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.
Lilesh Vs. Vinod Ramrichpal Agrawal
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-08-2015
Oral Judgment: (Vasanti A Naik, J.) 1. By this family Court appeal, the appellant-Wife challenges the judgment of the Family Court, Nagpur dated 13.06.2012 allowing the Hindu Marriage Petition filed by the husband and dissolving the marriage solemnized between the parties on 10.07.1999, by a decree of divorce. 2. Few facts giving rise to the first appeal are stated thus: The appellant-Wife and the respondent-Husband were married at Nagpur according to Hindu Rites and rituals on 10.07.1999. The wife started residing in the matrimonial home in a joint family. According to the husband, the wife was continuously insisting for a separate residence and always forced the husband to purchase a separate flat. Despite the birth of a baby girl, Ishika on 20.11.2001, it is the case of the husband, that the wife persisted in her demand of having a separate residence. The husband and the wife, therefore, started residing in a separate room with a separate kitchen, still, the wife was unhappy. It is ...
Rohidas Premchand Bhagat Vs. Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Shri Bagul, learned Advocate waives for the sole respondent. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 4. The petitioner assails the judgment and award of the Labour Court, dated 24.11.2014 in Reference (IDA) No.22 of 2011. The strenuous contentions of Shri Nangare for the petitioner are as follows:- (a) The petitioner jointed as a Bus-conductor on 1.11.1989 with the respondent. (b) On 22.10.2008, while the petitioner was on duty, the flying squad of the respondent caused a surprise check of the Bus at Patoda. (c) It was noticed that the petitioner had collected fare of Rs.14/- from one Sr. Citizen lady passenger, but had issued a ticket of Rs.5/- only. (d) Cash amount of Rs.11/- was found in excess. (e) The petitioner was charge sheeted on 22.10.2008 under clauses 7(a) and (j), 11, 12(b) and 22 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules. (f) The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge sheet on 8.11.2...
Subhash Dadabhau Kale Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2015
1. Present Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order of conviction passed by the learned Extra Joint District and Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar dated 17/11/2000 in Sessions Case No. 63/1999. By the said Judgment and order of conviction, appellant is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 304B, 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Court below directed that the appellant shall suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Though the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code, no separate sentence is awarded on that count. 2. The prosecution case is in narrow compass. It is stated herein under: Chandrakant Nivrutti Jadhav [P.W.6] was serving as Head Constable at Nagar Taluka police station. On 14/12/1998, when he was on duty in the police station, Police Constable Syed informed on telephone, on the basis of the information received from Do...
Sakharam Ashruba Sanap Vs. Chatrapati Rajarshi Sahu Urban Co-operative ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. Complaint (ULP) No.78 of 2001, instituted by the petitioner before the Labour Court for challenging his termination dated 27.4.2001 with effect from 5.5.2001, was dismissed in default on 29.4.2011. The petitioner contends that he acquired knowledge about the said dismissal in default on 11.8.2011. He preferred Misc. Application No. 8 of 2011 for restoration of the said Complaint on 12.8.2011. The respondent filed its say opposing the application on 1.12.2011. 5. By an order dated 20.8.2013, the delay of 85 days, caused in preferring the Misc. Application for restoration was condoned by the Labour Court. It is not in dispute that the condonation of delay in preferring the application for restoration of a Complaint dismissed in default, has not been challenged by the respondents. It is also not in dispute that the question of jurisdiction was not raised w...
Janglu Vs. M/s. Neeraj Relators Private Limited
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-07-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admit. R and P is already received. Taken up for final hearing forthwith by consent of parties. 2. Respondent/plaintiff M/s Neerja Realtors Private Limited filed Special Civil Suit No. 184 of 2011 against appellant/defendant for specific performance of contract, declaration and permanent injunction. Parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their original status in the suit. 3. Defendant agreed to sell suit property to plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 13,04,391/- out of which defendant received part consideration of Rs. 3,26,000/- and remaining amount of consideration was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. Agreement for Sale was executed on 15.7.2006. Defendant did not comply with certain terms of agreement due to which sale deed could not be obtained. Since, according to plaintiff, that amounted to refusal to perform part of his contract by defendant, he filed suit for specific performance of contr...
Shivaji Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-07-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant, aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 9th March, 2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Sessions Case No. 13/2000, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P. Code. 2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is as under: (a) It is the case of the prosecution that, Jamunabai was subjected to cruelty by the accused and her in-laws. Jamunabai and Rekhabai are the daughters of Rohidas Nanaji Wagh, resident of Lonwada, Tq. Malegaon, who is doing tailoring job and popularly known as Master. The marriage of the appellant with said Jamunabai (deceased) was solemnized on 30th April, 1999. After the marriage, Jamunabai was residing at Erangaon with her in-laws and accused at Dhule with his sister Ahilyabai. The appellant used to visit Erangaon frequently. (b) It is the case of the prosecution that, the accused purchased the plot at Dhule and wanted to construct a house thereon. He a...
Ghanshyam Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant [original accused], challenging the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Nanded in Sessions Case No. 217 of 2007, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for the murder of Gayabai and Sunita and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, which shall not be less than 28 years of actual jail sentence, meaning that the accused should remain in jail for minimum 28 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer another one year. Facts of prosecution case, in brief, are as under: 2. The accused is the husband of deceased Sunita and son-in-law of deceased Gayabai and complainant Dinkar Kandhare. The complainant Dinkar Kandhare lodged the report on 13.09.2007. The marriage of accused and deceased Sunita solemnized five years prior to the incident. As the accused was not having any child from his first wife, he mar...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramkishan and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2015
S.S. Shinde, J.]: 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant “ State, challenging the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.1995 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.118/1993, thereby acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 r/w.34 of I.P. Code. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under: 2. Deceased Keshavrao Kuber was residing at Mauje Georai Kuber along with his son Laxman Kuber [PW-2], wife Annapurna Kuber [PW-8] and other family members. His elder son Kiran [PW-1] is a Roller Driver in Irrigation Department at Aurangabad. Deceased Keshavrao was an agriculturist by occupation and having his agricultural land at Georai Kuber, Taluka and District Aurangabad. 3. The accused are also resident of the same village. The accused nos. 2 and 3 are real brothers. Accused no. 3 Pandharinath is having his grocery shop. Accused no. 4 Janardhan Kuber was the Sarpanch, whereas accused no. 1 Ramkisan and accused no. 5 ...
Dajvip V. Patkar Vs. Vina D. Patkar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-06-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. Shri Khandeparkar, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. By this revision application, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 22.05.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Margao, in Criminal Appeal No. 5/2015. By the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the order dated 09.01.2015, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vasco-da-Gama, rejecting the application (Exhibit-10) filed by the petitioner. 3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the criminal revision may be stated thus: That the parties are husband and wife. They were married on 27.08.2008 and the marriage is registered in the office of Sub-Registrar of Bardez at Mapusa. Sometime thereafter, the marriage ran into rough weather and disputes arose between the parties. It is undisputed that both, the petitioner and the respondent have filed separate matrimon...
The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Bhaskar Asruba Satpute, Trade ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 17/04/2013 delivered by the Labour Court, Aurangabad in Ref.(IDA) No.1/2003. 3. It is not in dispute that the respondent workman was engaged as a Sweeper? under oral orders of the first party employer/the petitioner herein. It was alleged that the respondent was orally terminated on 20/04/2001 by the petitioners. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court and registered as Ref.(IDA) No.1/2003. By the impugned award, the reference was partly allowed and the employee was granted reinstatement as a Daily Wager? with continuity of service from 20/04/2001 by setting aside the oral termination. He was deprived of the back wages. 4. Grievance of the petitioners is that though it was specifically contended in the written statement at Exh.C3 that the workman is not a regular employee of the e...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »