Mumbai Court October 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.
Namdev Mahadev Dhumal and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra (at the inst ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-2015
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The Appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 18th June, 2007 passed by the 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge at Palghar, District Thane in Sessions Case No.12 of 2006 thereby convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The Appellants have also been convicted under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. The Trial Court has directed that the substantive sentences to run concurrently. 2. The facts which give rise and necessary to decide the present Appeal can briefly be stated as under: (i) The date of incident is 9th October, 2005. Deceased Bhavin Jayesh Parekh was a builder by profession and was running a firm in the name and style of D...
M/s. Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse S.A. Vs. Sakuma Exports Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-2015
1. The petitioner has filed these proceedings arising out of the foreign award dated 25th March, 2011 passed by Refined Sugar Association allowing some of the claims made by the petitioner. Arbitration Petition (No.47 of 2015) is filed for an order that the foreign award dated 25th March, 2011 be deemed to be decree of this Court, for a direction to enforce and execute the said foreign award as a decree in favour of the petitioner and as against the respondent. Execution Application (No.554 of 2011) is filed by the petitioner for execution of the said foreign award dated 25th March, 2011. Notice of Motion (No.1318 of 2015) has been filed by the petitioner in Arbitration Petition No.47 of 2015 inter-alia praying for condonation of delay of 273 days in filing the said petition. 2. By consent of the parties, all the aforesaid four proceedings were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order and judgment. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding the aforesaid p...
L and T Finance Limited Vs. AGT Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-2015
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. Appellant, being aggrieved by the Order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 05/11/2012 confirming the demand of the Court receiver seeking 1% commission, has filed this appeal. 2. Brief facts are that the Appellant advanced a loan of Rs 32,40,000/- to AGT Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., who is Respondent No.1 herein, to purchase two TATA LPK 2518 vehicles on hypothecation of the said vehicles with the Appellant. The Appellant and the Respondent “ AGT Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. executed a Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement dated 08/05/2008. By the said agreement, the loan which was paid to the Respondent was repayable in 35 equated monthly installments with interest @ 6.35% per annum. Dispute was referred to the Arbitrator and during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, Petition was filed to secure the claim of the Appellant. The learned Single Judge, while disposing of the Arbitration Petition, appointed the Court Receiver who was directed t...
Nanasaheb Narayan Shelke Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Dekh Rekh ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-06-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31/07/2012 delivered by the 2nd Labour Court, Ahmednagar, by which Ref.(IDA) No.17/2008 was answered in the negative. 3. The issue raised by the petitioner is whether a denovo enquiry is sustainable in the absence of a charge sheet before the Labour Court or Tribunal, as the case may be. 4. The detailed submissions of the petitioner can be summarized in brief as follows : a. The petitioner had joined employment of the respondent on 01/08/1972. b. By order dated 28/06/1984, he was placed under suspension on allegations of misappropriation. c. Departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. d. On conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 18/03/1985. e. Respondent had moved the Co-operative Court for recovering the amount misappropriated, which was allowed...
Vithal Kondiba Padghane Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-06-2015
Indira K. Jain, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the original accused against the judgment and order, dated 11.6.2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded, in Sessions Case No. 160 of 2011. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. 2. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the appellant in his original status as accused as he was referred before the trial court. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is as under: (i) Incident took place on 5.8.2011 between 7.30 p.m. and 8.00 p.m. in the house of accused, situated at Koli, Taluka Hadgaon, District Nanded. Accused was married to Punyarathabai before 19 years of the incident. The couple was blessed with one daughter and two sons. Sons were residing at the house of father of Punyarathabai at village Shivni (Bk.), Taluka Kalamnuri, District Hingoli. Accused, his wife Punyarathabai and daughter were resi...
Salim and Another Vs. Majlis Madarsa-EIslamia Society, through its Sec ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-05-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The Court of Small Causes trying a suit between the landlord and the tenant under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act has passed an ex parte decree for eviction and possession on 19.09.2013 against the petitioner “ tenant. The tenant preferred M.J.C. No.01 of 2014 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 20.12.2013 for setting aside ex parte decree along with the application for condonation of delay. The Court of Small Causes dismissed it solely on the ground that there was non-compliance of Section 17(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 to deposit the decretal amount or to furnish the security as required by the said provision. The order dated 30.06.2014 was challenged by the petitioner in Misc. Civil Appeal No.206 of 2014 filed under Section 34 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. This appeal has also been dism...
Om Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. Anil Chinubhai Kilachand and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-2015
1. The plaintiff has sued for specific performance of the agreement between the plaintiff and the original defendant, now represented by his heirs and legal representatives being the executors of his will dated 02.06.1983, and for reliefs incidental thereto. The plaintiff has also sued for alternative reliefs of refund of the part payment of consideration made by him and for damages which alternative reliefs are not pressed. The original defendant did not file any written statement. He expired soon after the suit. The written statement has been filed by defendant No.1(A) to 1(E) who are the heirs and legal representatives of the original defendant. Defendant No.1(A), who was his wife, has also expired. Defendant No.1(B), who is his son, has contested the suit. Defendant No.1(C), who is one of the executors of the will of the original defendant, since probated, has signed the written statement along with other defendants but has given separate oral evidence independently and not on beha...
Rauf @ Lalu Khwaja Qureshi Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-2015
Oral Judgment: (V.K. Tahilramani, Acting C.J.) 1. The Appellant - original accused has preferred this Appeal against the judgment and order dated 14th October, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.457 of 2009. By the said judgment and order the learned Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant under Sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the Appellant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and for the offence punishable under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, the Appellant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for two months. The learned Sessions Judge directed that both the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under: Deceased Parveen was the wife of the Appellant. The Appellant and Parveen had four children i.e. Akib, Askan, Aman (P.W.9) and Muskan. The Appellant along with his wi...
Changunabai Sambhaji Gaware Vs. Kapus Visheshadnya and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-05-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18.11.2014 delivered by the Industrial Court under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Act of 1972?), thereby allowing Misc. PGA Delay No. 3 of 2013. 5. The petitioner submits that the Controlling Authority delivered its judgment, dated 25.2.2013 in Application Nos.199 to 291 of 2010. All the applications were allowed and the respondent / management was directed to pay gratuity in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1972. By communication dated 13.3.2013, the petitioner supplied the Photostat copies of the judgment of the Controlling Authority to the respondents. As such, the respondents had received the copy of the judgment on 15.3.2013 as is indicated by the Inward Stamp of acknowledgment of the respondents. 6. The petitioner further submits that the respondents prefer...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh Ganesh Jadhav
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-05-2015
Indira K. Jain, J. 1. Appellant / State of Maharashtra has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 3rd February, 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in Sessions Case No. 154 of 1991. By the said judgment and order learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the sole Accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the Respondent as Accused as he was referred before the Trial Court. 3. Facts as are necessary for deciding the present appeal may be stated as follows: i. PW-2 Daulatrao Yadavrao Lahane was resident of Dahegaon, Tahsil Jafrabad, District Jalna. PW-1 Dhurpadabai Daulatrao Lahane is wife of PW-2 Daulatrao. Chaya was their daughter. She was married to Accused before 10 months of her death. Accused was resident of the same village. ii. It is the prosecution case that at the time of marriage of Chaya her parents had given Rs.21,000/- to the Accused as dowry. Afte...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »