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.
Zuberi Zahirullafaq Baquruddin Vs. The Maharashtra State Road Transpor ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard with the consent of the parties. 3. This Writ Petition is filed with following prayers: A) By a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, or order or directions in the like nature, the impugned notice dated 15.01.2015, issued by the respondent No.1 (annexed at Exhibit-E) may kindly be quashed and set aside. B) By a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, or order or directions in the like nature, the respondents be directed to accept the petitioner s validity certificate as belonging to Special Backward Category and absolve him from producing the validity certificate as Scheduled Caste. Brief facts for filing Writ Petition are as under: 4. It is the case of the petitioner that, he belongs to Mehtar caste, which is recognized as Scheduled Caste . At the relevant time, the petitioner obtained a certificate that, he belongs to Mehtar caste, on 27th September, 1990. It is further the case of the ...
Uday Ashok Dahanukar Vs. Amulya Avinash Dahanukar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2016
1. This petition by the original complainant challenges the order dated 03rd February, 2001 by which the Sessions Court allowed Revision Application No.646 of 2000 and set aside the order of issuance of process in Regular Criminal Case No.96 of 2000 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 409 Indian Penal Code against respondent no.1. The petition was filed on 10th April, 2001. By the order dated 7th March, 2002 notices were issued to the respondents and further proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.96 of 2000 were stayed. The petition was thereafter admitted on 23rd August, 2006 and the ad-interim stay continued. Thus, on the petitioner's own application, his complaint has been stayed for the last 14 years. 2. In the year 2000, the petitioner filed Complaint No.96 of 2000 against six persons out of which five are his family members alleging offences punishable under section 120B and 409 Indian Penal Code. The facts alleged by the petitioner are that, respondent no.2 was ...
Mahesh Zangoji Ghotekar Vs. Prayas Sakhare and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-18-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The dispute arising out of a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act, pertains to Plot No. 8, Khasra Nos. 62, 69, 71 and 87 of Mouza Ajani in the layout Uruvila Cooperative Housing Society, Wardha Road, Nagpur, which was owned by one Smt. Jasabai, the mother of the present applicant, the original plaintiff. The respondent no.2 Smt. Manjushri Prayas Sakhare is the daughter of Nivrutti, real brother of the plaintiff, and the respondent No.1 is her husband. In Special Civil Suit No. 104 of 2012 filed by the applicant-plaintiff, the respondents were joined as defendant nos. 1 and 2, as it was alleged that they have forcibly taken possession of the suit premises on 01.09.2011 and the suit was filed on 02.02.2012, which was during the period of limitation of six months, about which there is no dispute. 3. The applicant-plaintiff alleged that he was in actual possession of the suit...
Shivaji Vs. Jagdish
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2016
1. Heard both sides. 2. The parties in both the present appeals are common. Both the appeals have arisen out of the common trial and two different complaints for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were filed by the present appellant/ complainant as the cheques involved in these two appeals are of two different periods only. As the common issues have arisen in these proceedings, both the present appeals are being decided by this common judgment. 3. The appellant in both the cases came with a case that he is the proprietor of one Laxmi Fertilizers at Pathri. The respondent/accused is the proprietor of one Manoraj Krushi Sadhana at the same town. The respondent/accused regularly used to obtain on credit fertilizer, seeds, insecticides, etc. from the appellant. Eventually, an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- remained due from the respondent. The respondent promised to pay the same after March, 2000. In the circumstances, he issued eight cheques for an aggrega...
Shrikant Madhav Karve Vs. The Secretary (Parivahan IV) Ministry of Hom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2016
A.S. Oka, J. 1. The Petitioner appearing in person has raised important issues concerning implementation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the MV Act ) and the Rules framed thereunder. Shri A.Y. Sakhare, learned senior counsel and Shri Warunjikar, learned counsel who were appointed to espouse the cause of the Petitioner, while assisting the Court, have made detailed submissions. Certain submissions are also made by the Petitioner appearing in person. Shri S.K. Shinde, Special Government Pleader who represents the State has not taken adversarial stand and has assisted the Court. He has also made detailed submissions. 2. Under the MV Act, there are different categories of vehicles. In this Public Interest Litigation, the issues raised are mainly about the transport vehicles as defined under Subsection (47) of Section 2 of the MV Act. The main issue raised in this Public Interest Litigation is as regards the manner in which the transport vehicles are checked for...
Usha Offset Printers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bank of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2016
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have challenged the order dated 9th December, 2013 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (for short, the "DRAT") as well as the orders dated 19th September, 2008 and 27th September, 2005 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short, the "DRT") and the Recovery Officer respectively. In addition thereto, the Petitioners have also prayed for a direction against Respondent No. 2 to compensate the Petitioners monetarily in the sum of Rs. 73 crores. An additional prayer that is sought is for an appropriate writ directing the 1st Respondent Bank to accept an amount of Rs. 3.03 crores from the Petitioners as a One Time Settlement (for short, the "OTS") of all its outstanding dues and claims as mentioned in its letter dated 20th September, 2005 along with such interest and from such date as this Court may deem fit. This Writ Petition was admitted on 11th November, ...
Jahed Ilahi Khan Pathan Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard with the consent of the parties. 3. This Writ Petition takes exception to the impugned order dated 16.02.2015 passed by the Education Officer, declaring the petitioner surplus teacher from the respondent no. 3 school and holding him junior than the respondent nos. 4 and 5, and also to the impugned communication issued by the respondent no. 2 confirming the order dated 16.02.2015 by communication dated 06.06.2015. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that, he is serving in respondent no. 3 school. He is possessing qualification of S.S.C. D.Ed., and his date of birth is 5th July, 1970. The petitioner was appointed in the respondent no. 3 school on 01.11.1991, on clear, permanent and vacant post, after following due procedure. The Education Officer granted approval to his appointment, and he is permanent employee of the respondent no. 3. His service record is unblemished. Respondent no. 3 school is a recogni...
Surekha Sakharam Mohite Vs. Bhagwant Sakharam More and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2016
P.C. 1. This Revision Application is directed against the order dated 12th October, 2015 by which the Sessions Court, Kalyan dismissed Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2015 filed by the applicant against her conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and the sentence awarded to her. She is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days and pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- to respondent no.1. The reason for dismissal of the appeal is non-compliance with the order dated 28th January, 2015 passed on the application at Exhibit-4 directing the applicant to deposit 25% of the compensation amount i.e. Rs.1,50,000/- in Court for suspension of the substantive sentence. 2. Mr. Shah, the learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.1, in absolute fairness concedes that, the Appellate Court could not have dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the order of deposit. It could have only passed an order directing the applicant to surrender, to suffer the sent...
Raghunath S. Dixit (since deceased by his legal heirs Damodar R. Dixit ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-2016
1. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and decree dated 20 November 1997 made by the District Judge, Nashik dismissing the Petitioner's Regular Civil Suit No. 43 of 1986 seeking eviction of the Respondents from the suit premises. 2. The Petitionerslandlord, instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 43 of 1986 in the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division at Nashik (Trial Court), seeking eviction of the Respondents-tenants on various grounds, including inter alia default in payment of rent, unlawful sub-letting, change of user and reasonable and bonafide requirement. The Trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 13 April 1994, decreed the suit, inter alia, on the ground of unlawful sub-letting, reasonable and bonafide requirement and unauthorized change of user. In the Regular Civil Appeal No. 171 of 1994 instituted by the Respondents-tenants, the District Judge at Nashik (Appeal Court) has reversed the judgment and decree dated 13 April 1994 and dismissed the Regular Civ...
Gopaldas Kumandas Ved Vs. Dr. Ghevarchand G. Chordiya
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-17-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This matter was admitted on 12.02.1993. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 17.02.1992 by which the District Court, Jalgaon has allowed Civil Appeal No. 313/1985 filed by the respondent herein. Consequentially, the judgment and decree dated 01.02.1985 passed by the learned Trial Court was set aside and Regular Civil Suit No. 544/1981 filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed. 3. Mr. Shah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff has strenuously criticized the impugned judgment. 4. His contention is that the petitioner is a landlord and the owner of the suit premises. The respondent herein is the tenant. The petitioner filed a suit for possession over the suit property which is a double storeyed bunglow. The respondent-tenant was occupying the entire first floor and half of the ground floor. Another tenant occupied half of the ground floor. The said bunglow was let out to the respondent in 1968-69. The respondent bei...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »