Mumbai Court July 2015 Judgments
Sreenivasagopalan Ananthakrishna Vs. Meenakshi Tripurari
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-31-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. An interim order passed by the Family Court, Nagpur directing the petitioner to pay maintenance pendente lite in proceedings filed under Section 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (for short the said Act) is under challenge on the ground that there is no jurisdiction conferred under the said Act to award interim maintenance. Another order granting partial access to the petitioner is also under challenge. 3. The petitioner and the respondent were married on 15-12-2002 and out of said wedlock, they have two children. The relations between the petitioner and the respondent having become strained, they started residing separately. The present petitioner has filed proceedings for divorce which are pending. With a view to get a declaration that the petitioner was the guardian of the minor children, he filed proceedings under Section 7 of the said Act. Prayer for grant of custody was also made...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Rajaram Anulekar and Another Vs. The State of Goa, Through Chie ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-31-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Both the above Writ Petitions were taken up together as it was not disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties that the issues involved in both the Writ Petitions are identical. 2. Heard Mr. C.A. Ferreira, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the petitions, Ms. P. Kamat, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents no.1 to 3 and Mr. A. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.4. 3. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. 4. Upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, the short point for consideration in the above Writ Petitions is whether the learned Judge by passing an order allowing the respondent no.4 to be impleaded in the suit filed by the petitioners has acted in excess of its jurisdiction, which would call for interference by this Court. The other order challenged in the present...
Tag this Judgment!Milagrina Araujo and Others Vs. Mahesh S. Kambli and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-31-2015
1. The present appeal is preferred by the original claimants, dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to them by the Presiding Officer of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal III, South Goa, Margao, in Claim Petition No. 49/2009 dated 11.12.2009. 2. The parties are referred to their original status. 3. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows : The claimant no.1/appellant no.1 is the widow and claimant nos.2 to 5/appellant nos. 2 to 5 are the children of the deceased Mr. Joaquim Araujo, have filed the Claim Petition under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending inter-alia that on 27.09.2008 the deceased Mr. Joaquim Araujo was proceeding to Mormugao Port Trust to join his duties. He was riding his scooter bearing registration No. GA-02-K-2515. The respondent no.2 came from behind in a truck bearing No. GA-01-T-6774 and was proceeding from Margao to Vasco. At the relevant time of the accident, the respondent no.2 drove the truck in a rash an...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India, through its General Manager, Central Railway and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-31-2015
Oral Judgment: (Vasanti A. Naik, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner-Union of India challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 16/01/2014, allowing an original application filed by the respondent and directing the petitioners to consider appointing the respondent on compassionate ground. 3. It is not in dispute that the respondent is the son of the second wife of Shri Uttam Gid, who was in the service of the petitioners. Shri Uttam had expired on 06/02/1999. At the time of the death of Shri Uttam, the respondent was a minor. The respondent attained the age of majority on 22/10/2003. In 2011, the respondent made an application to the petitioners, seeking his appointment on compassionate ground. The application filed by the respondent was rejected by the petitioners by an order, dated 26/09/2011. Being aggrieved by the said order, the...
Tag this Judgment!Rashidabai Allarakha Adult, Indian Inhabitant and Others Vs. Mehrunnis ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2015
1. The petitioners in Arbitration Petition No.646 of 2015 and Arbitration Petition No.456 of 2015 have impugned portion of the arbitral award dated 30th September, 2014 under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Arbitration Act). The petitioners in Arbitration Petition No.646 of 2015 have filed Arbitration Petition No.1683 of 2014 under section 9 of the Arbitration Act inter alia praying for interim measures. By consent of parties, all the aforesaid petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these three petitions are as under:- 2. The petitioners in Arbitration Petition No.646 of 2015 were the original claimants whereas the respondents thereto were the original respondents in the arbitral proceedings. For the sake of convenience the parties would be described in the later part of this order as they were described in the arbitral proceedings. 3. The present d...
Tag this Judgment!Sumit and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-30-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, heard with the consent of the parties. 2. The present Petition is filed praying therein appropriate writ, order or directions to quash and set-aside the Crime bearing CR No. 3/2014, registered at Ramanandnagar Police Station, Jalgaon and R.C.C. No. 404/2014, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jalgaon. 3. So far Petitioner No.1 is concerned, Petition is already dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, adjudication of this Petition is confined qua the Petitioner Nos.2 to 9. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that, even if the allegations in the FIR are considered in its entirety, and taken at its face value, no offence is constituted against the Petitioners. It is submitted that, omnibus allegations are made in the FIR. There are no any specific overt acts attributed qua each of the Petitioners. The Petitioner Nos. 8 and 9 are old aged persons, and by no stretch of imagination, the allegations again...
Tag this Judgment!Anant Tulshiramji Bajaj Vs. Sunil
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-30-2015
1. The proceeding is filed by the landlord against the judgment and decree of Rent Appeal No.10 of 2011 which was pending in the Court of the learned Principal District Judge Aurangabad. The Principal District Judge has set aside the judgment and decree of possession given on the ground of default by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad in Rent Suit No.20/2006. Both the sides are heard. 2. The suit was filed in respect of property bearing Municipal House No.4/3/42 (CTS No.4395) situated at Machhali Khadak, Aurangabad. It is the case of the plaintiff that on monthly rent of Rs.751/- the suit premises was given to the defendant for using it as a shop. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant was never regular in making payment of monthly rent and he is willful defaulter. It is contended that as the defendant had not paid the monthly rent of 36 months prior to the date of the notice, statutory notice dated 29-9-2005 was given by the landlord to the defendant, tenant a...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ragho Dharma Koli and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2015
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. 1. This Appeal is preferred by the State challenging acquittal of the Respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302 r/w. 149 of the IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag in Sessions Case No.127 of 1992 by Judgment and Order dated 30th September, 1993. 2. Facts, as are necessary, for deciding this Appeal may be stated as follows:- PW-2 Anant Joshi is the brother of deceased Machindra. Both Anant and Machindra were doing the work of electric fitting. PW-3 Kesarinath Bhagat and PW-4 Vasudev Gaikar were also doing the same work. 3. The Respondents are also the residents of the same village where the deceased and prosecution witnesses were residing, namely, Owi-Peth, Taluka Panvel. The relations between them, however, were not cordial. Respondents were belonging to Congress Party, whereas, prosecution witnesses and the deceased were from Shiv-Sena Party. Hence, in the Election of Zilla Parishad in 1992, they were on cr...
Tag this Judgment!Indrabali Patai Rajbhar Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 25/09/2008 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.524 of 2005 convicting the appellant, who was the sole accused who had faced the trial, of offences punishable under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code (For Short, the IPC?) and Section 395 of the IPC. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge imposed a sentence of Simple Imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs.500/- with respect to the offence punishable under Section 452 of the IPC and a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with respect to the offence punishable under Section 395 of the IPC. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge directed that the substantive sentences would run concurrently. 2. In this case, the offenders were said to be seven. Five out of them, including the appellant, were apprehended and charge-sheeted. The other four, however, absconded after...
Tag this Judgment!Chhaya Baba @ Shivaji Mane and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2015
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The appellants, original accused, have impugned the judgment and order dated 19th June 1997 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.86 of 1996 thereby convicting them for an offence punishable under Section 449 and 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. They have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for six months for offence punishable under Section 449 of Indian Penal Code. They have been also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for one year each, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court has ordered that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The present appeal was admitted by the Division Bench of this Court on 30th June 1997 and the appellants were directed to be released on bail durin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »