Mumbai Court August 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.
Chhaya Vs. Renuka Vishnu Davande and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-12-2015
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 31/07/2014 delivered by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division Aurangabad in Appeal No.18/2013. The appointment of the petitioner as an Anganwadi Karyakarti? at Mini Anganwadi, Sawa, Tal. and Dist. Hingoli has been cancelled and respondent No.1 has been appointed in her place. 3. The petitioner submits as under: a. On 06/12/2010, an advertisement for appointment of Anganwadi Karyakarti? was published by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. b. Respondent No.1 applied. c. Being the only candidate and being ineligible since she did not complete 25 years of age, the selection process was cancelled. d. On 10/04/2013, the second advertisement was published. e. The petitioner and respondent No.1 applied in pursuance to the second advertisement. f. The petitioner, being under age, was not eligible which left only one candidate i.e. respo...
Sameer @ Bappy Sukharanajan Das Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2015
P.C. 1. Admitted. Heard finally. 2. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent State. 3. The Applicant has been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 3 and 4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. I have gone through the judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. It appears that the victims of the offence could not be examined. It further appears that the bogus customer was reported to be dead when the hearing of the case commenced. The conviction is based on the material on record to the effect that the victims were sent for medical examination and they were handed over to the custody of their relatives. It is highly questionable as to whether on the basis of such evidence court can come to the conclusion that the Applicant was keeping the brothel. Similarly, it will also have to be examined as to whether the Applicant was living on the earnings of prostitution. Considering the nature of evidence on the basis of which ...
Piraji Mahadev Jagadale Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2015
P.C. 1. The application is moved for bail as the applicant/accused is prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No.156 of 2014 registered with Vita police station, Sangli. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that one Anil Jagdale gave information to the police on 18th August, 2014 that on 17th August, 2014 there was quarrel between his father and the wife of the applicant/accused in respect of the access. On 18th August, 2014 the applicant/accused had quarrel with the complainant and he assaulted him with kicks and fist blows. Then the complainant told this incident to his father who immediately arrived and questioned the applicant/ accused. The applicant/accused thereafter, got enraged and lifted a stick which was laying there in the courtyard and gave blow of the stick on the tempo parietal region on the head of the father of the complainant. When the complainant went ahead to protest the assault, the applicant/accused also as...
The Manager, Maharashtra Krushi Udyog Vikas Mahamandal Ltd. and Others ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. In the first three petitions filed by the Petitioner/Establishment, it is stated that the State of Maharashtra has been wrongly arrayed as Respondent No.1. Leave to delete the State of Maharashtra is prayed for. Leave granted. Deletion be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 3. The first three petitions are preferred by the Establishment challenging the judgments and awards of the Labour Court dated 28.02.2014 in Reference (IDA) Nos.03/2009, 01/2009 and 02/2009, respectively. By the said Awards, the references are partly allowed and the Petitioner Establishment has been directed to reinstate the Respondents/Workmen with continuity of service and 50% backwages. 4. In the next four Writ Petitions, the Employees have assailed the judgments and awards of the Labour Court dated 17.08.2013 delivered in Reference (IDA) Nos.05/2011, 04/2011, 09/2011 and 06/2011, respectively. By the impugned awards, al...
Asmi Jewellery India Ltd. and Another Vs. Godrej Consumer Products Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2015
P.C. For reasons to be recorded separately, both the summons for judgments are rejected. Un-conditional leave to the defendant granted. Defendant to file their written statement within 4 weeks. Within 2 weeks thereafter parties to file their respective affidavit of documents and also complete discovery and inspection. Stand over to 30.9.2015 for issues. REASONS 1. The claims in both the suits are similar. The defences in both the suits are similar. The defendant is also common though the plaintiffs are different. Therefore, it would be convenient to dispose of both the summons for judgments by this common order. 2. Both the plaintiffs claim to have sold, supplied and delivered to the defendant various items made in Gold. According to the plaintiffs the defendant had placed the purchase orders, based on which the goods were supplied and corresponding invoices raised and the defendant, based on sham defence is refusing to make payment and therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to a summa...
Sampat Nathu Shendge Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2015
P.C. 1. These applications are moved for bail as the applicants/accused in both the Anticipatory Bail Applications are facing prosecution under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No.218 of 2014 registered at Vadgaon Nimbalkar police station, Taluka Phaltan, District Satara. The complaint was registered at the instance of one Sakharam Rama Deokate on 2.12.2014. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.11.2014, Rajaram Deokate, brother of the complainant, alongwith the applicant/accused Sampat Shendge and one Sampat Bhaguji Sul consumed liquor together and thereafter, Rajaram was found dead. His body was taken and last rites were performed on the body by the relatives under the impression that he died due to excessive consumption of liquor. However, after enquiry with Sampat Bhaguji Sul, who was present alongwith the applicant/accused Sampat Shendge and the deceased Rajaram throughout on that day, he disclosed that the applicant/accused Sampat Shendge had brought the liquor...
Urmi Deepak Kadia Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2015
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks a declaration that section 7(15)(d) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short the MRC Act?) is inconsistent with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short the HS Act) as amended from time to time. The argument is that to the extent section 7(15)(d) of the MRC Act provides protection to the family member, who was residing with the deceased tenant, at the time of his death, even though such family member is not a heir of the deceased tenant, deprives the heir of the deceased tenant of his right and status under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 2. This argument is premised on the fact that the rule of intestate succession set out by the HS Act has been given an overriding effect. Section 4 of the HS Act is giving such overriding effect. Section 4 of the HS Act is given such overriding effect over any other law in force immediately before the commencement of the HS...
Piraji Mahadev Jagadale Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2015
P.C. 1. The application is moved for bail as the applicant/accused is prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No.156 of 2014 registered with Vita police station, Sangli. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that one Anil Jagdale gave information to the police on 18th August, 2014 that on 17th August, 2014 there was quarrel between his father and the wife of the applicant/accused in respect of the access. On 18th August, 2014 the applicant/accused had quarrel with the complainant and he assaulted him with kicks and fist blows. Then the complainant told this incident to his father who immediately arrived and questioned the applicant/ accused. The applicant/accused thereafter, got enraged and lifted a stick which was laying there in the courtyard and gave blow of the stick on the tempo parietal region on the head of the father of the complainant. When the complainant went ahead to protest the assault, the applicant/accused also as...
Teesta Setalvad and Another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Econo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2015
P.C. 1. This application is moved for anticipatory bail as the Central Bureau of Investigation, Economic Offences Wing, Mumbai has registered the case against the applicants/accused who are apprehending arrest in C.R. No.E00006 of 2015 for the offences punishable under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sections 35, 37 sections 3, 11 and 19 of the Foreign Contributions (Regulation) Act, 2010 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is the case of the prosecution that the applicants/accused are the Directors of one company, namely, Sabrang Communication and Publishing Private Limited (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'). The Company is working on the socio, economic issues on national level and the said company had sought funding in the nature of donations from foreign organisation i.e., Ford Foundation, to the tune of 290000 USD from 2004 by way of two agreements i.e., 2004 and 2006. As per the case of the prosecution und...
Dattatraya Jagannath More and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2015
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. 1. 1. Both these Appeals take an exception to the Judgment dated 20th September, 2007 of Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.57 of 2007. By the impugned Judgment, both the Appellants are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 323 r/w. 34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default to suffer R.I. for three months, on the first count, and R.I. for three months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer further R.I. for one month, on the second count. The Appellant/husband is further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer further imprisonment for six months. 2. For the sake of convenience, Appellants are referred to as Accused No.1 and Accused No.2?. 3. Facts, as are necessary, for deciding these Appeals can be stated as ...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »