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.
Uday Shivram Patane Vs. Vijayrao Kondiram Borawake and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. 3. Rule made returnable forthwith. 4. By this petition, the original complainant is challenging the judgment and order dated 7th March, 2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, in Criminal Revision Application No.131 of 2010. By the impugned order, the Revisional Court, has quashed the process issued against respondents, by Judicial Magistrate First Class, 5th Court, Satara,in Criminal Case No.77 of 2007, by its order dated 7th May, 2010, for the offence punishable under Sections 403 406, 309, 167, 120(b), 418, 468 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Brief facts of the petition are to the effect that as per petitioner, he was working as Assistant Manager of Yeshwantrao Co-operative Bank, Phaltan. However, he has been dismissed from service on the allegations of misappropriation against him. Thereafter offence has also been registered against him and suit No.888 of 1997, was filed against him by at Co-opera...
Gopinath Naik Vs. State of Goa and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-17-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that a joint application filed by the petitioner, who was being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of I.P.C., and the victims of crime, for compounding of the offences, was not completely granted and that the Appellate Court allowed the compounding of the offence punishable under Section 338 of I.P.C. and refused to grant permission to compound the offence punishable under Section 279 of I.P.C. on the ground that this offence is non-compoundable under the provisions of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on legal grounds, the order cannot be said to be absolutely erroneous as under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., the offence punishable under Section 279 of I.P.C. is not compoundable. But, now the law is clear and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another; 2012...
Omprakash Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-17-2016
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 99 of 2012 on 7th March 2013 recorded a finding of guilt against the appellant in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Rameshwar @ Ramu and consequently, he ordered sufference of life imprisonment by the appellant and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/by him and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The appellant is before this Court and has questioned the correctness and legality of the said judgment. A. THE PROSECUTION CASE : 2. During the course of trial, the prosecution has unfolded its case which is narrated hereunder : Deepak Walvi (PW 12) on 11.11.2011 was duty officer at Police Station, Dhantoli, Nagpur. On the said day at about 06.45 pm, one person holding axe in his hand which was smeared with blood, came to Police Station. Deepak Walvi made enquiries with him. He disclosed his name as Omprakash Gayaram Nirma...
Sumeet Gupta Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. With the consent of parties, petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner herein is appellant in Criminal Appeal No.757 of 2015, which he has preferred against his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In th said appeal, he has preferred Misc. Application No.2333 of 2015, for suspension of imprisonment of three months. While allowing said application, learned Sessions Judge after hearing both counsel, directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.10 lacs before the trial Court, within a period of six weeks from the date of order. Subject to this condition the sentence of the appellant came to be suspended. 4. Now the submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that amount which Sessions Court has directed the petitioner to deposit that of Rs.10 lacs is quite exorbitant. It is as good as depriving the petitioner from his right of appeal. Total amount ...
Joel Avelino Noronha and Another Vs. Francisco Xavier Estanislaus Mira ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-17-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged legality and correctness of the order dated 15/07/2015 passed by Principal District Judge, South Goa, whereby, by invoking power under Section 32(4) of Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (the Rent Act, for short), the proceedings of Rent Appeal No.35/2013 have been directed to be stopped with a further direction to the petitioners to put the respondents in possession of the suit premises. 3. Petitioner no.2, according to the respondents, is their tenant and petitioner no.1 has been inducted as subtenant by petitioner no.2 without any permission from the respondents. The respondents, therefore, launched eviction proceedings against both the petitioners and during the pendency of these proceedings, an application under Section 32(4) of the Rent Act came to be filed by the respondents contending that the petiti...
Shamim Saifuddin Sarkhot Vs. Jugraj Miyachand Jain and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-17-2016
Oral: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. With consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing before admission. 3. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shrivardhan, on 19.12.2015, thereby directing the petitioner to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/ due to the State and compensation of Rs. 2,82,500/- due to the respondent No.1, within 30 days from the date of order and further directed to issue a warrant to Collector, upon failure on the part of the petitioner to comply with the directions. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is illegal as the petitioner is only legal heir of the original accused and secondly petitioner has received property on the basis of will executed by original accused. It is, therefore, the self acquired property of the petitioner and the petitioner is not liable either to pay fine amount or compensation. 5. The impugned order of the trial ...
Namdeo Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Home Depar ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-17-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition takes exception to the Judgment and Oder dated 24th September, 2014, passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in Original Application No.354/2014, and also the order dated 20th November, 2014, issued by the Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prison, Maharashtra State, Pune, thereby cancelling the appointment / promotion order of the petitioner on the post of Jailor Grade-II. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, by the impugned order dated 20.11.2014, issued by the respondent No.2, thereby the promotion order of the petitioner from the post of Jail Guard to Jailor Grade-II has been cancelled abruptly without giving any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing. The petitioner herein was not party to the Original Application No. 354/2014 [Chandrakant Rambhau Sangale Vs. The Additional Director General of Police and the Inspector General of Prisons], decided on 24th September, 2014, by the MAT, Mumb...
Dr. Vikas Vasantrao Motewar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-2016
P.C. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties the petition is taken on board for final hearing. Heard the counsel. 2. Respondent No.2 is the owner of Flat No.6-B/602, Alica Nagar, Building No.6, CHS Ltd., Lokhandwala Township, Kandivali (E), Mumbai. She had given the premises on Leave and Licence basis to the petitioner, who had continued in the premises despite expiry of the agreement. He had on account of certain personal difficulties locked the premises and gone to his native place for about seven months. When he returned on 4th April, 2014 he found that the lock of his door was broken and was replaced by a new lock. He then tried to lodge compliant with Samata Nagar Police Station, but his complaint was recorded as a N.C. complaint. On 8th April, 2014 he filed a detailed written complaint with the same police station alleging illegal dispossession from the flat and theft of gold and silver ornaments and important documents. The police had interrogated some...
Raghunath Kondiba Devkar Vs. Suresh Shrichand Nanwani and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-2016
P.C. 1. By this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the applicant who is an accused in SCC/654/2000 has challenged the impugned orders dated 1st October, 2003 and 6th November 2003, whereby the learned Magistrate and the Revisional Court rejected his request to recall of process under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 2. The brief facts necessary to decide this application are as under : The respondent no.1 had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the applicant herein had issued four cheques of Rs.50,000/- each towards refund of security deposit. One of the cheques dated 10th October, 1999 was dishonoured. The statutory notice issued by the respondent no.1 complainant had returned with a postal endorsement "Not Claimed despite intimation". Since the cheque amount was not paid, the respondent no.1 complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The applicant herein, apparently in view of the judgment of...
Commissioner of Income Tax -21, Mumbai Vs. Skyline Great Hills
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-2016
1. This Appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 8th May 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The Assessment Year involved is A.Y. 2009-10. 2. The Revenue urges the following questions of law for our consideration: "(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made u/s 2(22)(e) relying on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT v. Hill Top, 217 CTR 527 (Raj.), when the facts of the instant case are different from those of the latter case ? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 28,41,34,500 being business income in the guise of security deposit received by the Respondent fir, as the latter had already transferred its rights of ownership by way of irrevocable covenant as also received the entire consideration by way of securit...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »