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.
Hemant Tukaram Karande Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.03.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.6, Nagpur in Criminal Case No.1068/1999, convicting the revision applicant for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs.800/-, in default to undergo imprisonment for 15 days and for an offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days and confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 22/2005, only insofar as the conviction and sentence under Section 354 of the IPC is concerned. FACTS: 2. The revision applicant was aged about 57 years at the relevant time and was working as Director of Akashwani, Nagpur. Samson Manwatkar was working as a subordinate Government servant under him. It is the case of the prosecution that on 22.07.1999, the complainant-Upasna, aged about 8 years, daughter of Samson Manw...
Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sanstha and Others Vs. Presiding Officer, Sc ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The School Tribunal, Nagpur, by its judgment and order dated 19-11-2014, has allowed Appeal No.STC-02/2006 filed under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 challenging the oral termination of the respondent No.2-Narayan Wasudeo Meshram (the employee?) from the post of Assistant Teacher with effect from 26-10-2005. The termination has been set aside and the Management is directed to reinstate the employee on the same post with continuity in service, but without payment of back wages. The Management has filed Writ Petition No.7259 of 2014 challenging the order setting aside the termination of the employee and directing his reinstatement with continuity in service, whereas Writ Petition No.4766 of 2015 has been preferred by the employee challenging the denial of back wages by the School Tribunal....
Rajeshmukar Kunjbihaari Dwivedi Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The appellant, original accused has challenged the judgment and order dated 31st August 2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No.392 of 2003 thereby convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appellant has further been convicted under Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. The appellant has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. The Trial Court has directed that all the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. It is to be noted here ...
M/s. B.E. Billimoria and Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Raheja Universal Private Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Arbitration Act), the petitioner has impugned part of the arbitral award dated 27th March,2014 insofar as claim for deduction of liquidated damages allowed by the learned arbitrator in favour of the respondent is concerned. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. The petitioner was the original claimant whereas the respondent herein was the original respondent in the arbitral proceedings. 3. On or about 27th August, 2011 the respondent had invited tenders in respect of the subject work for developing a piece of land at Mangalore and constructing two towers of 24 storeys of flats for residential purpose to be offered to the public sale. The petitioner submitted their tender in response to the said notice. The respondent issued a work order on 13th March, 2012 in favour of the petitioner for the said work. The contract value was Rs.86,66,6...
Shashikant Sitaram Masdekar and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
1. These two Appeals can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment as the appellants in both the Appeals were convicted on a single trial held by the Special Judge (under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) for Greater Bombay. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.248/02 are policemen. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.307/02 is, however not a public servant. He is an ordinary citizen. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.248/02 of offences punishable under section 7 and of an offence punishable under section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the P.C.Act?). He sentenced both of them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 1(one) year each, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each on both the counts. He directed that the substantive sentences would run concurrently. The appellant in Appeal No.307/02 was convicted of an offence punishable under Section 12 r/w sect...
Alka Chandewar Vs. Shamshul Ishrar Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
1. This Contempt Petition is filed on the basis of the arbitration order dated 5th May, 2014 passed by the Sole Arbitrator under Section 27 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as the Act?). 2. The arbitration proceedings was filed before the Arbitrator vide Arbitration Application No. 80 of 2010 for dissolution of the partnership and the assets and share in the partnership. The Petitioner and the Respondent were the partners and a Power of Attorney was given to the ex-husband of the Petitioner who has allegedly committed the fraud and forgery in respect of sending letter of dissolution of the partnership on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner subsequently divorced her husband who was the Power of Attorney of the firm. The Petitioner thereafter filed the proceedings for her share before the Arbitrator against the Respondent. The learned Arbitrator has passed the interim order on 7th October, 2010 directing that the Respondent shall not dispose of...
Vaibhav Basantkumar Shukla and Others Vs. Lorna Cordeiro and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The respondents are the original plaintiffs who have filed Special Civil Suit No. 691 of 1993 sometime on or about 2nd September, 2013. The suit claims a declaration that the sale deed dated 13th December, 1978 said to have been executed by Mrs. Cecilea Azavedo Cordeiro in favour of the father of the defendants Shri Basantkumar Shukla as illegal, null and void. The suit also claims a declaration that the defendants have no right to remain in possession of the suit property and the decree for possession has been claimed. The plaintiffs have asked for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing, obstructing or dealing with the property in any manner in future. 2. Immediately upon the receipt of suit summon, the defendants filed an application Exh. 18 under Order VII, Rule 11 (a) and (d) of C.P.C for rejection of plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action and that the suit is barred by law of limitation. Th...
Sanjay Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, Chandrapur, in Special (Child) Case No. 5 of 2014 on 02.01.2015, thereby convicting the present appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(i) of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The prosecution case, in nut shell, is as under: Factual Matrix : Prosecutrix is the first informant. She lodged a complaint (Ex.15) with police station Pathari on 22.12.2013. Since the said complaint was disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, a crime was registered vide Crime No. 18/13. Superintendent of Police ordered for investigation by higher police official and accordingly the investigation was handed over to P.W.9 Baburao Bhause Mahamuni, the S.D.P.O. As pe...
Crescent Amity Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chhaya Anant Gavankar and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-2015
1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. The appellant filed a caveat in the Bombay City Civil Court in respect of the property concerned in the suit. It is allowed to be heard pursuant to the caveat. It claims to be a party defendant in the suit. It is shown as the original defendant?. However the legal process for bringing the appellant on record is stated not to have been initiated in the suit. That, of course, would be taken care of in the suit in the trial Court. 2. The appellant has challenged the order of the Bombay City Civil Court dated 3rd December, 2014 directing parties to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit premises till the next date of the notice of motion taken out in the trial Court. That is an ad-interim order. The appellant claims that the impugned order is wholly illegal and incorrect. 3. The impugned order is in respect of a structure bearing No.PX-31 admeasuring 17ft x 12 ft of BM walls and AC sheet roof with an otla adjacent thereto. The MMC has issued notice under ...
Manohar Vs. Kunal (Baba) and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-26-2015
1. Heard both sides. 2. The present Election Petition is filed to seek a declaration that the election of the present respondent no.1 to the Office of Member of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from 6 Dhule Rural Legislative Assembly Constituency in the State of Maharashtra declared on 19/10/2014 is void and further to declare that the petitioner, who was also one of the candidate, be declared as duly elected to the said Office. 3. Respondent nos.2 to 9 were also nominated as candidates to the said election and, therefore, they are joined as parties. None of them however has filed any written statement. Infact, respondent no.1 “ Shri Kunal (Baba) S/o Rohidas Patil had raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present election petition and later-on on 6/8/2015, Mr. P.M. Shah, learned senior counsel i/b. Mr. Shrikant Patil, Advocate for respondent no.1 made a statement at the bar that all the factual aspects as pleaded in the petition and the annexures thereto ar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »