Mumbai Court June 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.
Vijay and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-22-2015
Per Court: All these criminal appeals take exception to the judgment and order dated 18/10/2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.554/2002. For the sake of convenience, accused numbers are referred according to their serial numbers as mentioned in charge (Exh.20). By the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court, accused no.1 Vijay Kisanrao Mate, accused no.4 Umesh Sampatrao Dahake, accused no.9 Kiran Umraoji Kaithe, accused no.10 Kamlesh Sitaram Nimbarte, accused no.13 Dinesh s/o Devidas Gaiki and accused no.15 Raju Vitthalrao Bhadre came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302, 120-B read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 147 of Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine ...
The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporatio ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-22-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is heard finally. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22.2.2012, delivered by the Industrial Court, Latur in Complaint (ULP) No. 89 of 2010. 5. The undisputed facts emerging from the case are as follows:- (a) An employee - Sham Zadpide (now deceased) was employed with the petitioner as a part-time Waterman from 16.3.1981, to supply water for washing the Buses of the petitioner Corporation. (b) He was charged with having committed theft of the property of the petitioner and having sold the said property in the market. (c) He was finally dismissed from service on 19.7.1997. (d) The departmental appeal of the deceased was considered sympathetically and he was issued with an order of fresh appointment. (e) He joined on 12.9.1998 and he died on 6.6.2006. (f) The son of the deceased, namely, Kiran Sham Zadpide moved an application seeking appointment on compassionate...
State (Through Range Forest Officer Netrawal – Goa) Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-22-2015
1. Admit. The learned Counsel for the respondent waives notice. 2. Heard finally, with consent. 3. By this Revision Application, the State is challenging the judgment and order dated 01/09/2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No.36/2014. By the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the order dated 27/03/2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Sanguem in Criminal Case No.14/AOA/2013, by which the learned Magistrate had held that the confessional statement of the respondent, recorded by a Deputy Range Forest Officer is admissible in evidence. 4. The brief facts are that the respondent is the original accused no.1. On 14/11/2010, the respondent was intercepted and detained while driving a Tata Indica Vehicle bearing No. GA-02-S-0788 while he was proceeding from Netravali to Verlem. During the search of the said vehicle, two plastic bags containing meat of a wild boar were recovered. During the course of inv...
Vilas and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-22-2015
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Rule in Criminal Application (APL) No.42 of 2014. 2. All these applications were heard together since common questions of law are involved and are disposed of by the common judgment. 3. By order dated 09-01-2015, prima faice, we found that sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 [for short, ˜the Act of 2000™], does not contemplate filing of case by the Police Officer in accordance with Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure but contemplates the filing of a complaint case in accordance with Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, these applications were heard from time to time and looking to the important issues involved and the filing of number of F.I.Rs in the Police Station and the chargesheets in the Court...
Manik Rama Toke and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra (through: Exc ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-22-2015
R.M. Borde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3. The petitioners have presented the instant public Interest Litigation, seeking directions against the respondent Nos.1 to 4, restraining them from allowing shifting of a country liquor shop operated by respondent No.5 and 6 at Khadki, District: Pune to village Hanegaon, tq. Deglur, Dist. Nanded. 4. The petitioners are the residents of aforesaid village and are genuinely concerned with the menace of alcoholism spread amongst the villagers in the village. It is pointed out that, in a small village having population of about 6122, as per the census figures of 2001, there are already four outlets selling liquor. It has been brought to notice that, one country liquor shop is already operating apart from one beer Shoppe and two permit-rooms, selling liquor in the village. The petitioners submit that the village Gramsabha took cognizance of the menace of alcoholism...
The Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-19-2015
Oral Order: 1. Rule. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 3. The Respondent/Employee has passed away on 05.03.2014. His widow is about 71 years old today. 4. Despite a host of factors having been canvassed by the respective sides, I would be adverting to those submissions which I find relevant in view of the order that I propose to pass keeping in mind that the Respondent/Employee has passed away. 5. The Respondent was a Bus Driver appointed by the Petitioner in 1967. He was in continuous employment with the Petitioner and had completed 13 years of service as on the date of dismissal 25.09.1980. 6. On 08.04.1979 while manning the Bus on the Pandharpur-Jamkhed route, a head-on collision took place between the said Bus and a Car resulting in the death of 5 persons and causing injuries to a few bus passengers. The Bus as well as the vehicle of the deceased persons was badly damaged. 7. After issuing the charge sheet, a departmental enquiry was...
M/s. Shewalkar Developers Ltd. Vs. Rupee Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-18-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to withdraw the petition. However, taking into consideration the seriousness of the matter and in order to give due respect to the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on earlier occasions, we refuse the permission to withdraw the petition and proceed to decide the same. 3. The petition arises out of very peculiar facts. The petitioner is a borrower of the respondent nos.1 and 2 “ Bank. Since the petitioner was liable to pay dues of the Bank, it appears that the respondent nos.1 and 2 “ Bank had initiated proceedings for recovery. A dispute came to be filed by the present petitioner being a Dispute No.263/2012. In the said dispute, an application for temporary injunction also came to be filed below Exh.5. 4. The learned Judge of the Co-operative court initially granted...
Rangnath and Others Vs. The Director, Ground Water Survey and Developm ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-18-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by the consent of the parties, heard finally. 2. The three petitioners have preferred this petition for challenging the judgment and order dated 26/03/2013 delivered by the Industrial Court in Revision (ULP) Nos.36/2012, 37/2012 and 39/2012 and the judgment of the Labour Court dated 21/02/2012 delivered in Complaint (ULP) No.316/1992. 3. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that petitioner No.1 joined employment on 05/02/1980 and was terminated on 16/07/1992 after having put in about 12 years and 7 months in employment. Petitioner No.2 joined duties on 01/11/1988 and was terminated on 16/07/1992 after having put in 3 years and 9 months in service. Petitioner No.3 joined service on 23/11/1984 and was terminated on 16/07/1992 after having put in about 8 years in employment. 4. On 16/07/1992, in all 7 employees were terminated by the respondents. They preferred Complaint (ULP) No.316/1992 u/s 28(1) r/w Item ...
M/s. Shewalkar Developers Ltd. Vs. Rupee Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to withdraw the petition. However, taking into consideration the seriousness of the matter and in order to give due respect to the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on earlier occasions, we refuse the permission to withdraw the petition and proceed to decide the same. 3. The petition arises out of very peculiar facts. The petitioner is a borrower of the respondent nos.1 and 2 “ Bank. Since the petitioner was liable to pay dues of the Bank, it appears that the respondent nos.1 and 2 “ Bank had initiated proceedings for recovery. A dispute came to be filed by the present petitioner being a Dispute No.263/2012. In the said dispute, an application for temporary injunction also came to be filed below Exh.5. 4. The learned Judge of the Co-operative court initially granted...
The Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (ACB) Vs ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-18-2015
Oral Judgment: (P.R. Bora, J.) 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent of parties. 2. A question that arises for consideration in the present petition is, Whether the directions given by the learned Special Judge, Aurangabad under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, directing CBI, i.e. the present petitioner to make an investigation into the complaint filed by Respondent No.1 and to submit report thereof, is legal and within the powers of the learned special Judge.?? 3. Respondent No.1 herein had preferred an application/complaint bearing Criminal Misc. Application No.170/2010 before the Special Court at Aurangabad, dealing with anticorruption cases and had sought in the said application/complaint, a direction against CBI, i.e. present petitioner to investigate into the said complaint under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code) 4. The learned Special Judge, vide impugned order has accordingly directed such investigation under S...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »