Mumbai Court February 2016 Judgments
Akhilesh Nandlal Chaubey Vs. Anand Builders and Developers and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2016
P.C. 1. The petitioner is the accused in Criminal Complaint No.690 of 2010 filed by respondent no.1 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Kalyan, District Thane. He challenges the order dtd. 28th October, 2015, by which the trial court rejected his application for sending the cheques in question for opinion of the handwriting expert. The purposes for which the petitioner desired to obtain opinion of the expert are as under : A. By whom the material alterations on all the 5 cheques bearing Nos.066388, 066387, 066380, 066378, 066379 as regards corrected date of cheque, signature below the corrected date, name and payee, amount in words were carried out and B. Whether the alteration made are in different ink and in different handwriting. C. What is the age of ink on all disputed receipts referred to above. D. Whether signatures on the disputed No Objection Certificate dtd. 24-6-2006 and full and final payment r...
Tag this Judgment!Zoivonta E Parab, Major of Age Vs. The Secretary(Law), Law Department, ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-25-2016
K.L. Wadane, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking direction to the respondents to release retirement dues to the petitioner including pension and gratuity along with 8% interest. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner was practising advocate since 1979. The petitioner practised as an advocate till he was appointed as the President of Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner was appointed as the President of Goa Administrative Tribunal by order dated 24.10.2001 and the same was published in the Official Gazette on 08.11.2011. 3. The appointment order of the petitioner was challenged in Writ Petition No. 315/2001 on the ground that State did not consult the High Court before appointing the petitioner as the President. This Court by its Judgment dated 19.9.2002 set aside the appointment order dated 24.10.2001. 4. The petitioner states that thereafter the Government referred the proposal of appointment of the petitioner to the Hon'ble Chief Justi...
Tag this Judgment!Sachin Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2016
1. Heard both sides. 2. The appellant/accused has been convicted by learned District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Shrirampur in Sessions Case No.49 of 2012 vide judgment and order dated 22nd January, 2014 for the offences punishable under Section 304 Part II and 506 of Indian Penal Code; and Section 3(25) of the Arms Act. He was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence was recorded for the other offences. Hence, the present appeal. 3. The appellant along with other four accused faced trial for the offences punishable under Section 120-B, 384, 302, 506 of Indian Penal Code; Section 3(25) of Arms Act; and Section 37(1)(3) read with 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The other accused, however, were acquitted and the appellant came to be convicted, as detailed supra. 4. The prosecution case, in short, is as under: That on 15th October, 2011, the complainant PW 1 - Kamlesh Jagtap...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhakar and Another Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation, through ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-25-2016
1. Heard Shri M.P. Khajanchi, advocate for the applicants and Shri S.S. Ahirkar Special P.P. for the non-applicant. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The applicants have approached this Court under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the application (Exh. No.42) filed by them praying for discharge from the prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120B and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The non-applicant Central Bureau of Investigation has filed final report before the Special Judge, Chandrapur against the applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 120B and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint dated 20th/21st January, ...
Tag this Judgment!Kashibai Namdeo Jadhav and Others Vs. Yamunabai and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2016
1. By this second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants (original defendants) have impugned the order and judgment dated 3rd September 1992 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Solapur allowing the appeal filed by the original plaintiffs and setting aside the decree passed by the learned trial Judge dismissing the suit for a decree for partition and separate possession. 2. The original plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction and in the alternative for partition and separate possession of share in certain agricultural lands. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present proceedings are described as they were described in the proceedings before the learned trial Judge in the later part of the judgment. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this second appeal are as under:- 3. The present dispute pertains to the lands 783, 789, 790/1, 792/2, 855, 906, 911/1, 911/2 and 777 all situ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth Rahuri, Through its Registrar, Jaganna ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. All the above petitions have been admitted by this Court on 8.3.2011. 2. The order passed by this Court on 8.3.2011 reads as under: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Union has no authority to file the complaint on behalf of retired employees. He further submits that there is no relationship of employee and employer as such between the retired employees and the petitioner herein. He further submits that the complaint was filed in 2004 making grievance about the pension which according to the complainant was due to be paid in 1996. Therefore, the Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complaint filed by the respondent Union was beyond the period of limitation. Therefore, the Counsel would submit that these writ petitions, relying on the pleadings in the petitions and grounds raised therein, may be allowed. 2. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents invited my at...
Tag this Judgment!Shamsundar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2016
1. Heard both sides. 2. Both the appeals have arisen from the order of conviction dated 15/03/2012 passed by the learned Special Judge cum Assistant Sessions Judge, Nanded in Spl. (ACB) Case No.2/2008, for the offences punishable under section 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the respective appellants. 3. Both the appellants were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each. 4. The prosecution case in brief is as under: That appellant - Shamsundar was posted as P.S.I. while appellant - Balaji was posted as a Constable at Mudkhed Police Station during the relevant period. On 20/7/2007, the appellants had seized country liquor bottles from the house of complainant PW1 - Raosaheb Ramrao Deshmukh of village Chikala, Taluka -Mudkhed. Complainant was arrested and was kept in the cell of the Police station. Friend of complainant, namely, Sanjay Ingole came to meet the complainant in the lock-up. At th...
Tag this Judgment!Ila Rohit Sanghvi and Others Vs. Dr. Pankaj Champaklal Gandhi and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
1. These two Chamber Summonses concern the right of an obstructionist to a property attached in execution. Chamber Summons No.395 of 2004 is taken out by the decree-holder for removal of obstruction to the execution of a money decree passed in a Summary Suit and for delivery of possession of the flat purportedly owned by the judgment debtor to the receiver in execution, whilst the other chamber summons, namely, chamber summons No.1195 of 2004, is taken out by the obstructionist for removal of attachment in respect of the suit flat. The obstructionist is the wife of the original Defendant and judgment debtor. The two chamber summonses involve essentially the right of the obstructionist to raise an obstruction to the attachment. 2. The case of the obstructionist may be briefly narrated as follows (The reference to 'Plaintiff' includes his predecessor in title): (i) Prior to 1984, that is, prior to the Defendant's marriage to the obstructionist, the former was part of an HUF comprising of...
Tag this Judgment!Vidya Rambhaji Ambhore Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secret ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, by the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This Petition is filed with the following prayers: (B) By issuing writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions in the like nature to quash and set-aside the impugned order dated 22/24.12.2014 passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting proposal of petitioner for approval as Shikshan Sevak in respondent No.4 School run by respondent No.3 institution. (C) By issuing writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions in the like nature to direct respondent No.2 to grant approval of petitioner as Shikshan Sevak pursuant to appointment order dated 09.08.2012 and further direct the respondent No.2 to 4 to pay Rs. 8000/- per month as Honorarium to petitioner from her date of joining onwards. 3. The brief facts leading for filing this Writ Petition are that, the Respondent No.2 by its order dated 1st October, 2010 appointed Deputy...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Baban Sawant Vs. Surekha Keru Pimparkar @ Surekha A. Sawant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
1. In view of the inter related controversies involved, it would be appropriate if all the petitions and the civil applications therein, are disposed of by this common judgment and order. Accordingly, Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. In all these petitions, challenge is to various orders made by the Family Court at Thane in Marriage Petition No.188 of 2005 instituted by the respondent wife against the petitioner husband. This is yet another reason as to why, it is appropriate all these petitions and the civil applicators made therein are disposed of by this common judgment and order. 3. In the writ petition No.20 of 2014, the challenge is to the order dated 21 November 2013 made by the Family Court, declining to condone delay in instituting a review petition against the order dated 9 June 2008, by which, the petitioner, was directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent wife and Rs.1,500/-...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »