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.
Paramveersingh Santoshsingh Saini Vs. Tarachand
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-18-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 21.12.2013 passed on the Revision Application filed under Section 34 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 dismissing said application and confirming the order passed by the Trial Court thereby refusing to condone the delay and consider the application for setting aside the ex parte decree on merits. 3. The respondent is the original plaintiff who had filed suit for eviction of the petitioner under the provisions of said Act. The Trial Court on 04.03.2011 decreed said suit. The present petitioners was proceeded ex parte in said suit. Hence, an application under the provisions of Order 9 Rule XIII of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be filed by vide M.J.C. No.62/2011. The same was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. On 03.11.2011 the Trial Court rejected the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the...
Madhavrao Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-18-2015
1. Present Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order of conviction passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad dated 19/09/2000 in Sessions Case No. 238/1996, by which the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable u/s 498A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and on that count, they were directed to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- [Rupees One Thousand] and in default to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months by each of them. Appellants were also convicted for the offence punishable u/s 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of the appellant was directed to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- [Rupees One Thousand] and in default to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. Appellants were also convicted for the offence punishable u/s 304B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of the appellant was directed to suffer Rigo...
Damodar G. Lotlikar Vs. State of Goa, through, the Secretary (Revenue) ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-18-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned dditional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. D. Pangam, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 3. 2. The above petition inter alia seeks to quash and set aside the notification dated 5.1.2007 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act?) as well as notification dated 3.1.2008 issued under Section 6 of the said Act as well as notice under Sections 9 and 10 of the said Act dated 21.8.2008. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased a plot of land admeasuring an area of 1185 square metres situated in the village of Davorlim village pursuant to the Sale Deed dated 16.11.1978. It appears that in view of the dispute with regard to the interference inter alia in the said property by some persons namely Mr. Manuel Miranda, a civil proc...
Seed Industries Association of Maharashtra and Others Vs. The State of ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-17-2015
Oral Order: (.R. Gavai, J.) 1. The petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by the Notification dated 08.06.2015 insofar as it fixes the maximum sale price of BG-I cotton seeds at Rs.730/- per packet and of BG-II cotton seeds at Rs.830/- per packet. 2. The petitioner no.1 is the Association duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 comprising of 40 seed companies as its members. The petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are producers of various seeds including Bt. Cotton seed in all parts of India including Maharashtra. The petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are members of the petitioner no.1 Association whereas the petitioner no.4 is a shareholder of the petitioner no.3 company. 3. The petition was initially listed for admission on 12.06.2015. After hearing Mr. Singhvi, the learned senior counsel, we had issued notice returnable on 16.06.2015. Yesterday when the matter was listed, an affidavit-in-reply was filed on behalf of the State. We have extensively heard Mr. Singhvi, the ...
Mukta @ Lata Vs. Sachin
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-17-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant / wife has filed this application for transfer of H.M.P. No.376 of 2013 from Wardha to the Family Court at Nagpur. According to her, the petition for decree of divorce filed by the non-applicant / husband is pending in the Court of Learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Wardha. 3. Though efforts were made earlier to settle the matter between the parties amicably, mediation failed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant / wife submits that the wife is working as a Nurse in the Mental Hospital at Nagpur. The marriage between the parties was solemnized as per hindu customs and rites. The applicant started living with the non-applicant at her matrimonial house at Hinganghat, District Wardha. She gave birth to a child out of their wedlock on 15.8.2012 for which she had to undergo an operation. When the dispute arose between them, she started living at...
The Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, Through its Chief Executive Officer Vs. M ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-17-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties for quite some time. Both have taken me through the petition paper book and the impugned orders. The judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Maharashtra State Roadways Transport Corporation Vs. Syed Saheblal Syed Nijam [2014 III CLR 547], is relied upon by the parties. 5. It is not in dispute that the complainant has been dismissed from the employment for a proved misconduct, by order dated 31.7.2013. She was working as an Arogya Sevika. She questioned her dismissal through Complaint (ULP) No. 21 of 2013 filed before the Labour Court at Jalgaon, under Section 28(1) along with an application for interim relief under Section 30(2) of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. 6. By the order dated 2.1.2014, passed by the learned Labour Court, Jalgaon, below the application for interim relief Exhibit ...
Jivaraj Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-17-2015
1. The application is filed under section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code for anticipatory bail in RCC No. 158/2013 which is presently pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambajogai. The case is filed for offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 etc. of Indian Penal Code and it can be said that section 120-B of I.P.C. can also be used in view of the nature of allegations. Initially the chargesheet was filed against 42 accused persons, but only four persons faced trial as their case was separated as they were available and they are convicted and sentenced for offences of creating false record and cheating the complainant Society. From the evidence given in that case and during trial of that case against four accused, the learned J.M.F.C. passed order against applicant under section 319 of Cr.P.C. and non bailable warrant is issued against the present applicant. The crime was registered in aforesaid case on the basis of report given by present applicant a...
Smita Yohan Godbole Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-16-2015
Oral Order: 1. Rule. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 3. I have considered the extensive submissions of Mr.Chaudhari, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr.Shah, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 and the learned AGP on behalf of Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. 4. A host of factors have been canvassed by the litigating sides. In the light of the order that I intend to pass in view of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the fourth schedule thereunder, I am not adverting to the entire submissions of all the learned Advocates since the matter is being relegated for proper compliance of the procedure laid down under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. The Petitioner along with another employee, namely, A.P.Chaudhari have suffered reduction in monthly salary from January, 2010. Page 168 of the petition paper book pertains to Mr.A.P.Chaudhari whereby his salary as paid in December, 2009 at the rate of Rs....
Abdul Manan Neamati and Others Vs. State of Goa, Through Public Prosec ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-16-2015
Oral Judgment: (K.L. Wadane, J.) 1. Heard Mr. G. Agni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent no.1 and Mr. P. Arolkar, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 to 4. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service. 4. The present petition is filed by the petitioners/accused nos. 1 to 7 invoking writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for compounding of the offence and quashing and setting aside the charge sheet dated 20.12.2014 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panaji. 5. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows: The petitioners are the original accused while respondent nos. 2 to 4 are the original complainant/victims in Criminal Case No. IPC/45/15/D pending before the Judicial Magistrate Fir...
Munnabee Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-16-2015
N.W. Sambre, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jalna on 16th February 2013 in Sessions Case No.20 of 2012 convicting the appellant-accused for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing her to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The facts, as are necessary for deciding the appeal in question are as under: P.W.5 Police Head Constable Kachru Dabhade, on 7th September 2011 while working as P.S.O. at Paradh Police Station received a statement of Mamtabai, recorded at Buldana Civil Hospital by Police Head Constable P.W.2 “ Mahadu Bhagwat on the basis of which he registered an offence punishable under Sections 307 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and handed over the further investigation to A.P.I. Shaikh. Mamtabai, in her statement to Police Head Constable Bhagwat narrated that about three...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »