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.
Gopal Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-28-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the Non-applicant Nos.2, 4 and 5 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Non-applicant No.1. The Non-applicant No.3 is only a formal party as he has not challenged the order of the trial Court by filing a revision application before the Additional Sessions Judge and, therefore, I do not find it necessary to hear him. 2. Admit. 3. Heard finally with consent of the parties appearing before the Court. 4. By this application, the applicant has challenged the common order dated 30th September, 2014, passed in Criminal Revision No.142/2014 and Criminal Revision No.143/2014 by the Additional Sessions Judge-5, Nagpur. 5. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-5, Nagpur, relying upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Dashrath Rupsing Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 129, quashed the order passed in Summary Criminal Case No.42...
Tukaram Krushnaji Parve Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2015
Oral Order: 1. The Petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment of the Additional Collector, Latur dated 12.01.2015 delivered in the proceedings bearing Case No.2014/GPN/CR/684 by which the Petitioner, who is the Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat, Devangra, Taluka Chakur, District Latur, has been disqualified as Sarpanch and at the same time, he has been removed as a member of the Village Panchayat and his position has been declared vacant. 2. I have heard the respective counsel at length. I am adverting to only those submissions which are relevant at this stage and in the light of the order that I intend to pass. 3. The submissions of Mr.Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, are summarized as under: (a) The Petitioner was elected as Sarpanch for the seventh time pursuant to the elections held in December, 2012. (b) The Financial Year as enshrined under the law is from 01st April to 31st March in a given year. (c) A complaint has been lodged with the Additional Collector, Latur ...
Chandrakant Bapuso Rugge Vs. Grampanchayat, Tamdalge through Gramsevak ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioner was the Sarpanch of the Grampanchayat, Tamdalge. The petitioner tendered his resignation from the post of Sarpanch on 17 August 2012 by addressing a writing to that effect under his hand to the Chairman of Panchayat Samiti. The Block Development Officer, directed placement of said resignation for its approval in the meeting of Panchayat Samiti scheduled for 10 September 2012. In the meantime, i.e., 23 August 2012, more than one-third total number of members of the Panchayat requisitioned a meeting to consider motion of no confidence against the petitioner. Such requisition was in consonance with the provisions of Section 35 (1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (said Act). The Tehsildar, in consonance with the provisions of Section 35(2) of the said Act, by notice dated 23 August 2012 convened a Special Meeting for considering the motion of no confidence at the office of Panchayat on 29 August 2012. At the specially convened Meeting, the petiti...
The State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Sunil Vishnu Ombase and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-2015
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Gadkari, J.) 1. Confirmation Case No.7 of 2013 arises out of the reference made by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge 4, Solapur in Sessions Case No.145 of 2013 for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the accused Sunil Vishnu Ombase. By its judgment and order dated 16th August 2013 passed in Sessions Case No.145 of 2013, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Solapur convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to capital punishment of death. He is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- as per Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By the same judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Solapur is further pleased to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous impris...
Narayan Jangluji Thool and Others Vs. Mala
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-27-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. By this petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing and setting aside of the complaint filed under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2005") by the respondent together with order dated 24/7/2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yavatmal granting interim maintenance to the respondent. 4. According to learned Counsel for the petitioners, the respondent has nowhere averred in the petition that she has been living or at any point of time before filing of the application under the Act, 2005 was living with petitioner No.1 in a relationship arising from marriage or that was similar to a marriage. He also submits that even otherwise, the respondent could not have entered in such a relationship, called the domestic relationship under Section 2 of the Act, 2005 as it is an admitted fact th...
Blue Cross Laboratories Ltd. Vs. RB Remedies Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-2015
P.C. : 1. The Notice of Motion seeks interim reliefs in an infringement and passing off suit. By consent of Counsel, the motion is taken up for hearing at the ad-interim stage itself. 2. The Plaintiff is a leading pharmaceutical business house in India and is a registered proprietor of the trade mark 'CEDON' vide Registration No. 717042 as of 14.08.1996 in Class 5 of the Fourth Schedule to the Trade Mark Rules, 2002. The Plaintiff manufactures and markets antibacterial dry syrup used to treat cough, under the trade mark 'CEDON'. The Plaintiff has used the trade mark in relation to these goods continuously since 2004. The sales figures, invoices, promotional material, etc. produced with the Plaint indicates an extensive sale of the goods under the trade mark 'CEDON' by the Plaintiff throughout the last more than ten years. In 2013-14 itself, the sales were over Rs. 11 crores. In August 2014, the Plaintiff learnt about the use of the mark 'CEFDON' by Defendant No. 1 in respect of similar...
Kavita Vinayakrao Dhopte Vs. Vinayakrao Ramchandra Dhopte
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-27-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 07/6/2014 passed by Judge, Family Court, Nagpur, thereby allowing an application (Exh.28) filed by the respondent for grant of permission to amend his composite reply to the application filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, claiming maintenance from the respondent. 4. It so happened that in the proceedings initiated under Section 125 Cr. P. C. at the instance of the petitioner, on 20/3/2014, the respondent filed an application seeking grant of permission of the Court to amend the composite reply and written statement. That was the stage when evidence had already commenced and an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief had been filed on record on that very date by the petitioner and her statement of oath, in support of her averements in the affidavit h...
Santosh Maruti Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-2015
Oral Judgment: (Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.) 1. The Appellant is the Original Accused, who stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for one month, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malshiras, Dist. Solapur in Sessions Case No.4 of 2008 by Judgment dated 25th March, 2009, by this Appeal challenges his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts, which are necessary, for deciding this Appeal can briefly be stated thus :- On 13th October, 2007, at about 7 a.m., while PW-4 Head Constable Aba Ohal was on duty at Natepute Police Station, PW-7 Maruti Gaikwad, father of the Accused, came to the Police Station and lodged a report (Exhibit-19) about the death of his sister Shewanta with bleeding injuries on her body. On his report, PW-4 Head Constable Aba Ohal registered A.D. Case No.30 of 2007 and handed over the inquiry of the said A.D. Case to PW-8 ASI Kamble, who ...
Gyan Construction Co. Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2015
1. At the request of counsel, both the Petitions are being disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. These two Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge a common order dated 17th October, 2014 passed under section 254 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal') allowing the application for rectification filed by the Revenue. The common impugned order dated 17th October 2014 was passed on two applications seeking to rectify a common order dated 29th December 2010 dismissing two appeals of the Revenue on quantum and penalty for block period 1.4.1988 to 17.12.1988. 3. By the impugned order dated 17th October, 2014 in exercise of its powers under section 254 (2) of the Act recalled the common order dated 29th December, 2010 passed under section 254 (1) of the Act relating to the Block period 1st April, 1988 to 17th December, 1988 both in quantum and penalty proceedings. Thereafter the impugned order directed tha...
Jitendrakumar Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-23-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)1. Considering the nature of controversy involved in the matter, Writ Petition is heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, by issuing Rule, making the same returnable forthwith.2. Shri Samarth, learned Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has fully complied with the eligibility norms in relation to financial capacity, and respondents had been too technical about non-production of original fixed deposit receipts, mentioned in tender document, as security. Its non-production at the most could have resulted in discarding those two receipts, which does not in any way prejudice the eligibility of petitioner in terms of the advertisement.3. Shri Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for respondents has relied upon reply affidavit. He submits that the matter pertains to contract between the parties and in this situation, in order to be fair and transparent, all officers of the respondent interpret the provisions str...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »