Mumbai Court December 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.
Mohamed Ali Taj Mohommad Shaikh and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. All five accused in Sessions Case no. 956 of 1988 convicted under S. 302 r/w S. 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment are before this Court in these Appeals under S. 374 Criminal Procedure Code. They have been acquitted of offences under S. 143 and 144 IPC, S.147 and 148 IPC and under S. 27 of the Indian Arms Act. Original accused No. 1 Mohamed Ali Taj Mohamed Shaikh and accused No. 2 Bablu @ Mousing Ali Taj Mohamed Shaikh are appellants in Cr. Appeal 630 of 1993 and they are on bail. Original accused No. 3 Bala @ Narayan Gaonkar, the appellant in Cr. Appeal 678 of 1993 is also on bail. Original accused No. 4 Raju @ Rajumama Nader is appellant in Cr. Appeal 631 of 1993 while original accused No. 5 Chandu @ Chandrakant is appellant in Cr. Appeal 692 of 1993. Both of them are also on bail. 2. We have heard Shri H.E. Mooman, Shri M.S. Mohite, learned Counsel for the respective appellants/ accused in Criminal Appeal No. 630/1993 and Shri M.J. Bandgar, l...
Ghanshyam D. Katira Vs. Sanjay J. Ganatra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellant is the original complainant. He had filed a complaint alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988 against the respondent No.1 herein. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 43rd Court, Borivali, after holding a trial, found the respondent No.1 not guilty and passed an order of acquittal. The appellant is aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, and has, after obtaining special leave of this Court, filed the present appeal, challenging the said Judgment and Order of acquittal. 2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the applicant shall, hereinafter, be referred to as the complainant? and the respondent No.1 as the accused?. 3. I have heard Mr.Vidyashankar Yadav, the learned counsel for the complainant. I have heard Mr.H.J.Dedhia, the learned counsel for the accused. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the entire record of the case. I have gone through the evidence &ldqu...
The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation/MSRTC, Division â&eu ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-07-2015
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 15.9.2012 delivered by the Labour Court, Ahmednagar, by which Complaint (ULP) No.20/2008 filed by the respondent challenging his dismissal dated 15.10.2004 had been allowed. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19.3.2014 delivered by the Industrial Court by which the Revision (ULP) No.118/2012 preferred by the petitioner has been partly allowed. 3. Shri B.S. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the respondent was discharging duties as a Conductor with the petitioner Corporation. In his past service from 1988 onwards, he has been punished on 45 occasions for having committed 45 misconducts. 4. ON 26.11.2000, when the Bus was travelling from Parner to Wankuta, the Flying Squad carried out a surprise check of the Bus and found that two passengers were travelling ticketless as...
Vidarbha Taxpayers Association and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, U ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-05-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. Petitioner no.1 is Vidarbha Taxpayers Association and petitioner no.2 is a citizen of India and is a businessman by profession. The petitioners, by way of present Public Interest Litigation, have approached this Court challenging the vires of the Maharashtra Fire Prevention and Life Safety Measures Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act?). 3. At the very inception, Mr.Shyam Dewani, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are praying for three alternate prayers : a) to declare that the Act of 2006 is unconstitutional and therefore, not enforceable, b) to read down certain provisions of Statute so as to make them workable and, c) to declare that the levy made by the Corporation is beyond the scope of the said Act and further that the same is being utilized for the purposes as enumerated in the said Act. 4. Mr.Shy...
Mohd. Kasif Irshad Ali and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2015
1. These two Appeals can be conveniently disposed of by this common Judgment and order as the appellants in both these appeals were the accused in one and the same case and were tried and convicted on a single trial held by the Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay. The appellant Mohd. Kasif Irshad Ali (in Criminal Appeal No.1084/13) was the accused no.1, and the appellant Rinku Rohatash Khan (in Criminal Appeal No.220/15) was the accused no.2 in the said case. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants of offences punishable under section 452 IPC r/w Sec.34 of the IPC and section 395 IPC. She also convicted the appellant Mohd. Kasif “ additionally and separately of an offence punishable under section 397 of the IPC. The learned Sessions Judge sentenced the appellants to suffer RI for 5(five) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, with respect to the offence punishable under Section 452 of the IPC r/w Section 34 of the IPC, to suffer RI for 5 (years) and to pay a fine o...
Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation Through its Commissioner, La ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-05-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner-Municipal Corporation is aggrieved by the order dated 29.07.2015 delivered by the Labour Court below Exhibit U/2 in Complaint (ULP) No.12/2014 by which the second show cause notice dated 14.03.2014 issued by the Petitioner/ Management has been stayed. 3. The Petitioner is also aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 06.10.2015 delivered by the Industrial Court in Revision (ULP) No.42/2015 by which the revision petition of the Petitioner has been dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at length. 5. The issue involved is that the Respondent/ Employee was served with the second show cause notice dated 14.03.2015 along with a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report dated 10.02.2014 and the same has been stayed by the Labour Court. 6. It is not disputed that the charge sheet cum-show cause notice was issued to the Respondent/ Employee. H...
Ashabai and Others Vs. Baban and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-05-2015
1. By this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [For short, hereinafter referred to as MV Act?], appellants / original claimants are challenging the judgment and award dated 3-11-2009, passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed, in M.A.C.P. No. 138/2005, thereby rejecting claim for compensation led by appellants / original claimants on account of death of Kalyan Kothi in the alleged vehicular accident which took place on 9-9-2004 at Masrat Nagar, Beed. Respondent no.1 is the owner of the truck allegedly involved in the said accident; respondent no.2 is its insurer whereas respondent no.3 was allegedly working as driver on the said truck on the date of the accident. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to in their original capacity. 2. Brief facts leading to the institution of the present appeal can be summarized thus:- (a) Initially claimants who are dependent legal representatives of deceased Kalyan Kothi filed the pet...
The Managing Director, Parner Taluka Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-05-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition was admitted by this Court on 19.07.1995 and Rule on interim relief was issued. By order dated 20.12.2004, this Court refused interim relief to the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 28.02.1995 by which the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar has allowed Revision (ULP) No.75/1992 preferred by the Respondent/ Employee. 3. The contentions of Shri R.N.Dhorde, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner/ Employer, can be summarized, in brief, as follows: (a) The Respondent/ Employee was appointed as a Supervisor in the Petitioner Sugar Factory in 1986. (b) On 27.01.1987 he applied for appointment as an Assistant Security Officer since the said post was vacant. (c) One Mr.S.B.Supekar was appointed as an Assistant Security Officer. (d) The Respondent was aggrieved by the said appointment and therefore, he confronted the Managing Director of the Petitioner Sugar Factory and abused him in foul and filthy language. (e) The...
Alleluia Barnabe Caeiro and Another Vs. Wilson Caeiro and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-05-2015
1. Heard Mr. Menino Pereira, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. V. Menezes, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard by consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Mr. V. Menezes, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 4. The present Writ Petition is filed by the original defendant nos. 7 and 8/petitioners herein seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 14.10.2015 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, E? Court Margao, in Regular Civil Suit No. 341/2010/E, by which the objection raised by the petitioners vide Exh. 21 is rejected. 5. By Judgment and preliminary decree dated 1.3.2011, the trial Court sent preliminary decree to the Collector directing it to submit plan and area adjustment statement. The plaintiffs have share, where as the defendant nos. 1 to 6 have 1/4th share and the defendant nos. 7 and 8 have 1/4th share. The Collector ac...
Mario Cotta Pereira Vs. State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-05-2015
1. Heard S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Ms. S. Mordekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. B. Rodrigues, learned Advocate for appearing the respondent nos. 4a, 5a, 6a, 7a, 8a, 9a, 11a to 11d,12a, 13a, 14a, 15a, 16a, 17a,18a,19a,20a, 21a and 21b, 22a to c, 23a and b, 24 b and c, 25 a to e, 26a, 27 a to e, 28a, 29 a to c, 31 a and b, 32 a, 33a, 34a and b, 35a, 36a and b, 37a, 38a and b, 42a, 43a, 44a, 45a, 46a, 47a, 48a to c, 49a and b, 50a, 51a and b, 52 a, 53a, 54a, 55a and 61. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Ms. Mordekar, learned Additional Government Advocate waives notice one behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 3 and Mr. B. Rodrigues, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 4a, 5a, 6a, 7a, 8a, 9a, 11a to 11d, 12a, 13a, 14a, 15a, 16a, 17a, 18a, 19a, 20a, 21a and 21b, 22a to c, 23a and b, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »