Mumbai Court July 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.
Sukhdeo Ganeshram Tardeja Vs. Rajesh Dayaram Sadhwani and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the revisional order dated 13.02.2014 passed by Sessions Judge, Amravati by which he confirmed the order dated 20.12.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Amravati ordering de novo trial for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the evidence, that was recorded before the trial Judge so also the judgment that, in fact, the trial that was held was a summons trial and not a summary trial. He submitted that complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed in the Court on 24.06.2009. Thereafter, the evidence commenced in July-2010 and the cross-examination was conducted by counsel for the respondent on 13.08.2010 and 15.10.2010. Another witness was examined as CW2-Satyana...
Sureshkumar and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2015
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of counsel for both the sides. 2. The applicants are accused in F.I.R. No.7/2015, dated 10.1.2015, registered at M.I.D.C. Police Station, Ahmednagar for offence punishable under Sections 420, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C. for short). The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing the F.I.R. 3. We have heard counsel for both sides. The learned counsel for the applicants referred to the contents of the F.I.R. to submit that, even if the F.I.R. is read as a whole, it only shows a civil transaction, dragged into a criminal case. According to the counsel, the respondent No.2 “ original complainant (hereinafter referred to as complainant) had met with an accident on 21.4.2015 and his fully damaged car was brought to the service centre of the applicant and the vehicle was kept the...
Minguel Santan Cruz @ Philip and Others Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Co ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Mr. Rivakar, learned Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2.and Mr. Shet waives service on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4. 3. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 4. By this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners, who are the accused in Criminal Case No. IPC/8/2015 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, D? Court, Panaji are seeking quashing of the charge sheet. 5. The brief facts are that the complainant/injured Avinash Cabral is in the business of pisciculture. The petitioners also belong to the fishermen community. The incident in question is alleged to have occurred on 12/9/2014 at about 19.30 hours in front of Avinash Bar. It is said that Avinash along with his friend one R. Harmalkar (complainant) were standing in front of the bar when the petitioner no.1 along with his son Neon Cruz his two daughters namely, Diana Cruz and Nazia Cruz came there and ...
Balu @ Raju Rustam Suradkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-09-2015
Oral Judgment: (Z.A. Haq, J.) 1. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment passed by the Sessions Court, convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The case of the prosecution is : Balu @ Raju Rustam Suradkar (appellant) and Sunita @ Bali were married eleven years prior to the incident and had two sons aged about 8 and 6 years. The appellant used to beat his wife under the influence of alcohol. On 26-03-2010 around 7-00 p.m. the appellant came to house under the influence of alcohol, picked up quarrel with his wife, had beaten her and abused her and poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze by throwing match stick on her. Mahadeo Paighan-husband of sister of deceased Sunita, took Sunita to Reynolds Hospital, Washim. Shri Satish Patil, Medical Officer working at Re...
Ajit Sukhijia Vs. Edgar Francisco Valles and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for ther Respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, waive service. 3. The above Petition takes exception to the Orders passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji, whereby five questions put to Dw.1 in his cross examination, came to be disallowed on the ground that such question is irrelevant. 4. Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate, has submitted that the learned Judge has erroneously refused such questions as, according to him, the questions are very material for deciding the matter in controversy. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that the learned Judge was not justified to interrupt the cross on irrelevant ground and, as such, cause grave prejudice to the Petitioners. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that the cross examination is a strong weapon in...
Narendra Vyankatesh Tambat Vs. Pravinkumar Khushalchand Tated
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-09-2015
1. This Second appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Order dt.22-08-2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Khamgaon whereby the first Appellate Court had allowed the appeal, decreeing the suit for eviction and possession, damages and mesne profits. 2. The subject matter of the dispute is suit tenement on the ground floor of Plot no.99/2 situated in Nazul Sheet no. 33B at Khamgaon, District Buldana, which was let out to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs.100/-. The plaintiff had filed an application to the Rent Controller, Khamgaon for permission to issue quit notice to the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement. The proceeding was opposed on the ground that the landlord was 'Benamidar' (not real owner)'. Plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 122 of 1993 for eviction of the defendant in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Khamgaon, District Buldana for relief of possession and recovery of damages. The defendant had denied title of the landlord“plaintiff...
Sunflag Iron and Steel Company Limited Vs. Sunflag Iron and Steel Mazd ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The issue of jurisdiction of the Industrial Court to entertain a complaint filed by the respondent No.1 challenging the action of the petitioner of seeking to superannuate the respondent No.1 from service on reaching the age of 58 years arises for consideration. According to the said employee, he was entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years and issuance of such communication resulted in breach of the terms of the order of appointment. This led said employee to approach the Industrial Court through a recognized Union to file a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short the said Act). The respondent No.1 invoked the provisions of Item 9 of Schedule IV and took the stand that the action on the part of the management was in breach of the certified standing orders. 3. The petitioner fil...
Kalpana Vs. Gorakhnath Govinda Dhone
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-08-2015
Oral Judgment: (Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.) 1. The family Court appeal is ADMITTED and heard finally at the stage of admission as the appellant-Wife has only sought a remand of the matter to the Family Court, Nagpur on the ground that the Family Court, Nagpur did not have jurisdiction to entertain the Hindu Marriage Petition filed by the respondent-Husband for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 2. The marriage between the appellant-Wife and the respondent-Husband was solemnized on 12.07.1994 in Deulwadi Temple, District Kolhapur. The parties started residing in the matrimonial home at Belgaum. According to the husband, the wife was not ready to reside in the joint family and, therefore, there were quarrels between the parties. According to the husband, the wife abused the husband in filthy language, quarrelled with him and also assaulted him on some occasions. According to the husband, the husband told the wife to change her behaviour but, she did not change her ...
Shangrilla Apartments Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. and Others Vs. M/s. ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-08-2015
Oral Judgment : (Per F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. M. B. da Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. A.F. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. V.R. Tamba, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 to 5. 2. The above appeal, inter alia, challenges the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Panaji, in Special Civil Suit No.130/2000 dated 7th July, 2009 whereby the suit filed by the appellants came to be dismissed. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to produce three documents, inter alia, consisting of correspondence with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the confirmation of the members of the appellant-Society. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents points out that in case this Court allows production of the said documents, evidence would have to be recorded to examine the veracity of such ...
Manikrao and Another Vs. Vasantrao Vishwasrao Charjan and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-08-2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Judgment on preliminary point. 2. On 29.06.2015, this Court has passed the following order in these appeals: Heard the respective counsel appearing for the appellant and respondents in both the appeals. The respective counsel appearing for the appellant “ complainant submit that as requirement of obtaining leave is deleted in the wake of right given to the complainant under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appeals must be directly admitted and placed for final hearing. According to them, there is no question of hearing the appeal again for admission as parameters to be applied for grant of leave to appeal and for admission, are same. The respective counsel appearing for the respondents urged that law on the point is well settled and deleting the requirement of leave does not tantamount to grant of admission of appeal for its final hearing. We have heard respective counsel only on this question and the Appeals are closed for passing orde...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »