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.
Vivek Narendrakumar Choure and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-07-2015
1. Both these applications have been filed by the respective applicants with the following prayers: Criminal Application No.446/2012 (i) To quash and set aside the F.I.R. No.2/2012 dated 27.06.2012 registered by the non applicant Police Station, Karanja, Dist. Washim for offence under Sections 389, 420, 504, 506, 341 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 (8) (x) and 3 (2) (v) under the Prevention of Atrocities act and the complaint/application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. filed by the non applicant no.2 and the order dated 25.06.2012 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. in CC No.56/2012 in the interest of justice. Criminal Application No.642/2012 (i) Quash the impugned First Information Report No.2/2012 dated 27.06.2012 registered with Police Station, Karanja (non-applicant no.1) for the offence punishable u/s 389, 420, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and 3(8)(x), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the complaint under section...
Jitendra Satish Avhad and Others Vs. Vasant Shankar Kelkar and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2015
Oral Order: 1. Heard Mr.S.M.Oak, the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners are the accused in the complaint case filed by respondent no.1 herein, which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thane. The case is in respect of an offence punishable under Section 431 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 thereof. I am informed that the evidence before Charge is being adduced and respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') has examined himself. On 30th January 2015, the complainant made an application praying that certain persons mentioned in the application be summoned as witnesses. The complainant mentioned that the said application could be granted by the court by exercising its power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code). The learned Magistrate, on the same day allowed the application and passed an order directing witness summonses to be issued to the witnesses mentioned in the said application. The ...
Vasant D. Dhamale (since deceased through his legal heirs) Vs. Narayan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2015
1. Rule. With the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. This petition challenges the judgments and decrees dated 16 February 2002 and 23 December 2010 made by the Trial Court and the Appeal Court directing eviction of the petitioners (predecessor-in-title of the petitioners) on the following grounds contemplated by the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control, 1947 Act (Rent Act). a] That the petitioners (tenant) have acquired an alternate residence [Section 13(1)(l) of the Rent Act]; b] That the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the respondent(landlord) for occupation by himself and his family members [Section 13(1)(g) of the Rent Act]. 3. The landlord had let out to the predecessor-in-title of the tenant (tenant) House No.608 ad-measuring about 100 sq.ft. at Ghorpadi Peth, Pune (suit premises). On 19 January 1998, the landlord entered into an agreement with the tenant for demolition of the s...
Ashok S/o Dhondu Ahire, (died) Through his legal heirs and Others Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-06-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition was Admitted by order dated 31/01/2007. The stay to the recovery ordered by this Court on 10/03/2005 was confirmed on 31/01/2007. 2. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order of the Labour Court dated 23/04/1999 in Complaint (ULP) No.155/1990, by which his complaint was dismissed. By an interim order passed by the Labour Court, pending the complaint, the petitioner was granted 75% wages till the decision in the complaint. The Labour Court, therefore, directed recovery of all benefits received under its interim order. 3. The petitioner also challenges the judgment of the Industrial court dated 05/08/2004 in Revision (ULP) No.4/2004 (Old No.709/1999) by which the revision petition preferred by the petitioner, was dismissed. 4. This case involves the rights of the petitioner under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for Short, the Act of 1995). 5. The petitioner submits that he w...
Union of India, Through the General Manager Vs. Nandabai and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-06-2015
1. Heard Mr.N.P.Lambat, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr.A.B.Bambal, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5. 2. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench in Claim Application No.OA(IIu)/NGP/2009/0020, dt.2.6.2010 whereby compensation in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was awarded to the respondent. 3. Briefly stated the facts are as under: Late Mr.Sheshrao Dangat was travelling on 1.4.2008 by Nizamabad-Pune passenger train from Umri to Nanded. He fell down from the train between Umri and Shivangaon Railway Stations due to jerk at the spot near KM 389/500 and sustained injuries and died. When claim was made for the untoward incident of accident u/s.123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, the Railway Administration resisted it on the ground that the alleged incident of accidental fall was not an untoward incident. Secondly, it is resisted on the ground that the passenger was not holding railway ticket for the travelling. 4. He...
Laxman Sanvlo Shetkar, (since deceased) and Others Vs. Ratnakar Bhaska ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-06-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. G. Teles, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives notice. 3. The above petition challenges an order dated 30/7/2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, at Quepem in Regular Civil Suit No.52/2004/B, whereby an application for amendment filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed. 4. Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that the proposed amendment is more in a clarificatory in nature, as according to him, the petitioners desire to rely upon some documents which came to the knowledge of the petitioners subsequently. The learned Counsel has, thereafter taken me through the pleadings in the plaint, as well as the proposed amendment to point out that there is no inconsistency in the claim nor are the pleadings des...
Ankit Bimal Deorah Vs. Microsec Captial Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2015
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 29th May, 2012 passed by the appellate arbitral tribunal constituted under the rules, regulations and bye-laws of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. The petitioner herein was the original claimant whereas the respondent herein was the original respondent in the arbitral proceedings. On or about 3rd October, 2006, the petitioner executed a Member Client Agreement with the respondent for carrying out trading in FandO segment of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited and was allotted a client code by the respondent who is registered member of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had deposited 22,500 shares of Bombay Rayon Fashions Ltd. with the respondent as collateral against margin re...
Mathews J. Nedumpara Vs. The Hon'ble Chief Justice Bombay High Court a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2015
P.C. 1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner a practicing Advocate has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records and after scrutiny thereof, to quash and set aside the orders dated 8th November 2010, 28th February 2011 and 18th July 2012 Annexures B,D and E to this Writ Petition. 2. The Petitioner is a citizen of India and as stated above, a practicing Advocate. He states that out of sheer respect and regard for this institution that he has filed this Writ Petition. He does not wish to derive any personal benefit but, has moved the Court with a desire that the administration of justice in Court as also otherwise should be transparent, fair and reasonable. Once the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been brought into effect then the Act would mandate even this Court on its administrative side to make available, disclose the information and which is referred in the provis...
Ratnaprabha and Others Vs. Kisan
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-06-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The appeal is to challenge the validity and legality of the impugned Judgment and order dated 17-10-2004 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division Khamgaon in Probate case no. 12 of 2010. 2. According to learned Advocate for the appellants the Testator late Mr. Prabhakar Ramrao Ugwekar had no legal right, title and interest in the property mentioned in the alleged Will, made by him. The will was registered after the death of the Testator. It was therefore shrouded with suspicion as propounder played active role to get it registered after the death of the alleged Testator. 3. The facts are, thus: In the Special Civil Suit No.3 of 1978 decided on 31-08-1984 was decreed for Partition. The suit was filed by the appellant Ratnaprabha for Partition and Possession of the suit land. She was held entitled to share 3/15 in the suit property. The propounder of the alleged Will had heavy burden to discharge to establish that the Testator had full right, title and interest in the ...
Prassada Vinaica Fatorpencar Vs. Roshnee Bhana Fatorpecar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-06-2015
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Shri Lobo, the learned Counsel waives service for the respondent. Heard finally, by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the original respondent is challenging the judgment and order dated 18.02.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 104/2014. By the impugned judgment, the appeal filed by the petitioner has only been partly allowed, thereby modifying the order dated 24.07.2014, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mapusa, in a case under the Domestic Violence Act. 3. The brief facts are that, the parties are husband and wife. The respondent is from South Africa and is also a national of the said Country. The respondent is staying alongwith her old aged mother in South Africa. It appears that after marriage, disputes and differences arose between the parties. The respondent filed proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »