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.
Antonio Xavier Gomes Pereira and Others Vs. State of Goa, Through the ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-10-2016
Nutan D.Sardessai, J. 1. Heard Shri S.G.Bhobe, learned Advocate for the petitioners who contended on inviting attention to the FIR that Section 341 IPC alone was a cognizable offence unlike the other offences being non-cognizable in nature. The complaint did not at all disclose the offence of wrongful confinement and therefore it was a fit case to quash and set aside the FIR No.62/2016 registered under Sections 341, 323, 427, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. He placed reliance in Shripad Kulkarni and others Vs. State of Goa and another [Criminal Writ Petition No.80/2013] and Joao C.Pereira and another Vs. State of Goa and others [CDJ 2016 BHC 607] to substantiate his case. Shri S.R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondents no.1 and 2 contended that the investigation revealed that the CC TV footage to which a reference was made in the complaint did not give any details except the arrival of the car in question. The inmates of the house too were not forthcomi...
Harish Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2016
V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1. By means of this writ petition filed by the friend of the detenu, the detention order passed by respondent No.2 District Magistrate, Jalgaon, under The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and persons engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 is being challenged. Respondent No.2 by the detention order dated 16.3.2016 ordered the detention of the detenu Nilesh Dnyaneshwar Desale to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintainance of public order. 2. From the grounds of detention furnished to the detenu, it is apparent that the detention order is based on 4 C.Rs and two in-camera statements. The 4 CRs are C.R. Nos.166 of 2010, 134 of 2015, 135 of 2015 and 21 of 2016. All the 4 CRs are of Bhadgaon police station in Jalgaon. C.R. No.166 of 2010 is under sections 353, 379, 504, 506 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. C.R....
Manojkumar Ramakant Naik and Another Vs. Paresh Ramakant Naik Gaonkar ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-10-2016
1. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 waives service. None appears for respondent no. 3, though served. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 27.04.2015 passed by the learned District Judge at Panaji in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 5/2015. By the impugned judgment, the learned District Judge has dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the order of injunction passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ponda on 31.12.2014 in Regular Civil Suit No. 26/2014/A. The petitioners are also challenging an order dated 27.04.2015, by which application (Exhibit-9) filed by the respondents for production of documents has been allowed by the learned District Judge. 3. The brief facts are that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioners (original defendant nos. 1 and 2) and the respondent no. 3-Laxmi Gaonkar (original defendant no. 3) for decl...
Rajendra Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Home Departm ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-10-2016
Sangitrao S. Patil, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P., heard finally. 2. By this writ petition, the original accused has prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings bearing Summary Criminal Case (S.C.C.) No. 671 of 2014, instituted by the Police Station Officer, Chalisgaon in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Chalisgaon on the basis of the FIR bearing No. 62 of 2013, lodged in the Police Station by respondent No. 2 Drugs Inspector, for the offence punishable under section 27 (b) (ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ( the Act , for short). 3. The case of respondent No. 2, in short, is that as per the order dated 20th June, 2013, passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Licensing Authority, Drugs and Medicine Administration, Government of Maharashtra, Jalgaon, the licence of the petitioner to run the business of selling the drugs was suspended from 1st October, 2013 to 15th Octobe...
Reliance Communications Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
1. I have before me a Company Scheme Petition for sanction. One Systema Shyam Teleservices Limited ( SSTL ) is the Transferor company. The Transferee company is the present Petitioner Reliance Communications Limited ( RCom ). One of SSTL s undertakings is proposed to be demerged from it and vested in RCom on the appointed date. SSTL s registered office is in Jaipur. SSTL therefore made a corresponding application to the Rajasthan High Court at its Jaipur bench. The Rajasthan High Court allowed SSTL s petition by an elaborate judgment dated 30th September 2016. 2. The rationale of the Scheme is set out in this voluminous record (Record, p. 720).The ostensible purpose, at least as far as RCom is concerned, is to facilitate its expansion in the telecom market, develop its infrastructure, create additional value for its shareholders and to achieve improved efficiencies in its operations. The expression transferred undertaking is separately and specifically defined. This is a comprehensive ...
M/s. Esdee Paints Ltd. and Others Vs. Sarva Shramik Sangh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Having regard to the nature of the challenge raised made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 16.08.2016 passed by the Learned Member of the Industrial Court, Thane, by which order, the Revision Application filed by the Respondent being Revision Application (ULP) No.28 of 2016 came to be allowed. Resultantly, the order dated 20.07.2015 passed by the Labour Court came to be set aside and in place thereof directions as contained in clause 2 of the operative part of the said order came to be issued. The said clause 2 is reproduced hereinunder for the sake of ready reference. 2. Exh.U-2 in Complaint (ULP) No.152/2014 allowed in following terms: (i) Respondents shall pay Rs.10,000/- for each group of employee within one month from the date of this order. 3. It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary details. Suffice it would be ...
Sahebgonda Laxman Birajdar and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
Anuja Prabhudessai, J. 1. All the aforesaid appeals, except criminal appeal No.945 of 2005, are filed by the accused challenging judgment dated 9th May, 2005 in Criminal Case Nos.107 of 2004 and 176 of 2004 whereby the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, convicted for offences under Section 302, 536, 436, 342, 143, 147, 148, 149 and 120 B of the IPC and sentenced the abovementioned accused as under: 2. The accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 34, 36, 37 and 41 are convicted for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 506 r/w. 149, 342 r/w. 149, 436 r/w. 149, 302 r/w. 149 and 427 r/w. 149 of the IPC and sentenced as under: (i) Rigorous imprisonment for a term of three months for the offence punishable under section 143 of the IPC. (ii) rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months for the offence punishable under section 147 of the IPC. (iii) rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months for the offence punishable...
M/s. Nirlac Chemicals and Another Vs. Haffkine Bio-Pharmaceutical Corp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
B.P. Colabawalla J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the decision of Respondent No.1 in rejecting the techno-commercial bid of the Petitioners in relation to the tender (dated 20th January, 2016) floated for the supply of Bivalent Oral Polio Vaccine Bulk [ bOPV ] manufactured by a Company called PT. Bio-Farma, Indonesia. The rejection of the Petitioners' techno-commercial bid was informed to them by Respondent No.1 vide its letter dated 22nd June, 2016 [the impugned letter ] (Exh. I to the Petition). Consequently, the Petitioners have also prayed that Respondent No.1 be directed to revoke / cancel the tender / contract awarded to Respondent No.3 (BioNet-Asia Co. Ltd.) for the supply of the said bOPV. 3. In a nutshell, the tender process has been challenged before us on the gro...
Pratap G. Somaiya and Others Vs. Rajesh Thakker and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. Heard Dr. Milind Sathe, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant in Appeal (L) No. 162 of 2016, Mr. Y.S. Jahagirdar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant in Appeal (L) No. 245 of 2016 and Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.5 in Appeal (L) No.162 of 2016 and for Respondent No.2 in Appeal (L) No.245 of 2016. 2. Appellants are aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 21/03/2016, by which the learned Single Judge was pleased to direct the Court Receiver who was appointed in respect of the mortgaged properties to hand over the same to the Respondent Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited [For short ARCIL ]. The learned Single Judge has imposed costs of Rs 10 lakhs and issued contempt notice against the Appellants herein. Since the order challenged in both these Appeals is common, we propose to give a common judgment in both these Appeals. F...
Mohammed Ishak Kasim Ali Shaikh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
1. By this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is taking an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 08.07.2016, passed by the Additional Chief Judge of Small Causes Court, Mumbai in Municipal Election Petition No.87 of 2012. By the said Judgment and Order, the election of the petitioner, dated 17.02.2012 from Ward No.156 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation was declared as null and void. At the same time, respondent No.3 herein was declared as elected from the said ward under the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MMC Act'). 2. Certain facts are not in dispute. The petitioner herein has contested the election for the post of councillor from Ward No.156 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, from a constituency reserved for Other Backward Class Community (hereinafter referred to as the 'OBC'). The result of the election was declared on 17.02.2012. The petitioner was declared...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »