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.
Purushottam Vasant Joshi Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-2015
1. The appellant and one Shrikant Kulkarni were prosecuted on the allegation that they had committed offences punishable under section 7 and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned Special Judge at Sangli, by a judgment and order dated 12th July 2001 convicted the appellant of the said offences and imposed a composite sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and a fine of Rs.100/- with a default sentence on him. He, however, held that the charges against the said Shrikant Kulkarni (Accused no.2) had not been proved and acquitted him. Being aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence imposed upon him by the learned Special Judge, the appellant has approached this Court by filing the present Appeal. 2. The appellant, at the material time, was working as a Maintenance Supervisor in the office of the Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Miraj. 3. The prosecution case, as put forth before the trial court, may be stated thus: One Shi...
Mahima Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through Incharge – M ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-21-2015
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application u/s 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad vide Order dated 20/03/2015 granted application filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereby released him on bail on he executing P.R. and surety Bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh] in connection with Crime No. 17/2015 registered with M.I.D.C. CIDCO police station, Aurangabad for the offences punishable u/s 376 (2), (I),354(D)(ii),504,506 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 3 (b)(d),4,5(H)(I),6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. 3. Heard Mr. V.D.Sapkal, learned counsel for the applicant, Mrs. Pratibha Bharad, learned A.P.P. for Respondent No. 1 “ State and Mr. Shirish Gupte, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. A.D.Ostwal, learned counsel instructed by Mr.Joyd...
Parvatibai and Others Vs. The Honourable Minister (Revenue), The State ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-21-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the order passed by the respondent no.1 dated 17.10.2013 thereby allowing the appeal filed by respondent no.4 and in turn setting aside order passed by the Additional Commissioner in proceedings under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short the said Code). The respondent no.4 is a Society that is running a High School and Junior College. It made an application for allotment of land admeasuring 0.47 R at Survey No. 386 in terms of Government Resolution dated 30.06.1992. On 08.11.2007 the Collector allotted aforesaid land to the respondent no.4 Society for being used to accommodate the school building and playground. Being aggrieved the present petitioners filed an appeal under Section 247 of the Code. In appeal, the Additional Commissioner found that a water body existed in part of field survey no.386 and the Nistarpatrak reflected suc...
Jeevan Gaonkar Vs. State Bicholim Police Station
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-21-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Shri Rivankar, the learned Public Prosecutor waives service for the respondents. 3. Heard finally, with the consent of the parties. 4. By this petition, the petitioner/ accused seeks to challenge the order dated 10/07/2015, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bicholim in Criminal Case No.91/S/2013, thereby permitting the Assistant Public Prosecutor (A.P.P.) to cross-examine PW5 Gunavanti Gaonkar. 5. Brief facts are that the petitioner is facing prosecution for having assaulted the husband of PW5 Gunavanti Gaonkar. It prima facie appears from the police statement of PW5 Gunavanti Gaonkar that she had actually witnessed the assault by knife by the petitioner on the victim. In her Examination-in-Chief, PW5 Gunavanti Gaonkar stated that on the date and time of the incident, she heard some shouts from outside and when she came out, she saw that her husband had a bleeding injury on his stomach. In view of the discrepancy ...
Nanibai and Others Vs. Vitthalrao Marotirao Navkhare and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-21-2015
1. This Second Appeal was admitted on 10-02-2009 upon the following substantial questions of law “ i) Whether the respondent/plaintiff has proved that Gajanan Automobiles? was/is a joint Hindu family business of Laxmanrao and Vithalrao? ii) Whether non-inclusion of all alleged joint Hindu family properties in suit by the respondent /plaintiff is fatal? My answer to question no.i) is in the affirmative and question no. ii) in the negative for the following reasons: 2. This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dt.14-11-2008 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2008 whereby learned District Judge Amravati (the first appellate Court) was pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the Judgment and Order in Special Civil Suit No. 286 of 2005, dt.29-02-2006 passed by the trial Court and to pass a decree whereby the plea for partition was allowed. 3. Motiram Navkhare died leaving behind his widow and two sons i.e. Laxmanrao - aged 7 years and Vithal “ aged 1 ...
Rambhau Vs. Yashoda @ Anusuya
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-21-2015
Oral Judgment: (Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.) 1. By this Family Court Appeal, the appellant-husband challenges the judgment of the Family Court, dated 21.03.2006, dismissing a petition filed by the appellant-husband for a decree of divorce under Section 13[1][ia] and [ib] of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. Few facts giving rise to the Family Court Appeal are stated thus: The appellant-husband filed a Hindu Marriage Petition against the respondent-wife for a decree of divorce under Section 13[1][ia] and [ib] of the Hindu Marriage Act. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 30.04.1979 at Juni Mangalwari, Nagpur, according to Hindu rites and customs. It is pleaded in the Hindu Marriage Petition that the respondent initially showered all her love and affection on the husband and in reciprocation, the husband also treated his wife with love and affection. It is pleaded that the husband and wife had a good marital life till 1993, and 4 children were born from the said wedlock. The h...
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Nilkanth Tukaram Koli
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-20-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective sides at length. A host of factors have been narrated by both of them. 3. Shri Pawar, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent/Employee, has strenuously pointed out that there was practically no evidence before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charges against the Respondent. 4 I find that a joint purshis Exhibit U/C-1 was strangely filed by both the litigating sides stating therein that all the issues may be treated together. The issues cast by the Labour Court are as follows: IssuesFindings1Does the complainant prove that the departmental enquiry held against him is unjust, unfair, improper and in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice?NO2Does the complainant prove that findings of the enquiry officer are perverse?YES3Does the complainant prove that the respondent has committed an unfair labour pr...
Ajay Rajaram Hinge Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2015
P.C. 1. This applicant has moved for bail. The applicant-accused is arrested in C.R. No.229/14 of Vadgaon Maval police station, Pune for offences punishable section 302, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the prosecution that one Ashok Dagdu Kaldoke gave information that his son Swapnil Kaldoke was missing on 20th September, 2014. He had given a missing complaint to Talegaon police station. Investigation in the said case was going on and on 17th October, 2014, Ashok reported to the police that the applicant Ajay Hinge along with co-accused and Swapnil went outside to celebrate birthday party of co-accused. When they were drinking liquor, there was verbal alternations between deceased Swapnil and other friends, including the applicant-accused. It finally led to assault on Swapnil by applicant-accused and co-accused. It is the case of prosecution that Prasad and he assaulted Swapnil with chopper and at that time Ajay and co-accused Sunny held him and fell him to...
Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax-Mumbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2015
M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. This Court by an order dated 22 January 2002 had directed the above reference at the instance of applicant and two appeals at the instance of the appellant be heard together. Accordingly, all the three matters were heard together for final disposal and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The Reference Application under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') arises out of two orders dated 14 September 2014 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal') for the Assessment Year 1985-86 and 1987-88 seeking our opinion on the following question of law: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the levy of penalty u/s. 221 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for failure to pay tax deducted at source within the prescribed time?" 3. The two appeals under Section 260A of the Act arise from common order dated 16 March 2000 of the Tribunal for the Assessment Years 1987-88 and 1988-89. Both appeals wer...
Mumbai Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. The Hon'ble Minister ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2015
S.B. Shukre, J. 1. This petition challenges the order dated 3.11.2007 passed by respondent no. 1, thereby setting aside the demand notice dated 23.4.2002 issued by the petitioner and order dated 7.6.2004 passed by the Director of Marketing. 2. Facts insofar as they are necessary for deciding this petition are mentioned as herein below: (i) Respondent no.3/State had imported 6220 and 3780 Mts. of RBS palmolein oil, an item under open general licence, in terms of its Export-Import Policy, 1997-2002 through respondent no. 2. For this purpose, respondent no. 3 entered into two separate contracts dated 30.10.2000 and 23.10.2000 with respondent no.2 (hereinafter referred to as said agreements? for short). It was the case of the petitioner that these two contracts represented sale transaction in respect of palmolein oil between respondent no. 2 and 3. Petitioner further contended that as this sale transaction took place within the market area of the petitioner-committee, it was subject to lev...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »