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.
Sundarabai Govind Dhuri and Others Vs. The Investigation Officer, Vija ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-05-2015
K.L. Wadane, J. 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners/original accused nos. 1 to 3 under the provisions of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and prayed to quash and set aside the FIR and charge sheet submitted against them. 2. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows: The respondent no.2 herein filed a complaint dated 05.12.2009 alleging that on 02.12.2009 the respondent no.2 along with his two friends namely Advocate Ryan Menezes and Advocate Pravin Faldessai went to have tea at TATO restaurant at Panjim and the bill was around Rs.35/-. Therefore, the respondent no.2 paid cash of Rs.40/- consisting of four currency note of Rs.10/- each. After some time, the waiter returned a paper saying that it was Rs.5/- note to which the respondent no.2 shocked. On the basis of said contention, the respondent no.2 lodged a complaint with Panjim Police Station and requested for necessary action. 3. Respondent no.1 after conducting an inquiry was of the opinion that...
Deepak @ Lala Bindyachal Prajapati Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-2015
P.C. 1. The application is moved for bail as the applicant/accused is facing charges for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(1)(3) of the Arms Act and under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 ("MCOC") in C.R. No.I-18 of 2012 registered with Mangaon police station, Raigad. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that one Nilam Mehta gave information to police on 8th February, 2012. It is her case that her husband owns a grocery shop where kerosene is also sold. On 7th February, 2012 at about 10.05 p.m. two persons arrived at their residence and demanded kerosene. Thereafter, another third person arrived there. She allowed them to enter the house. At that time, they threatened her of her life on the point of pistol. Their faces were covered with handkerchief. They took away gold ornaments and cash of Rs.1,20,000/-.The robbers took away the total amount of Rs.5,60,000/-. Thereafter she...
Shivaji Daulat Dadar Vs. The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 10.04.2012 delivered by the Labour Court on the point of proportionality of punishment in Complaint (ULP) No.88/2001 filed by the Petitioner for challenging his dismissal from service. The Petitioner further challenges the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 14.08.2013 in Revision (ULP) No.41/2012 preferred by the Petitioner. 3. Issue for my determination is whether, a Part-I Award or order on the two preliminary issues regarding fairness of the enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer, could be said to be an interlocutory order which would merge in the final judgment. 4. The Petitioner claims to be working with the Respondent/MSRTC as a Bus Conductor from 1989. On 13.05.2000, the bus on which the Petitioner was on duty was checked on the route Jamkhed to Mumbai. The Petitioner was found to have not issued ti...
Deepak @ Lala Bindyachal Prajapati Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-2015
P.C. 1. The application is moved for bail as the applicant/accused is facing charges for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(1)(3) of the Arms Act and under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 ("MCOC") in C.R. No.I-18 of 2012 registered with Mangaon police station, Raigad. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that one Nilam Mehta gave information to police on 8th February, 2012. It is her case that her husband owns a grocery shop where kerosene is also sold. On 7th February, 2012 at about 10.05 p.m. two persons arrived at their residence and demanded kerosene. Thereafter, another third person arrived there. She allowed them to enter the house. At that time, they threatened her of her life on the point of pistol. Their faces were covered with handkerchief. They took away gold ornaments and cash of Rs.1,20,000/-.The robbers took away the total amount of Rs.5,60,000/-. Thereafter she...
Santosh Dattatray Jamune Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-2015
P.C. 1. The application is moved for regular bail under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant/accused is prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 302, 120B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under sections 27, 25(1)(3) of the Arms Act. It is the case of the prosecution that one Sachin Ashok Bandivadekar, the son of the deceased Ashok Bandivadekar, gave information to the police that his family and cousin one Dr.Prakash Bandivadekar have rivalry due to their agricultural profession. Co-accused Dr.Prakash Bandivadekar was convicted for murder and is undergoing life imprisonment. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20.4.2012, his father, who was in the salon for shaving, two persons arrived there in the salon and he was shot dead. It is the case of the prosecution that the co-accused Prakash and other accused persons hatched conspiracy to eliminate Ashok Bandivadekar. Accordingly on 20.4.2012 at about 1215 hrs, the persons who were hired by Pra...
Gurmit Singh Bagga and Others Vs. Indrajit Kaur Bagga and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-2015
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged order dt. 5/3/2012 passed in R.C.S. No. 211/2008 by 32nd Jt. Civil Judge, J.D., Pune and order dt. 30/1/2014 passed against the said order by Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Appeal no. 109 of 2011. 3. Petitioners have challenged the order on the various grounds as set out in detail in the petition. Since the challenge raised in the petition confines to order dt. 5/3/2012 passed in R.C.S. No. 211/2008, whereby the learned Civil Judge has allowed the application to join the petitioners No. 2 and 3 as party No. 2 and 3 along with petitioner no. 1 / plaintiff in the counter claim made by respondent No. 1, it is not necessary to discuss the facts of the case in detail. 4. It appears from the record that petitioner No.1 i.e. Mr Gurmit Singh Bagga had filed suit for injunction as against respondent No. 1, which was registe...
Pratap Narayan Gangekar and Others Vs. Rahul Arun Sable and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-2015
1. Rule, in all the Petitions with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the identical orders all dated 18.03.2015 passed by the Collector, Solapur, by which orders the application for disqualification filed by the Respondent No.1 in each of the above Petitions came to be allowed and resultantly, each of the Petitioners above named were held to be disqualified in terms of Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Disqualification Act?). The facts giving rise to the filing of the above Petitions can be stated thus: 3. Since the facts are identical, the facts in Writ Petition No.4261 of 2015 would be referred to for the sake of convenience. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.4261 of 2015 is an elected Councillor of the Pandharpur Municipal Council. The election...
Ambreen Akhoon Vs. Shri Aditya Aurn Paudwal and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-2015
1. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. This Writ Petition involves a question of law as to whether any relief can be sought against the relative of the respondent “ husband in the proceedings filed under section 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act before the Family Court? 3. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the legality of the order dated 11.5.2015 passed by the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai in Petition No.A-1086 of 2013. The petition before the Family Court was filed for divorce under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 r/w Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'D.V. Act'). In the said petition, the petitioner/wife has made her mother-in-law as a party respondent. Therefore, an application was moved by Respondent No.2, the mother-in-law, under section 9A and Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for deleting the party on the...
Vasant Mahadeo Gujar and Others Vs. Baitulla Ismail Shaikh and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-2015
1. Rule and interim relief was granted in these Civil Revision Applications by speaking order dated 4 February 2014. As against the same, the respondent-landlords preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Apex Court, which were dismissed on 2 May 2014. However, the Apex Court requested this Court to dispose of the pending Civil Revision Applications expeditiously. It is in these circumstances, that two Civil Revision Applications were taken up for final disposal. 2. The learned counsel for the parties requested that these two Civil Revision Applications be disposed of by common judgment and order. Even otherwise, the respondent-landlords in the two Civil Revision Applications are one and same. The tenants who have instituted these Civil Revision Applications occupy parts of the same House No.86. The impugned orders proceed on basis of substantially similar facts and reasoning. After certain stage, common evidence came to be recorded in the two matters. For all these reasons, it woul...
Manjiri Vs. Nihar
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-04-2015
Oral Judgment: (Vasanti A. Naik, J.) 1. By this Family Court Appeal, the appellant - wife challenges the judgment of the Family Court, dated 15.05.2013, allowing the Hindu Marriage Petition filed by the respondent - Husband and dissolving the marriage solemnized between the parties on 27.11.2009 by a decree of divorce. The respondent - Husband has filed the Cross Objection challenging the finding of the Family Court that the Husband had been unsuccessful in proving that the wife suffered from mental illness. 2. The marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband (hereinafter referred to as the wife and husband respectively for the sake of convenience) was solemnized on 27.11.2009 at Nagpur, according to Hindu rites and customs. The husband was involved in the business of Fabrication and Engineering at Kanker. In the Hindu Marriage Petition filed by the husband for a decree of divorce, it was pleaded that after the parties started residing in the matrimonial home, the hus...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »