Mumbai Court January 2015 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.
Ravikant Shantaram Sao Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2015
P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Dalvi, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard Mr.Chandrakant Sao, respondent no.2 who appears in person. Heard Ms.Malhotra, the learned A.P.P. for respondent - State of Maharashtra. 2. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Rule was issued by an order dated 27th June, 2014. At the instance of the respondent no.2 herein the petition was placed on board for final hearing. 3. The petitioner is the accused in CC No.48/SW/2014, pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate 45th Court Kurla, Mumbai. The case arises on a complaint filed by the respondent no.2 herein. The complaint was filed alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 IPC, 452 IPC, 465 IPC, 467 IPC, 471 IPC and 448 IPC but the learned Magistrate after examining the respondent no.2 on oath, as contemplated under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and after considering the report submitted by the police under the provisions of Section 202 of the Code of...
Santosh Dnyandeo Badade Vs. Jayashree Santosh Badade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2015
Oral Judgment: (A.K. Menon, J.) 1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 20.22007 passed in a Petition filed under section 13(1)(ia) and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appeal was admitted on 23/07/2007. The Respondent has not appeared ever since though served. 2. By the impugned judgment the petition was partly allowed. The Family Court held that the Respondent was not the legally wedded wife of the Appellant. Consequently, it was held that the Respondent/Original Petitioner was not entitled for decree of divorce. As far as the issue of maintenance for the Respondent and the minor children is concerned, the Family Court directed payment of sum of Rs.500/- to each of the children from 20th February, 2007. The Respondent has not challenged the impugned judgement and order of 20th February, 2007. 3. The Respondent claimed that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 2.6.1997 at Alandi in accordance with Hindu vedic rites. ...
Akhilesh Harshal Pandey Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2015
P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Saraogi, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard Mr.Venegaonkar, learned counsel for respondent - CBI. 2. The applicant is one of the accused in Special Case No.35 of 2011 pending before the Special Court at Mumbai. The case is in respect of the offences punishable under Section 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 511 and 120(B) of the IPC, as also the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. The applicant was initially arrested on 19th May, 2010. He was ordered to be released on bail by the Special Court on 27th July, 2010. He was permitted to deposit cash amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lac Fifty Thousand) in lieu of surety, as a temporary measure, and was required to furnish a surety in the said amount within the stipulated time. The applicant, however, absconded. He did not furnish the surety in the stipulated time. He was found after great...
Gopal and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-14-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. By this application, the applicants have sought quashing of the order dated 22.2.2012 issuing process against them for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 417 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also quashing of the complaint filed against them by respondent No.2. 5. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, there is not even a whisper of allegations made against both these accused constituting essential ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code. In support, he has taken me through the complaint, copy of which has been filed on record as Annexure-2. Learned counsel for the Non-applicant No.2 states that the applicants should not shy away from the trial and whatever they are submitting now can be submitted by them on merits of the case and, therefore, it would be premature for this Court to allow this petition. He also submits ...
Yasin Najib Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2015
P.C. 1. Heard. 2. These are the applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicants are apprehending their arrest in Crime No.161 of 2014 registered at Wavi Police Station, Sinnar, Dist Nashik for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 472, 463, 477A, 406, 409, 166, 167, 199, 200 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is the case of prosecution that all the present applicants are public servants. One Gangadhar Punja Bhalerao, who filed a complaint before the Ombudsman, Nashik, alleging therein that the present applicants have misappropriated huge amount by giving benefits to the persons who were not eligible for the benefits contemplated by the Scheme i.e. "Mahatma Gandhi Rashtriya Gramin Rojgar Hami Yojna 2011". According to the complainant, some villagers had obtained the benefits illegally in connivance with the present applicants and, therefore, the applicants had also committed the said offences. The Ombudsm...
Laxmi Organic Industries Limited Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2015
P.C. : 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction declaring a circular dated 4th March, 2013 as ultra vires to Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and/or Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 ( for short, Foreign Trade Act). 3. The challenge is raised in the following factual background. 4. The petitioners are a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and inter alia engaged in the business of manufacture and export of Acetyls. The petitioners submit that one of the major raw materials for manufacture and export of Acetyls is Acetic Acid. 5. We are concerned in this case with the import of Acetic Acid. The petitioners point out that they are leading exporters of Acetyls from India. In para-5 of ...
Bhonsle Dairy and Others Vs. Suresh Patel and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-14-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Bras De Sa, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ferreira, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 2. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable and heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 14.02.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-1, Margaoin Criminal Appeal No. 06/2013. 4. The respondent no. 1 had filed an application dated 20.09.2013, under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C., for short), before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-1, Margao, in Criminal Appeal No. 06/2013, seeking permission to adduce additional evidence by way of producing eight documents as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the said application. By the impugned order, the learned Judge has allowed the said application filed by the respondent no. 1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has...
Jameer Ahmed Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2015
P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for State. Perused the papers. 2. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant herein is arrested on 18/4/2014 in Crime No.384 of 2013 registered at Baramati City Police Station, District Pune for offence punishable under Section 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed in May, 2014. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 14/12/2013 Sunita Yerunkar lodged a report at the police station alleging therein that her husband was working as a interior designer. He had taken job work of doing interior in the shop of one Shrenik Bhandari and Saurabh Bhandari at Baramati. Relations were cordial between her husband and Bhandari family. According to her, Mr. Bhandari had requested her husband to go to Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai and get gift items from Shilpi Jewellers. On 29th October, 2013 her husband had left the house to go to ...
Prakash Engineers and Infraprojects (P) Limited and Another Vs. The Mu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-2015
Oral Judgment: (Vasanti Naik, J.) Since common questions of facts and law arise in these Petitions, they are heard together and are decided by this common order. By these Petitions, the Petitioners challenge the communications issued by the Corporation, rejecting the tenders filed by the Petitioners for award of contract of works of asphalting of roads, as per the e-tender notice dated 30.08.2014. The Petitioners are registered Companies executing Government contracts of asphalting and concreting. The Respondent/Corporation had floated an on-line e-tender on 30.08.2014 calling tenders for awarding 14 works of asphalting of roads on percentage basis. The Petitioners had applied in pursuance of the tender notice. As per clause 3.2.3 (vi) (c) a tenderer was required to own an asphalt plant with capacity of 18 Metric Tonnes per hour with a valid registration of the Municipal Corporation. So also, the tenderer was required to either own a RMC i.e. the ready-mix concrete plant with capacity ...
Yogesh and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-13-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith heard finally with the consent of the Counsel for the parties. 3. This Criminal Application is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying therein for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report [FIR No.160/2014] dated 02.08.2014 registered at Police Station Tuljapur and the order dated 11.07.2014 passed by the learned Judge of the Sessions Court, Osmanabad in Criminal Revision No.39/2013. 4. It is the case of the applicants that, the respondent No.2 [Original Complainant] filed Criminal Complaint on 25.03.2013 under Section 120 (B), 147, 148, 149, 307, 324, 452, 504, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tuljapur. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tuljapur directed to register the complaint as Miscellaneous Criminal Complaint and also directed the complainant to remain present for verification on 12.04.2013. Being aggrieved by the order of Judicia...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »