Mumbai Court October 2016 Judgments
Jagdish Revansiddha Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra through its Urb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2016
Oral Judgment: (Ranjit More, J.) 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 29th November 2014 passed by the caste scrutiny committee, Solapur, the order dated 2nd December 2014 passed by the Commissioner, Solapur Municipal Corporation and the circular / order dated 17th July 2013 issued by the State Election Commissioner, Maharashtra State. 2. By the order dated 29th November 2014, the caste scrutiny committee invalidated the Petitioner's caste claim that he belongs to Teli caste, which is notified as Other Backward Class [for short OBC ]. On the basis of above order of the caste scrutiny committee, the Commissioner of Solapur Municipal Corporation passed the order dated 2nd December 2014 thereby declaring that the Petitioner is disqualified and that his seat is deemed to have fallen vacant. By the circular dated 17th July 2013, the State Election Commission has authorised the Commissioners of Mu...
Tag this Judgment!Avinash Sharad Dagaonkar Vs. Bank of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2016
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner interalia challenges the suspension order dated 7 June 2011, the order dated 14 February 2013 imposing penalty of dismissal as confirmed by the Appellate Authority's order dated 16 May 2013 as also confirmed by the Reviewing Authority by its order dated 22 October 2013, praying that these orders be quashed and set aside with a further prayer seeking reinstatement in service with full backwages. The facts in nutshell are: 2. The Petitioner joined services with the first Respondent in the year 1983 as a clerk-cum-cashier. He received promotions and ultimately in the year 2010 was working as Senior Branch Manager at Mahidpur branch of the first Respondent. The Petitioner states that from January to May 2011, two officers from Mahidpur branch were transferred to the other branches resulting in tremendous work load on the Petitioner and other officers working in the branch. 3. On 7 June 2011...
Tag this Judgment!Narcinva Govind Naik and Another Vs. Vikramsingh Routella and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-21-2016
1. The challenge in this petition is to the concurrent finding about the respondent nos. 1 and 2 being the mundkars of a dwelling house no.80 (1) standing in land survey no.30/19 of village Ponda. 2. The respondent nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife. The petitioner is the brother of the second respondent, Shalini Rautella. The third respondent Damodar Kapdi (since deceased) was the Bhatkar. The petitioner is represented by his son Pradeep Naik who is his Power of Attorney holder. The first and the second respondent filed an application under section 8A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act 1975 (Mundkar Act, for short) before the Mamlatdar on 8/1/1996 in which now deceased Damodar Kapdi was the sole respondent. Within a week of the filing of this application, Damodar sold the property to the fourth respondent, M/s Sungrace Developers Ltd., who was arrayed as opponent no.3 before the Mamlatdar. The petitioner got himself impleaded in these proceedings as the op...
Tag this Judgment!Kundan Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-21-2016
A.S. Chandurkar, J. 1. By the present appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the appellant takes exception to his conviction for having committed an offence punishable under Section 3 (a) as well as for the offence under Section 5 (j) (ii) and 5 (l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [for short the said Act ]. The appellant has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 and Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code [for short the Penal Code ]. He has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. 2. Case of the prosecution is that the appellant, who was serving as a driver, was acquainted with one S - the prosecutrix. The appellant developed friendship with S and both had decided to get married after S attained the age of majority. In November, 2010, when the prosecutrix was studying in VIIIth Standard, the appellant had been to her place and had stated that as they had decided...
Tag this Judgment!Smruti Vs. Anant and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-21-2016
Oral Judgment: (Vasanti A Naik, J.) 1. The family court appeal is ADMITTED and decided finally after perusing the original record and proceedings. 2. By this family court appeal, the appellant-wife challenges the judgment of the Family Court, Akola, dated 17.06.2013, allowing the petition filed by the respondent-husband for a decree of divorce under section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that the appellant-wife had illicit relationship with the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 during the subsistence of her marriage with the respondent-husband. 3. The appellant-wife (hereinafter referred to as the wife for the sake of convenience) and the respondent-husband (hereinafter referred to as the husband ) were married at Hiwarkhed in Akola district on 25.06.2000, according to the Hindu rites and custom. A girl named Khushi and a boy named Harsh were born from the wedlock. The parties resided together till 08.06.2012 at Akola. The husband then filed a petition for a decree of divorce...
Tag this Judgment!Kuniyil Kumar Shankar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal takes an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 8th September 2016 passed by the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Borivali Division, Mumbai in L.C. Suit No.375 of 2016, thereby dismissing the Notice of Motion No.1186 of 2016 filed therein. 2. The said Notice of Motion was preferred by the appellant-original plaintiff seeking relief of interim injunction restraining the respondent-Municipal Corporation from demolishing the suit premises without providing permanent alternate accommodation. It is submitted by the appellant that he is in possession of the commercial premises bearing I.D. No.107, admeasuring 426.5 sq.ft., constructed of bricks, masonry wall and A.C. sheet roof, situate at Tiwari Chawl, on the land bearing C.T.S. No.33-B. His possession is that of a tenant and the suit premises are in existence since prior to the year 1961-62. The land below the suit premises is a private land. According to the appellant, he is paying the rent regularly to the lan...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Ramchandra Rajput and Others Vs. The District Deputy Registrar, ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal. 2. The first proceeding is filed to challenge the order made by the District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies Aurangabad, by which the application given by the present petitioners to include their names in voters list of one constituency created under section 13(1) (a) (i) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation), Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) is rejected. It is rejected on the ground that they got elected subsequent to the last date fixed for filing nomination to election which was 12.9.2016 and it was also not within three days before the last date of nomination as required by Rule 36 (15) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short). 3. The learned counsel for petitioners placed reliance on the decision given by this Court in...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Statio ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition is filed seeking quashment of the First Information Report bearing Crime No.217 of 2015 (for short FIR ) registered with Dhule City Police Station, Dhule, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC ) and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, to the extent it relates to the petitioners. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegations in the FIR are general in nature. There are no specific overt acts attributed to the petitioners. It is also not stated that on which date the incident of harassment and mental cruelty is caused. It is further submitted that respondent no.2 left matrimonial home on 07.06.2015 and the FIR is lodged on 03.11.2015. There is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. It is further submitted that, respondent no.2 has put it in writing on 07.06.2015 that, her husband and herself are from the medical profession, therefor...
Tag this Judgment!Caetano R. Silva Vs. Prescribed Authority, Minister of Home Affairs an ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
1. Whether the petitioner has ceased to be a citizen of India, on account of the petitioner voluntarily getting his birth registered in the Central Registry of Births at Lisbon, Portugal (Central Registry at Lisbon), is the question which falls for determination in this petition. 2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus: That the petitioner was born in Benaulim village, Salcete, Goa on 21/10/1959 and his birth is registered under entry no.3125 of the Registrar of Births maintained under Codigo Registro Civil , which was then in force in Goa, which was under a Portuguese Colonial Rule. The petitioner is a registered voter from Benaulim constituency at Serial No.445 of part 21 of electoral roll of 32, Benaulim constituency for the Legislative Assembly of State of Goa. The petitioner had contested the election to the Goa Legislative Assembly as a candidate of Goa Vikas Party (GVP) on 06/03/2012 and has been declared elected and is presently a member of ...
Tag this Judgment!Vilas Trimbak Sanap Vs. Shriram Rajendera Sanap and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
1. Heard. The appellant has filed the present appeal against Judgment and Order dated 12th January, 2016 passed by District Judge-1, Beed in Regular Civil Appeal No.50/2015. 2. The appellant had filed Regular Civil Suit No.499/2014 for partition against his father and brothers claiming his 1/4th share alleging that father and brothers had refused to give him his share in the suit properties. In the aforesaid suit, compromise took place between the parties and on the basis of the said compromise-deed, the aforesaid civil suit came to be decreed by the learned trial court. 3. Present Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who were not party to the aforesaid suit, filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 50/2015 assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 29th December, 2014 passed by the Trial court. It was the contention of these respondents that along with the plaintiff and defendants in the subject suit, they also possess share in the suit properties and as such without there presence in the said suit, impugned d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »