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.
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Bhagvan Tukaram Bhoir and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2015
Oral Judgment: (Dr. Shalini PhansalkarJoshi, J.) 1. The State has preferred this appeal, challenging the acquittal of the respondents as recorded by the II nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad, by his judgment and order dated 7th February, 2002 in Session Case No.148 of 2000, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows : The marriage of Kashibai since deceased, was performed with respondent No.1, in the year 1982. Out of the wedlock she had given birth to three sons. Her marital life was going on smoothly till respondent No.1 started having illicit relations with respondent No.2, since about 5 to 6 years prior to her death. On account of such illicit relations between respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respondent No.1 was harassing and beating the deceased without reason on several occasions. The deceased had made complaints about this harassment and ill-treatment to her brother...
Saint Gobain Sekurit India Ltd. Vs. Kuyesh Durjan Yadav and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith in both the petitions. Respondents waive service. Taken up for final disposal by consent of the parties. 2. The issue involved in both these petitions is, whether it is mandatory for the Court entertaining a complaint/proceedings on behalf of the workmen calling in question the Voluntary Retirement Scheme of which they have availed some benefits, to direct the deposit of the amount received by the workman as a condition precedent for entertaining the proceedings. 3. The respondent workmen were working with the Petitioner establishment. On 11 December 2006, a voluntary retirement scheme was displayed on the notice board of the Company wherein an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was offered to the workmen and agreements were signed on 28 December 2006. 4. Respondents filed Complaints under Section 28 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act. The Respondents contended that: The agreement dated 28 December 2006 was illegal, unconstitutional and not bin...
Muka Biren Rathod Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellant was prosecuted on the allegation of having committed offences punishable under Sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code (For short, IPC?), 457 of the IPC, 380 of the IPC and 511 of the IPC. The Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, after holding a trial, sentenced the appellant to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with respect to the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- with respect to the offence punishable under Section 457 of the IPC, and to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- with respect of the offence punishable under Section 511 of the IPC. The learned Judge directed that an amount of Rs.5,000/- from out of the amount of fine, be paid to the First Informant as compensation. Being aggrieved by his conviction and the sentences imposed upon him, the appellant has approached this Court, by filing ...
Premier Road Carriers Limited Vs. Siemens Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2015
P.C.:- 1. The petitioner has approached this court alleging that the company is indebted to the petitioner a sum of Rs.4,69,42,986/- on account of outstanding dues payable for services provided by the petitioner for transportation of the company's equipments from one place to another in India. Since 2006 the company has been availing the petitioners' services for the purpose of transportation of its equipments and in this regard from time to time entered into several contracts with the petitioner. The claim relates to 770 invoices which are unpaid. Admittedly, 67 invoices equivalent to principal amount of Rs.33,44,185/- is time barred though it is the case of the company that 97 invoices are time barred. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that they repeatedly called upon the company to make the payment including by sending a statutory notice to the company but the company failed and neglected to pay the outstanding amount. The petitioner states that the company vide its e-mail dated 2...
The Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs. The Akot Ginning and Pressing Fac ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-08-2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The department has attempted to raise the following questions as the substantial questions of law in this appeal: 1] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon™ble ITAT has erred in holding that the assessee was entitled to the deduction u/s 80P(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the alleged rental income computed @ 50% in respect of ginning and pressing charges received/earned by the assessee during the year? 2] Whether the Tribunal below has perversely appreciated the facts and law while upholding the order of CIT(A) and setting aside the order of the A.O., resulting in serious miscarriage of justice warranting interference at the hands of this Hon™ble Court? 3] Whether the authorities below were justified in reopening the proceedings merely on the basis of change of opinion? 4] Whether the authorities below were justified in placing the reliance on the judgments not relating to the controversy in the matter ...
Maulana Azad Educational Trust. Through the Chairman Dr. Rafiq Zakeria ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner/ Management is aggrieved by the judgment and order delivered by the School Tribunal dated 08.07.2015 by which Appeal No.21/2014 preferred by Respondent No.1/ Employee has been allowed. 3. Strenuous submissions of Shri Deshmukkh, learned Advocate for the Petitioners can be summarized, in brief, as follows: (a) Petitioner No.1 is a minority educational institution which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1886 and the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. (b) Petitioner No.2 is an unaided recognized school operated by Petitioner No.1/ Trust. (c) The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (herein after referred to as the MEPS Act, 1977?) and the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (herein after referred to as the MEPS Rules, 1981?) are applicable to the Petitioner Instituti...
Maulana Azad Educational Trust. Through the Chairman Dr. Rafiq Zakeria ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-08-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner/ Management is aggrieved by the judgment and order delivered by the School Tribunal dated 08.07.2015 by which Appeal No.21/2014 preferred by Respondent No.1/ Employee has been allowed. 3. Strenuous submissions of Shri Deshmukkh, learned Advocate for the Petitioners can be summarized, in brief, as follows: (a) Petitioner No.1 is a minority educational institution which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1886 and the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. (b) Petitioner No.2 is an unaided recognized school operated by Petitioner No.1/ Trust. (c) The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (herein after referred to as the MEPS Act, 1977?) and the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (herein after referred to as the MEPS Rules, 1981?) are applicable to the Petitioner Instituti...
M/s. UTV Motion Pictures Corporate Office : UTV Software Communication ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-07-2015
1. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition, at the instance of the original defendants, is to an order dated 01/10/2014 allowing the application (Exhibit 31) filed by the respondent/ plaintiff, for amendment of the plaint. 3. The precise challenge is on the ground that the impugned order amounts to allowing the respondent no.5 to retract their admission namely Murphy Munna Baby is an artistic work?, which is popular since the year 1948. 4. The brief facts are that the respondent filed Civil Suit No.49/2012 before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, North Goa, for permanent injunction, compensation and damages for infringement of trademark and copyright and certain consequential reliefs. 5. It appears that the application for Temporary Injunction filed by the respondent was rejected by an order dated 27/02/2013, whi...
Enny Milana Da Costa Vs. Chief Secretary, Secretariat and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-07-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Lobo, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Amonkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents no.1 to 4 and Mr. V.R. Tamba, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents no.5 and 6. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the parties. The respondents waive service. 3. The above habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that the minor child was not traceable from 30/3/2015 after she had reported at People's High School at Panaji. Despite all attempts to serve the respondents no. 5 and 6 were not successful. On the last date of hearing, Mr. V. R. Tamba, learned counsel having office at Panaji filed appearance on behalf of respondents no.5 and 6. 4. Mr. Amonkar appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 4 filed an affidavit inter alia contending that there is a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and her husband/Respondent no.5 and as such, the police attempts could not lead to ...
Zahir Ahmed Saeed Ahmed Mistry and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-2015
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The appellants, original accused nos.1 to 3, have questioned the correctness of the judgment and order dated 31st March 1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay in Sessions Case No.264 of 1985 thereby convicting them, firstly under Section 120-B simplicitor and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and secondly under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life by each of the appellants and thirdly under Section 120-B read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of one year each. The Trial Court has ordered that the sentence passed under Section 120-B simplicitor and under Section 120-B read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code shall run concurrently with the substantive sentence awarded under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By the same judgment and order, the Trial Court has acquitted the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »