Mumbai Court February 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.
Dr. Rajul Ketan Raj Vs. Reliance Capital Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. 2. The applicant, who is an accused no.1 in C.C.No.2995/SS/2013, C.C.No.1348/SS/2012 and C.C.No.1350/SS/2012, has invoked the powers of this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned orders dated 24.4.2015 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Gr. Mumbai, dismissed the revision applications Nos.502 of 2014, 299 of 2014 and 101 of 2014 for quashing the process against the applicant for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The brief facts necessary to decide these applications are as under: The respondent no.1- complainant had filed complaints against the applicant, one Mr. Ketan Raj and Jeevandeep Hospital and Critical Care Centre (hereinafter referred to as Jeevandeep Hospital) for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is alleged that the applicant and the other two accused were in need of finance and had therefore approached the complainant com...
Mohd Sharif Mehboob Badshakhan Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-2016
Oral Judgment: (Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.) 1. The appellant, who stands convicted by the judgment and order dated 31.01.2009, of Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.230 of 1999, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month, by this appeal challenges his conviction and sentence. 2. Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows:- On 22.11.1998, in the afternoon at 12.30 p.m. while P.W.1 Gausbee Shaikh was chitchatting alongwith her mother, P.W.2 Fatimabee and her sister-in-law P.W.3 Tajbano, present appellant alongwith his brother Kalia Kasam absconding accused No.3, Imambi-accused No.2 and one Dilshad accused No.4, came to their house with weapons in their hands like sword, chopper and gupti and started abusing and instigating the parents of P.W.1 Gausbee. Hence her brother Noor came out of the...
Tomas Shamson De Souza Vs. Nelly D'Souza and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-12-2016
1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. This petition challenges the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 04/03/2015 passed by District Judge-3, South Goa at Margao, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.80/2013. 4. The facts relevant for the purpose of the present petition are stated in brief as under : a) The respondent no.1 is a daughter-in-law of Joaquim Santana D'Souza, who died on 31/10/2008 at Patnem, Collem, Canacona, Goa. As he left behind an estate, the respondent no.1 as well as other legal heirs including husband of respondent no.1, the petitioner herein, were desirous of having the estate left behind by the deceased partitioned amongst the heirs. Respondent no.1, therefore, filed an application before Civil Judge, Junior Division at Canacona for initiation of Inventory Proceedings which came to be registered as Inventory Proceedings No.18/2010. In these proceedings, widow of the d...
State of Goa Vs. Siluvai Gnanenthira Roche and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-12-2016
Oral Order: 1. Heard learned Special Public Prosecutor for the applicant, the learned counsel for respondent no.1 and learned counsel for respondent no.2. Respondent no.3 has been stated to be discharged by the Trial Court in the year 2007. Heard finally. 2. The grievance in this application is that impugned order dated 2/6/2010 acquitting respondents nos.1 and 2, who are the accused nos.1 and 2 from the charge framed for an offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the P.C. Act", for short) under section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been passed at a stage not permissible under the law. 3. Facts necessary to decide this application are:- Respondent No.1 was the Senior Vice President, Respondent No.2 was the Branch Manager and Respondent No.3 was a Proprietor of M/s. Regency Builders, the borrower of GIC Housing Finance Ltd., (hereinafter called "GICHFL" for short) at the relevant time....
Andrew Rego Vs. Juliet Lopes
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-11-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. This Writ Petition challenges the common judgment and order dated 29.04.2015 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 92/2012 and Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 62/2013, preferred by the petitioner and the respondent respectively, against the order dated 29.08.2012 passed in Matrimonial Petition No. 63/2011/A by the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji. While Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 62/2013 has been dismissed, Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 92/2012 has been partly allowed by the learned District Judge. The effect is that the challenge of the petitioner-husband to the order directing him to grant interim monthly maintenance to the respondent-wife has been rejected and plea of respondent-wife to enhance the interim monthly maintenance from Rs.3,000/- to some reasonable amount has been partly allowed. Consequently, by the order impugned herein, the petitioner-husband has been directed to pa...
M/s. Mahendra Builders Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through the Princ ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2016
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. Rule Returnable forthwith. By consent and at the request of the parties heard finally. 2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek quashing and setting aside of the order dated 24 January 2013 passed by the respondent no.3-the Municipal Commissioner of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, whereby it is held that the proposal for regularization submitted by the respondent nos.5 to 7 of additions and alterations namely additional rooms and toilets at the premises namely Empire Royale Hotel' 3rd Floor, Empire Building, 147, Dr.D.N.Road, Fort, Mumbai, be processed by the Executive Engineer (Building and Proposals). The petitioners are also seeking quashing of the communication of the Assistant Engineer (Building and Proposal) dated 22 March 2012 by which certain compliances are sought from Respondent Nos.5 to 7. A further prayer is made that the notice dated 10 October 2003 issued under section 53 (1) of the Maharashtra Regiona...
Arya Sudhir Sudhan Vs. University of Mumbai and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2016
P.C. 1. After having heard Mr. Chandrachud, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, we are not inclined to exercise our writ jurisdiction for the simple reason that the policy of the University appears to be that if a candidate fails in the initial or first year, he can continue his studies for the subsequent year of the academic course on a concessional basis. He is allowed to keep terms for the subsequent year and in succession on the assurance that he would clear all the remaining subjects, and in which he or she was unable to pass, before a given period or time or at least before the studies and the education career come to an end in that particular faculty or course. 2. Once it is a pure concession, then no vested right can be founded on it. Secondly, there cannot a vested right or a legal right claimed in failure or a concession. If the condition is that the terms kept would be allowed to be kept, but the candidate must clear the subjects in which he or she fails and in thi...
Shatrughna Madhav Meshram Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2016
Oral Judgment: (Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.) 1. This appeal is preferred by the original accused, who stands convicted, by the judgment and order dated 23.12.2013 of Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No.176 of 2012, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. Brief facts of the appeal, can be stated as follows:- Appellant was serving as Constable in Police Department and was residing alongwith his wife Kavita and two daughters by name Vishakha and Sonali in New Mhada Police Colony at Andheri. On the date of incident on 27.10.2011, at about 11.50 p.m. P.W.1 Police Constable Santosh Kute, who was on night patrolling duty in MIDC area, received message from Control Room that one injured lady was lying at 10C New Mhada Police Colony, Andheri. Hence he rushed there and found that some persons were ...
Mudas @ Mumtaz Hajrat Ali Sayyad Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2016
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. 1. The Appellant, who stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for one month, by the Judgment and Order dated 13th June 2008 of the Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No.394 of 2006, by this Appeal challenges her conviction and sentence. 2. Brief facts of the Appeal can be stated as follows:- Deceased in this case by name Bablu Sagir Ahmed Rain was having love affair with the Appellant since last about one year prior to the incident. He used to go to her house for sleeping at night. On 29th June 2006 also, as usual, he went to her house at night. Both of them consumed liquor, had dinner and went to sleep. At that time, Appellant expressed her desire to have sexual intercourse with him. Deceased pleaded his inability as he was already in drunken condition. Hence, Appellant raised quarrel with him and then poured...
Sudhakar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-11-2016
1. Aggrieved by the recording of the conviction by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon vide judgment and order dated 5th September, 2001, passed in Sessions Case No.112 of 1995, for the offences punishable under section 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the present appellant who was original accused no.2 has filed the present appeal. The present appellant was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months, on each of the count. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The appellant is the father-in-law of deceased Sangita. All other co-accused i.e. the husband, the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased were acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 3. On 25th November, 1994, deceased Sangita was admitted to Bapuji Rural Hospital, Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon due to suffering of burn injuries. Her statement was recorded by PW4-P....
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »