of R...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr. Suresh Gulabchand Agrawal and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-15-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is preferred by prosecution against judgment dated 30th of November, 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Amravati in Special (ACB) Case No.11 of 1991, thereby acquitting respondent no.1/ori.accused no.1 of the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and respondent no.2/org.accused no.2 of the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Prosecution case can briefly be stated as follows - That on 9th of May, 1989 respondent no.1 was working as a Live Stock Development Officer at Nandgaon Khandeshwar while respondent no.2 was working as Live Stock Supervisor at the same place. It is the case of prosecution that the incident of death of cattle took place on 5th of May, 1989 wherein one cow and one calf owned by father of complainant Ramdas and one bullock owned by Devidas Khadse died on sustaining electric shock in the field, of wh...
Mahesh Gangaram Badgujar and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and O ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-15-2014
Shinde, J. 1. This petition has been filed praying therein for directions to the respondents No.3 to 8 to pay each of the petitioners an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for violation of their fundamental rights due to illegal arrest, detention, assault and, mental and physical torture to them while they were in police custody. Further prayer is made for quashing FIR. There is also a prayer seeking directions to take appropriate departmental action against respondents No.3 to 8 for violation of fundamental rights of the petitioners due to illegal arrest, detention, assault and, mental and physical torture to the petitioners while they were in police custody. There is further prayer to direct the respondent No.6 Mr. Mukund Patil, P.S.I., Songir Police Station to pay the petitioner No.3 Prakash Marathe an additional amount of Rs.2,00,000/- due to severe assault by Mukund Patil, as the ears of the petitioner No.3 have become permanently disabled and lost its hearing capacity to greater extent. 2. ...
Mani Kundaswami Shettiyar Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-2014
Oral Judgment: (V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. The appellant-original accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 23rd February 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan, in Sessions Case No.295 of 2004. By the said judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to fine of Rs.500/-, in default further imprisonment for the period of one month. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: The complainant in the present case is Sandeep Surve (PW-1). He runs a construction business and his office is behind Shankar Mandir at Ulhasnagar. On the day of incident i.e. 4.7.2002 as usual he was present in his office. At about 12 noon, he heard shouts from main road. He went in that direction, he saw the appellant in front of the dispensary of Dr.Gharde (PW-5). The appellant was holding blood-stained knife. One woman was lying in the Tai...
Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industries, an Association of Builders ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-2014
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The issue involved in these Writ Petitions pertains to the Doppler Weather Radar (DWR) in Mumbai. By various orders, we have already recorded the importance and urgency of shifting of DWR from the existing place or to install new DWR in Mumbai, as vertical development of projects involving high rise buildings have been stopped since 2010. 3. We have already noted in order dated 3 July 2014 that except Respondent-India Meteorological Department (for short, the IMD), other Respondents including the State of Maharashtra and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short, MCGM) have no objection to take such effective steps so that the development in the area need not be halted for want of NOC from the IMD. 4. Now, the IMD by affidavit dated 11 July 2014, which is filed today, records as under:- 3. I now proceed to update the Ho...
Rameshlal Vs. Yogesh and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-14-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the Judgment matter by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides. 2. The petitioner challenges order dated 11.10.2012, passed by learned 4th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Nagpur, below Exh.12, in pending Regular Civil Suit No.3620 of 2012, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant for grant of permission to file the written statement on record, was rejected. 3. The facts are, thus: In pending Regular Civil Suit No.3620 of 2012, the petitioner/defendant had filed an application seeking permission to file the written statement on record, which was objected by the respondents/plaintiffs on the ground that within a period of limitation as prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, written statement was not filed. Order VIII Rule 1 which reads, thus: Written statement.-The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a writte...
Mahatma Education Society's Pillai's Institute of Information Technolo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-2014
P.C.: 1. Rule, returnable on 25.08.2014. Hearing expedited. Learned Counsel appearing for the respective Respondents waive service. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. In view of urgency so expressed, we are inclined to pass this common interim order as the challenge in all these Petitions is essentially to the decision of AICTE denying Extension of Approval' to the existing institutions of the Petitioners and placing the institutions in `no admission' category. In Writ Petition No.6468 of 2014, AICTE has reduced the intake capacity of three Undergraduate Degree Courses and two Postgraduate Degree Courses. 3. Technical education and related aspects are controlled and governed by the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (For short, AICTE Act). The aim and object by the AICTE Act is to coordinate and integrate the development of technical education system at all levels throughout the country to provide and promote qualitative technical education...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Akshay @ Akash Arun Bhandare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-2014
Oral Order: (A.S. Gadkari, J.) 1. This is an Application as contemplated under Section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, for leave to file an Appeal, against the impugned judgment and order dated 3rd January 2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.27 of 2013. The Respondent / original accused was charged under Sections 363, 366, 376, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The record discloses that, it is the prosecution case, that in the month of September 2012 the victim girl was about 14 years of age and was a student of 8th standard. She was studying in Kanya Shala at Satara. On 20th September 2012 she had been to the school at about 11.30 a.m. However, her teacher told her that on that day there was a holiday for the school and therefore the victim girl proceeded to her home from Shaniwar Peth. When the victim girl reached near Chintamani Hospital, the Respondent met her near one pan shop / shack. The victim girl was knowing the Respondent as...
Manoj and Another Vs. Vijaya and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-2014
Oral Judgment: (Vasanti A. Naik, J.) Since both these appeals arise from the common judgment of the Family Court, Nagpur dated 15-4-2009 and similar issues arise for determination in the same, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment. The appellant in First Appeal No.547 of 2010 is the husband of the appellant in First Appeal No.129 of 2010. The parties are legally wedded husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 29-3-1998 at Indraprastha Mangal Karyalaya according to the Hindu rites and customs. It is not in dispute that after the solemnization of the marriage, the parties started residing in the house of the husband at Ujjawal Nagar, Nagpur and thereafter shifted to Bhusawal. Two children are born from the wedlock namely Kum. Rachita, who was aged about 5 years at the relevant time in the year 2005 and son Ayush, who was then aged 2 years. Both the children are residing with their mother, the appellant in First Appeal No.129 of 2010. In the year 200...
Ashoo Surendranath Tewari and Another Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-2014
1. By these petitions, the petitioners are seeking the relief of quashing the proceedings pending before the Special Court in Special Case No.19 of 2011, wherein the petitioners are being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code pursuant to Crime No.13/E/2009/CBI/EOW/MUMBAI. 2. The petitioners are public servants. They are the officers of Small Industries Development Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as `SIDBI'), which is a Corporation established by the Central Government of India by an Act of 1989 of Parliament. SIDBI is the financial institution established by the Government for promotion and development of micro, small and medium enterprises. It is an Authority empowered to frame different rules for achieving the objects of the institution. 3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.3024 of 2012 is working as the Deputy General Manager in SIDBI, whereas the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3173 of 2012 was, at the rele...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »