Mumbai Court October 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.
Rajesh and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Criminal Writ Petition is heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Being aggrieved by the order below Exhibit 1 dated 21/01/2012, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur in Criminal Misc. Application no. 483 of 2004 and the judgment and order passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Latur dated 21/01/2015 in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 2015, the original accused has preferred this Criminal Writ Petition. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present Criminal Writ Petition, are as follows: On the basis of the complaint lodged by respondent no.2 herein, crime no. 78 of 2000 came to be registered at Gategaon Police Station against the present petitioner and others for having committed offences punishable under section 147,148, 149, 323, 427 of the Indian Penal Code. After due investigation, the concerned Police Station has submitted the chargesheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur on 24/8/2004. On presentation of t...
Ramrao Bhauji Bhagat (since deceased, through L.Rs) and Others Vs. Ann ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-17-2016
1. In Special Civil Suit No. 183 of 1987, the trial Court passed a decree on 28.03.1991 holding that the plaintiff do recover the possession of the suit property from the defendants along with an amount of Rs.9,000/- as past mesne profit. An enquiry under Order XX, Rule 12 of C.P.C has also been directed to be made. Regular Civil Appeal No. 125 of 1991 preferred by the original defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Regular Civil Appeal No. 127 of 1991 preferred by one Yeshwant against the decision in Regular Civil Suit No.230A of 1991, were decided by the lower appellate Court by common judgment and order dated 24.03.1995. Appeal No. 125 of 1991 was partly allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Special Civil Suit No. 183 of 1987 to the extent of recovery of damages of Rs.9,000/-, but rest of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was confirmed. Regular Civil Appeal No. 127 of 1991 was dismissed. This second appeal is preferred by the original d...
Rashami Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-17-2016
Sangitrao S. Patil, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally. 2. The applicants have prayed for quashing of FIR No. 96 of 2016, dated 10th April, 2016, registered in Police Station, Sailu, District Parbhani against them for the offence punishable under section 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, I.P.C. ). 3. In short, it is the case of respondent No.2 (the informant) that he had agreed to purchase a plot bearing No. 7/1, having size 15 meters x 7.5 meters from the applicants for a consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs) under an agreement of sale dated 30th July, 2015. He had paid an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs) towards earnest and the balance amount or Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs) was to be paid to the applicants on or before 30th October, 2015, whereon the sale deed was to be executed by the applicants in favour of respondent No.2. However, despite ...
Sandip Ganpatrao Bhadade and Another Vs. The Additional Commissioner a ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-17-2016
1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. Rule. Taken up for final disposal. 2. In both these matters, the petitioners were elected as a Member of a Panchayat in the election held on 22-4-2015. By common order dated 8-12-2015, both the petitioners were disqualified under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short, the said Act ), and the said order has been confirmed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati in an appeal preferred under Section 16(2) of the said Act. 3. The authorities below have held that petitioner-Sandip Ganpatrao Bhadade in Writ Petition No.431 of 2016 is residing on the property admeasuring area 37.50 sq.mtrs. of Plot No.957 owned by Tukaram Karnaji Bhadade, which is an encroachment over the land owned by the Public Works Department. In respect of petitioner-Sau. Sangita Vijay Choudhary in Writ Petition No.514 of 2016, the finding is recorded that she is residing on Plot No.77, which is the proper...
M/s. Group M. Media India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2016
Oral Judgment: (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) 1. By consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the inaction / failure on the part of the Assessing Officer in processing the return of income under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and granting refund consequent thereto in accordance with Section 143 (1D) of the Act. This petition relates to Assessment Year 2015-16. 3. Briefly, the facts leading to this petition are as under: (a) On 29th November, 2015, the petitioner filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2015-16 under Section 139 of the Act. In its return, the petitioner declared an income of Rs.144.48 crores and claimed a refund of Rs.27.24 crores. (b) On 12th April, 2016, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act to the petitioner relating to the subject assessment year. (c) On 27th April, 2016, the petitioner requ...
Lalitprabha Krishnaji Ajgaokar, since deceased through her legal repre ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-15-2016
1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respondents waives service. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. All these petitions involve a common question about appointment of a commissioner and as such these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs who have filed six different suits against the respondents in these petitions. The petitioners are claiming mandatory injunction directing the respondent/s to remove the structures constructed by the respondents in the suit land known as Gorbatta also known as Corpeaband situated at Khadpabandh locality of Ponda aluka bearing survey no.209/0 which is renumbered as survey no.209/1. The respondents/defendants are claiming that the suit structures are falling in land survey no.14 and not survey no.209/1 as claimed by the petitioners. 4. The trial Court has framed issues and the trial has commenced in which PW.1 has entered into the witness box. At this stage the petitioners...
Peter Francis Conceicao and Others Vs. Candolina Conceicao and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-15-2016
1. Heard Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. S. S. Kantak, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. V. Korgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law by order dated 12.04.2007. (1) Whether the plaintiff was entitled for a relief of declaration of sale deed as null and void and for transfer of suit plot in the name of the plaintiff without seeking relief for specific performance of contract? (2) Whether the suit filed on 13.3.1989 for declaring registered sale deed dated 12.6.1975 to which the plaintiff has been a witness was ex facie barred by limitation in view of the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, which concerns with notice of transaction relating to immovable property effected by registered instrument? (3) Whether the pleadings in the plaint at all make out any case of fraud and misrepresentation as defined u...
Mohd. Zuber Mohd. Yusuf Memon Vs. Municipal Corporation for Gr. Mumbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 3. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 31.08.2016 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai in Draft Notice of Motion in L.C. Suit No. 2058 of 2016 thereby refusing the ad interim relief as sought by the appellant for restraining the respondent-Municipal Corporation from taking any action in pursuance of the notice issued under Section 354-A of the MMC Act on 23.05.2016 and in pursuance thereof, the order passed by the Assistant Municipal Commissioner on 19.08.2016. 4. The case of the appellant is that, he is in possession of the suit premises consisting of Ground + two floors area admeasuring about 1800 sq. ft. bearing CTS Nos.925 and 937, Rambachan Singh Compound, Vinoba Bhave Nagar at Kurla (W), Mumbai-400 070. It is further his case that the said construction consists of B.M. wall with A.C. sheet roof. According to him, he has acquired said p...
Jaya Talakhsi Chheda Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2016
R.D. Dhanuka, J. 1. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, read with section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the petitioner has applied for quashing and setting aside the Crime No. 185 of 2016 registered with the Pantnagar Police Station and seeks suspension of the sentence for temporary period of 16 weeks from the date of the order to enable the petitioner to take recourse of medical treatment without any mental pressure or of hypertension. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. By an order dated 31st July 2013, the petitioner was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge at Greater Bombay for an offence punishable under section 120(B), 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine alongwith other accused named therein. The petitioner impugned the said order dated 31st July, 2013 by way of Criminal Ap...
Herbertsons Ltd. Vs. Crag Martin Distillery Private Limited
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-14-2016
1. This is a suit for injunction and damages, in which the defendant has lodged a counter claim. 2. The plaintiff s case is as under: The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is inter-alia engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of brandy, whisky and other alcoholic beverages. The defendant is also incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling of brandy and other alcoholic beverages. The plaintiff had applied to the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, for registration of a design for their bottle. The same was granted on 11.08.2000, as design no. 183202 dated 11.08.2000, which is a Class-IV registration (the said design, for short). The said design was registered under the Designs Act, 1911 (the old Act, for short). The Designs Act, 2000 (the Act of 2000, for short) came into force on 11.05.2001. As per Section 48(2) of the Act of 2000, any registration certifica...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »