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.
Mohd. Hanif and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-04-2016
Oral Judgment On Preliimiinary Issues. B.P. Dharmadhiikarii, J. 1. These two appeals under Section 374[2] of the Criminal Procedure Code arise out of common judgment dated 30.03.2016, delivered in Sessions Trial Nos. 144/2012 and 233/2014. Accused persons are found guilty of committing various offences like under Section 143, 144, 147, 148 and Section 324 read with Section 149, Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. The maximum imprisonment imposed is for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, and they are sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. Looking to the challenge as posed, it is not necessary to mention other punishments which are imposed upon them by the impugned judgment. 2. Basically arguments have been advanced in Criminal Appeal No. 139/2016, where the original accused no.5 Mohd Hanif and accused no.6 Mohd. Azam are the appellants. These arguments are urged to be sufficient to vitiate the c...
Darshansing Indarsing Sodhi and Another Vs. Podar Education And Sports ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-03-2016
1. The petition is filed to challenge the judgment and order of Revision No. 244/2015, which was pending before the learned Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. The revision was filed against the order made by the learned Deputy Collector, Aurangabad in Rent Application No. 1/2014. The proceeding is dismissed by the authority in revision by holding that it is not tenable before the competent authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). Both the sides are heard. 2. Under the leave and licence agreement made in the year 2007, the petitioners had given their property bearing plot Nos. 1, 4 and 26 situated at Shahanurwadi Chowk, Aurangabad for the period of five years. Under the agreement, there are some terms, giving right to the party to extend the period and there are also terms and conditions that licensee will be liable to pay compensation, if licensee continues possession, when there is no continuation o...
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bande Nawaj Kasim Shaikh and An ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-2016
1. Admit. 2. Appeal is heard at the stage of admission itself considering that the challenge raised is only to the quantum of compensation. 3. This appeal takes an exception to the Judgment and Award dated 18.10.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Employees' Compensation and Judge, Sixth Labour Court, Mumbai in Application (WCA) No. 179/C-35 of 2013. 4. The only ground, on which the quantum of compensation awarded to the respondents is challenged, is that the Trial Court has calculated the same on higher side, especially, on the count that the permanent partial disability was considered to be 61%. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken this Court to the evidence of Dr. Khanna, who has not treated the claimant-respondent No.1, but only on the basis of his examination he has issued the disability certificate. It is urged that the only injury, which was found, was the fracture to the right foot proximal phalynx with abrasion on right foot dorsal on 3rd and 4th toes. Dr. Khanna has how...
Society for Fast Justice, through its President Ashish Mehta and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-2016
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) OVERVIEW AND FACTUAL ASPECTS 1. A very important issue is raised in this Public Interest Litigation. The issue is regarding the failure on the part of the State Government and the Mumbai Municipal Corporation in taking action of demolition of several illegal religious structures/shrines. No religion encourages illegality. No religion preaches that worship or prayer should be offered in illegally constructed place of religion. The material on record shows that there are large number of illegal religious structures constructed in the State. The illegal shrines have been erected by the persons belonging to all religions, and therefore, we make it clear that we are dealing with the illegally constructed places of religion/shrines of all the religions and sects. 2. The Petitioners had earlier filed a Public Interest Litigation being PIL Writ Petition No.2063 of 2002 for inviting attention of this Court to the fact that no action of demolition was taken in respe...
Jayashri Vs. Umesh
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-01-2016
Indira Jain, J. 1. Admit. 2. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties as record and proceedings are received. 3. By this appeal appellant/wife challenges the judgment of the Family Court, Akola dated 18-05-2015 allowing the petition filed by respondent/husband for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 4. Facts giving rise to the appeal may be stated in brief as under: Appellant and respondent (hereinafter appellant shall be referred as wife and respondent shall be referred as husband ) were married on 08-05-2011 at Amravati as per customary rites. After marriage wife went to Akola to cohabit with the husband in a joint family. At the time of marriage husband was serving in Axis Bank Branch at Pimpalgaon Baswant in District Nasik. 5. It is the case of husband that since beginning behaviour of wife was not proper. She was insisting to reside separately from joint family consisting of husband ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›