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.
Minoti Subhash Anand Vs. Subhash Manoharlal Anand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2015
1. By this application, the applicant wife has invoked section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and has also invoked the general and inherent jurisdiction and also jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and seeks transfer of Case No.155/SS/2009 from the learned Magistrate Court 40th Court, Girgaon to Family Court Bandra and that the same be tried with Petition No.A-1215 of 2011 and Petition No.B-31 of 2011 pending before the Family Court, Bandra. 2. At the threshold the learned counsel appearing for the respondent raises preliminary objection about maintainability of this petition on the civil side of this court on the ground that section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot be attracted to the facts of this case in view of the fact that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court before whom the applicant has filed proceedings under the provisions of 'Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005' (hereinafter referred to ...
Shahanawaj Shamsuddin Bhadgaonkar and Another Vs. The State of Maharas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2015
1. The appellant herein is convicted under Section 376 (2) (f) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- i.d. to suffer S.I. for 3 months. For offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant is also sentenced to suffer R.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- I.d. to suffer S.I. for one month for offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, by Adhoc District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan, in Sessions Case No. 37/2011 vide Judgment and Order dated 5th April, 2014. Hence, this Appeal. 2. The appeal was listed for admission before this Court (Coram : Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, J) on 10/6/2014. This Court had noticed that although the appellant was convicted under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, he was awarded a sentence less than the minimum prescribed by law. Hence, this Court had issued notice of enhancement on 10/6/2014. The learned Counsel f...
Balwant Vs. Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-10-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 9.7.2013, by which his Complaint (ULP) No.5/2008 has been dismissed. 3. The petitioner is a Civil Engineer. He has been issued with a show cause notice on 30.3.2007. He retired on 1.4.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. A chargesheet setting out the charges against the petitioner is dated 24.7.2007, which is obviously issued after the retirement of the petitioner. 4. The issue, therefore, raised before this Court is as to whether disciplinary proceedings can be initiated after the retirement of an employee. The issue raised is no longer res integra in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank and another v. Rajinder Lal Capoor (AIR 2007 SC 2129). 5. Considering the above, having heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at length on 7.12.2015 and again today, I am to ...
Hussain Siddiqui and Others Vs. State of Goa, Through the Public Prose ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-10-2015
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Pereira, learned Counsel waives service for the respondent no. 3. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of Special Criminal Case No. 13/2015, before the Children's Court, Panaji, Goa and Criminal Case No. 18/JJB/2015, before the Juvenile Justice Board, Merces, Goa. Both these cases arise out of an incident forming part of the same transaction and as such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the respondent no. 3, who is the father of the victim girl, aged 14 years, it is alleged that the accused persons extorted about Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/- from the victim girl, that they had videographed the accused-Sheryal Khan kissing the victim girl and threatening her of showing the footage to her father. 4. After investigat...
Kusum @ Ujwala Abasaheb Waghmare and Another Vs. Dharu @ Abasaheb Sukh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This Criminal Revision Application takes an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 30th April 2001 of Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Revision Application No.272 of 1996. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the Sessions Court was pleased to set aside the Judgment and Order dated 25th April 1996 of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ghodnadi, Dist. Pune, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.232 of 1995, under which the maintenance @ Rs.200/- per month and Rs.100/- per month was awarded to Applicant Nos.1 and 2 under the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the Revision Application can be stated as follows:- The marriage of Applicant No.1 with Respondent No.1 had taken place in the year 1993 at Village Karde. After the marriage, she went to reside in the house of Respondent No.1. For an initial period of six months, there was peaceful co-habitation. Later on, mother of Respondent No.1 started quarreling with Applicant No.1....
Avinash Uttam Kadam and Others Vs. Hajira Begum Nisar Ahmad and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By these three second appeals, all the appellants (obstructionists) have impugned the order dated 26th August 2015 passed by the learned District Judge-11, Thane dismissing the appeals filed by them. 2. Since the facts in all the three second appeals are identical, all the three appeals were heard together and are being disposed of at the admission stage by a common order. 3. It was the case of the respondent nos.1 to 3 herein (decree holders) in these three appeals that they had purchased the suit property for valuable consideration from the Judgment Debtor. On 2nd May 1995, the respondent nos.1 to 3 (decree holders) filed a regular civil suit against the respondent no.4 (Judgment Debtor) inter alia praying for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the order of status-quo was passed by the trial Court in favour of the decree holders. Inspite of the status-quo order, the Judgment Debtor illegally demolished the suit structures of the decree holders. On 10th October ...
Shantabai Bhimrao Bauchkar and Another Vs. Bhimrao Pandu Bauchkar and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-2015
P.C.: 1. The challenge in this petition is to the Judgment and Order dated 28/03/2005 made by the 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur ('ASJ') by which the learned ASJ has set aside Judgment and Order dated 25/03/2004 made by the learned JMFC, Panhala, awarding maintenance of Rs.500/- per month to each of the petitioners. The petitioner no.1 claims to be the wife of respondent no.2 and the petitioner no.2 is their daughter. The learned ASJ has not interfered with the award of maintenance to petitioner no.2. However, the learned ASJ has denied maintenance to the petitioner no.1 after recording a finding that the respondent no.1 was already married and further marriage with the petitioner no.1 was not a legal marriage, rather, the same was void. 2. Mr. Swapnil Patil, learned Counsel for petitioners, has submitted that the remedy under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') is a summary remedy and the same is not intended to affect the civil rights of the par...
Vinod Kanabar of Mumbai Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-2015
Oral Judgment: (Ranjit More, J.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Since controversy involved in the petition is in narrow compass, by consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard Mr. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Saste, learned APP for the State and Mr. Suradkar, Respondent No.2 in-person. 3. The petition is filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings of CC No.73/PS/14 pending on the file of 25th Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon, Mumbai. 4. The case of the Petitioner is as under: That, on 28th November 2006, a defamatory article with the Petitioner's photograph was published in the morning edition of Mumbai Mirror. In the said article, the Petitioner is lebelled as extortionist and most litigious who is alleged to have filed 182 cases against high profile persons includi...
Pralhad Vs. The General Manager, The Jalna District Central Co. op. Ba ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. While issuing notice to the respondent on 14/10/2015, I had recorded the contentions of the petitioner in paragraph Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as under: 1. The petitioner was working as a Banking Inspector? at Talani Branch. He had initially joined as a Clerk on 20/05/1985. He was charged with having indulged in misappropriation and after conducting a domestic enquiry, he has been dismissed from service on 23/03/2009. 2. He preferred Complaint (ULP) No.1/2011 before the Labour Court. He was held to be a workman. By the impugned judgment and order dated 20/03/2012, the complaint was dismissed. He preferred Revision (ULP) No.38/2012 before the Industrial Court, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 06/09/2014. 3. It is submitted that though the enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer have been challenged, the Labour Court has not framed the first two issues in relation the...
The Khatik Masjid Wakf/Trust Shaniwar Peth Satara, Through its Mutwall ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides for final disposal. 2. Present proceeding is filed to challenge the judgment and order delivered by Wakf Tribunal in Wakf Appeal No.2 of 2008. This Appeal was filed present Respondents to challenge the order made by Wakf Board in one inquiry held under section 40 of Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in which property bearing C.T.S. No.132 situated at Satara city was ordered to be registered as Wakf property, the property belonging to Masjid. 3. It appears that the present petitioners, the managing committee of Khatik Masjid Shaniwar Peth, Satara had filed two applications before Wakf Board and they were under section 36 and 40 of the Act. The first application was moved for registration of the Wakf. The first application was disposed of by the Chief Officer by observing that the Wakf was already registered in the year 1970 as a trust under Bombay Public Trust Act as the said Act was applicable in...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »