Mumbai Court January 2016 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.
Vijay Kailas Beldar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of both the sides. 2. Aggrieved by the rejection of the application by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhusawal vide order dated 15/10/2015 in Sessions Case No.312 of 2014, thereby refusing to call the two witnesses on the application of the complainant/petitioner, the present writ petition is preferred. 3. The present petitioner is the complainant in the case. It is an admitted fact that the Sessions case is at the fag end. Two of the witnesses, who were claimed to be the eye witnesses, those were examined by the prosecution, had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. Therefore, earlier, the present petitioner had filed similar application at Exhibit 62 on 05/11/2014 for calling one Shaligram Zago Beldar and Ratiram Tulshiram Beldar, as the eye witnesses. The said application was allowed by the learned Sessions Court, Bhusawal vide order dated 10/12/2014. 4. Aggrieved by the said ord...
Anil Vaijnath Arbad Vs. The Divisional Traffic Superintendent M.S.R.T. ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition was admitted by this Court on 20.02.2009. Interim relief was not granted. 2. The issue to be decided in this petition is as to whether, the order of fresh appointment issued by the Employer would presuppose imposition of the punishment of dismissal or as to whether, it would tantamount to a punishment in itself? 3. The contention of the Petitioner who was Class-C employee working with the Respondent/ MSRTC is that he joined service on 07.03.1979. He was charge sheeted on 09.03.1999 for having submitted the bills of the medicines from Omkar Medical Store, without purchasing the medicines and claimed reimbursement. He was charged with having deceived the MSRTC. After conducting a departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service on 12.08.2000. 4. It is further contended that the Petitioner preferred the first departmental appeal, which was dismissed on 02.10.2000. He preferred the second departmental appeal which was partly allowed on 26.12.2000 and the ...
The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Kadim Jalna and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2016
Indira K. Jain, J. 1. Confirmation Case No. 1 of 2015 arises out of the Reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in Sessions Case No. 127 of 2012 for confirmation of death sentence awarded to appellant/accused Ravi s/o Ashok Ghumare. By the judgment and order dated 16.9.2015 the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and sentenced him to capital punishment of death. By the very same judgment and order accused was also convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under “ Convicion under SectionSentence363Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500 i/d Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months376Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500 i/d Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months377Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 500 i/d Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months 2. Accused being aggri...
Bharat Devdan Salvi and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2016
Anuja Prabhudessai, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. 2. This is a petition filed under article 226 of the constitution r/w section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the C.R. No.46 of 2015 registered with Bhosari Police Station, Pune, for the offences punishable under sections 376 and 417 r/w. 34 of the IPC. 3. The brief facts necessary to decide this petition are as under: The Respondent No.2 who was to marry the Petitioner No.1 had lodged the FIR dated 15.2.2015 alleging that on 9.12.2014, the Petitioner No.1 had sexual intercourse with her against her will and without her consent. The Respondent No.2 further alleged that subsequently the Petitioner No.1 and his family members called off the marriage and thereby cheated her. 4. Ms. Kshitija Sarangi, the learned counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that the FIR does not disclose offence under section 375 or 415 IPC. She has submitted that the marriage was called off in vi...
Vijaykumar Santokchand Zambad Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Collec ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-20-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. A notification under sub-section (4) of Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, issued by the Collector, Buldana, on 09.03.1989, was published in the Government Gazette on 11.05.1989, acquiring 0.81 R of land, out of Survey No. 12/1 at Village Ahmadpur (Nandura) for construction of bus depot, quarters of staff and other allied establishment of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. Initially, the acquisition itself was the subject matter of challenge by filing a writ petition, which was dismissed by this Court on 27.03.1992, and the Special Leave Petition was also dismissed by the Apex Court on 05.01.1996. 2. An award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short "the said Act") was passed in the present matter on 09.05.1991. Notice of award as required by sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the said Act was received by the claimant on 13.04.1992. The claimants filed reference...
M/s. Sunflag Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. The Central Board of Direct T ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-19-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.). 1. The petitioner which is a public limited company has approached this Court, in effect for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest on the amount of Rs.49,40,923/- as provided under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act?). The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 18.7.1995 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune. 2. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. The petitioner is a steel manufacturing company. The petitioner when it was in the process of establishing an integrated steel plant at Bhandara entered into an agreement with M/s. Mannesmann Demag (MDH) Germany (hereinafter referred to as the German company?) on 8.11.1985 for transfer of technical knowhow. As per the said agreement, the petitioner company was required to make the payment of technical knowhow fee in three instalments of Rs.25,48...
Akole Taluka Education Society and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2016
Common Judgment: (M.S. Sonak, J.) 1. Rule in each of the petitions. With the consent of and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, Rule is disposed of finally. 2. The learned counsel for the parties agree that these petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment and order. Even otherwise substantially common issues of law and fact arise in each of these petitions and therefore, it would be appropriate to dispose of the same by common judgment and order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its order dated 30 April 2013, made in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 16569 of 2013, to which detailed reference will be made later, had in fact issued directions for transfer of all these petitions to the Principal Seat of the High Court, for the purposes of final disposal within a time bound schedule. 3. In pursuance of the aforesaid, the matters were posted before us for final disposal. Accordingly, the petitions were heard for purposes of final disposal. 4. The princ...
Indur Kartar Chhugani Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2016
S. C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal (Appeal No. 951 of 2015) challenges the order passed by the designated Court dated 30th July, 2015 exercising powers under the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (for short the MPID Act?). The impugned order is passed on a Miscellaneous Application and we would refer to the details thereof. 2. The Appellant before us is the original Noticee in MPID Case No. 12 of 2005, which has been filed by Respondent No. 1 State. That case has been filed against one Rajkumar Basantani under various sections of the MPID Act. It would be necessary to refer to that case in some details. One M/s. Soundcraft Industries Limited was granted financial assistance to the extent of Rs.1000 lacs. It was an assistance granted by the Punjab National Bank. M/s. Seema Investments Private Limited, owner of Flat No. 502, 5th floor, Pinky Panorama Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., 6th Road, Khar (West), Mumbai stood...
Nilkanth and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-19-2016
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia has on 29.4.2004 while delivering judgment in Sessions Trial No.78 of 2002 acquitted Accused no. 1 Jaiprakash, no. 3 Govinda, no. 4 Mahendra, no. 5 Prabhudayal and no. 6 Dindayal of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of Indian Penal Code. Accused no.2 Nilkanth alone is convicted of offence under Section 304 part one, and sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years, to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- or in default, to suffer SI of three months. All 6 accused have also been acquitted of offence under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Criminal Appeal No. 268 of 2004 is directed against this acquittal, and all 6 accused are party respondents therein. Accused no. 2 Nilkanth assails his conviction under Section 304 part one, in Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 2004. According to prosecution, on 12.8.2002 at 2.30 PM at village Bhadrutola, Karanja; these accused constituted an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of t...
Kai. Venkatrao Deshmukh Shilwanikar and Another Vs. Sharad Shridharrao ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-19-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. The first petition is filed by the employer / management challenging the judgment and order dated 23.1.2014, delivered by the School Tribunal, Latur, by which Appeal No.13 of 2009 has been partly allowed. The same judgment is challenged by the employee in the second petition on the ground that the employer should not be permitted to conduct a de-novo enquiry and the employee should be reinstated in service with continuity and full backwages. In the alternative, the employee prays that he should be treated as being under suspension from the date of termination since he was under suspension at the penultimate stage in the enquiry, which is prior to his termination. Said termination has been set aside by the School Tribunal. 5. Considering the fact that the employer as well as the employee have challenged the same judgment of the School Tribunal, both thes...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »