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.
Mohanlal Bhikchand Rathi Vs. Ashok Trimbak Joshi
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-02-2015
1. The Revision is filed to challenge the judgment and order of Regular Civil Suit No. 29 of 2010 which was pending in the Court of District Judge, Kopargaon. The appeal filed against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.160 of 2008 by original plaintiff is allowed by District Court and the suit filed for eviction under the provision of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is decreed on the ground of bonafide requirement for personal use. Both the sides are heard. 2. Present respondent, the plaintiff is the owner of house property bearing CTS No. No.366/67 situated at Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar. On the ground floor there is a shop having size of 44.24 Sq.Mtrs. which is in possession of present petitioner. It is contended that about 30 years prior to the date of suit, the suit property was given to Bhikchand Rathi on annual rent of Rs.250/-. Bhikchand died and so his son Mohanlal, the present Petitioner continued the possession as the tenant. 3. The suit was filed on the...
Dinkar Bapurao Deokar, since deceased through Legal heirs Asha Dinkar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6th September 2005 passed by the Special Judge (appointed under section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), Satara, convicting the appellant of offences punishable under section 7 and section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the P.C.Act'). The learned Special Judge sentenced the appellant to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 (six) months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- with respect to the offence punishable under section 7 of the P.C. Act and to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 1(one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.7,000/- with respect to the offence punishable under section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. Being aggrieved by his conviction and the sentences imposed upon him, the appellant has approached this Court by filing the present appeal. 2. The prosecution case, as put forth before the trial Court in brief, be stated thus: That the appellant “ a policeman “ at the...
Maqbal Ahmed Gulam Mohd.Shaikh Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellant and two others were prosecuted on the allegation of having committed offences punishable under Section 392 of the IPC read with section 397 IPC, 452 IPC, 342 IPC and 120B of the IPC. The appellant was the accused no.3 in the case which was tried by the Addl. Sessions Judge for Greater Mumbai. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, by his judgment and order dated 14th October 2009 acquitted the other two accused, but convicted the appellant of offences punishable under Section 392 of the IPC r/w section 120B of the IPC, as also in respect of the offences punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act r/w section 3/4 thereof. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant to suffer RI for 3(three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- with respect to the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC r/w Section 120B of the IPC, and to suffer RI for 1(one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with respect to the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arm...
Mohammad Abdul Quadeer Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2015
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 order dated 27.3.2014, delivered by respondent No.2 by which, the contention of the petitioner and the proposal of respondent No.3 indicating that the petitioner is entitled for promotion as a Secondary School Teacher from 22.8.2006, has been rejected. 5. The submissions of Shri Choukidar, learned Advocate for the petitioner are as follows:- (a) The petitioner acquired D.Ed. qualification on 16.6.2001. (b) He was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak in English subject in the Zilla Parishad Primary School on 19.11.2001. (c) A Scheme was introduced by the Zilla Parishad, by which, D.Ed. qualification holders would be upgraded as Secondary School Teachers. (d) Government Circular dated 21.5.2004 mandates that the date of acquiring D.Ed. qualifications shall be the crucial date for deciding the seniority of such Teachers. (e) Th...
Jitendra Deshprabhu Vs. Pradip Kakodkar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-01-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. D. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. R. Menezes, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. S. R. Rivankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 4 to 10. 2. A short point which comes for consideration in the above writ petition without going into the merits of the rival contentions is whether the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji, dated 27.06.2013 dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner on the ground that such revision petition was not maintainable is sustainable in law. 3. Mr. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of the hearing of the above writ petition has brought to our notice a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 21.10.2015 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 159 of 2014 in the case of Avinash Trimbakrao Dhondage V/s The State of Maharashtra and anr., wherein the Division Bench has taken a ...
State of Goa Vs. Atish Mandrekar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-01-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. M. Amonkar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner and Mr. C. A. Ferreira, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with consent of the learned counsel. 3. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, learned counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent. 4. During the course of the hearing of the above petition, Mr. C. A. Ferreira, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has pointed out that in the meanwhile the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 21.10.2015 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 159 of 2014 in the case of Avinash Trimbakrao Dhondage V/s The State of Maharashtra and anr., while examining as to whether a revision would lie challenging the order under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, has taken a view that such revision is maintainable as such order is not an interlocutory order. The learned counsel further points out that the petitioner had in fact preferred a rev...
Sayeed Firoz and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-01-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. In all these matters, the orders of externment passed by the respective Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amravati and Nagpur, under Section 56(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, are in question. 2. In Writ Petition No.693 of 2015, the impugned order is dated 13-02-2014 and it is passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-2, Amravati city. The petitioner has been externed for a period of two years out of Amravati city and Amravati rural limits. The appeal against this order preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati on 07-07-2015. 3. In Writ Petition No.642 of 2015, the order of externment is dated 02-04-2014 and it is issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Amravati city, externing the petitioner therein from very same limits for two years. 4. In Writ Petition No.604 of 2015, the order of externment dated 22-01-2015 is issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-2, Nagpur City...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›