Mumbai Court March 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.
Sandip Mrunmoy Chakrabarty Vs. Krishna Sandip Chakrabarty and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. By this application, the applicant is challenging the order dated 2nd April 2014, by which the application (Exh.17) filed by the present applicant in Misc. Application No.68/2014 has been dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Cantonment Court, Pune. 3. The brief facts are that the applicant and Mrs.Reshita Sandip Chakrabarty (original applicant No.1 before the Magistrate) are husband and wife. The present respondent Krishna Sandip Chakrabarty aged 11 years (original applicant No.2 before the Magistrate) is the son of the applicant. It appears that Mrs.Reshita Chakrabarty, the wife of the applicant has filed Misc. Application No.68/2014 before the Magistrate under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ("the said Act" for short) for various reliefs. In so far as present application is concerned, the material relief is as regard...
Anil (Vidyarthi) and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra Represented by t ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This Full Bench has been constituted to answer the following question:- Whether a remedy of election dispute under Section 16 of the said Act or Section 21 of the said Act of 1965 is available to a voter who is entitled to vote in General Ward Elections for challenging the election/nomination of a nominated Councillor? 2. Some facts necessary for the purpose of a decision on the question and the backdrop of the reference be noted now. 3. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 11278 of 2012 had been an elected Councillor of the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and completed his tenure of five years from 2007 to 2012. He claims that he is eligible as well as qualified for being nominated as a Councillor, in terms of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation (Qualifications and Appointment of Nominated Councillors) Rules, 2012. Apart from impleading the State of Maharashtra, the Corporation, Mayor/Presiding Officer, the Petitioner therein has impleaded Respondent Nos. ...
Manohar and Others Vs. Ramesh and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree 16th March 2013 passed by the learned District Judge9 Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 589/2012, setting aside the judgment decree dated 4.9.2004 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No. 707/1995, the present Appeal has been filed by the appellants /original defendants in this Court. 2. At the time of admission, this Court had observed thus in last paragraph of its order dated 27th November, 2013:- Considering the fact that the dispute between the parties is going on since the year 1992, it would be appropriate that final hearing of the Appeal is expedited and it is accordingly expedited. 3. On the basis of the said order, an early hearing Application was filed. Accordingly, this Court had grated early hearing of the Appeal by order dated 7th August, 2014. When the Appeal was called out for final hearing on 13th August 2014, Shri K.K. Pillai Advocate for respondent no.1 (wr...
Royal Carrier and Courier Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. The State of Mahara ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
Oral Judgment: (R.M. Borde, J.) 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, petitions are taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3. Petitioners are transporters operating passenger vehicles on the routes prescribed under the Reciprocal Agreement entered into between the State of Maharashtra and the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Reciprocal Transport Agreement has been entered into between the two states on 1st March, 2007, primarily for prescribing the agreed routes in regard to operation of the stage carriage services. The agreement also prescribes tax on passengers leviable under the Bombay Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passenger) Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1958') which will be on the basis of 70% load factor of seating capacity of the passenger vehicle. According to petitioners, it is not permissible for the State to levy and demand passenger tax at the rate of 70% of load factor of seating capacity of the passenger tr...
The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Ramchandra Sambhaji Karanjule ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
Anuja Prabhudessai, J. 1. These appeals challenge the impugned the judgment and order dated 21.3.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 688 of 2011, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted the Respondents in Appeal No. 896 of 2015 and convicted and sentenced the Appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 416 of 2013, 426 of 2013, 452 of 2013, 508 of 2013, 528 of 2013 and 600 of 2013 as under:- Ac. No.Name of accusedChargedFor offenceunder sectionsConvicted for offence and sentence.Acquitted for offence S. 302302 r/w.s. 23 of JJ Act.Death S. 3077 Yrs RI and fineRs.2000 i/d 3 months S I S.376 (2)(c)Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000 i/d 1 yr.SI S. 376 (2) (g)Life imprisonment fine of Rs.5000 i/d 1 yr. SI S. 37710 years RI fine of 3000 i/d 6 months SI 1RamchandraSambhajiKaranjuleS. 3243 years RI and fine ofRs. 1000 i/d. 1 month SIS. 376 (2) (c) r/w.s.109 r/w. 34, 467, 468,471 r/w.s. 34 of the IPC2NanabhauLaxmanKaranjuleS.354 oft...
Janab Pir Sultashah Sadar Bhandari Mutawalli Vs. Shamshadbi Adam Shaik ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
1. Revision is admitted. Notice after admission made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal. 2. The proceeding is filed against the judgment and order of Waqf Suit No. 64/2009, which was pending before the Waqf Tribunal, Aurangabad. The suit was filed by respondent No. 1 - Smt. Shamshadbi to challenge the decision given by the Chief Officer of the Waqf Board in Case No. 54/22/2008. That proceeding was started on the basis of application made by present petitioner for taking action u/s. 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995. It is the case of petitioner that he is Mutawalli of Waqf institution and the property belongs to waqf institution. Prayer was made to remove the encroachment of the plaintiff of the suit from Survey No. 51/3 situated at Ankali, Tahsil Miraj, District Sangli. After giving notices to both the sides, inquiry was held by Chief Officer. The plaintiff had filed written arguments before the Chief Officer, but she did not produce the record to substan...
The Maharashtra State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. All these petitions have been admitted by this Court. Considering the nature of the dispute and taking into account that the respondent-employees had given an undertaking before the Cooperative Court, interim relief was not granted in these matters. 2. The petitioner in all these petitions is the State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. The deceased Respondent No.1 in the first petition and the respondents in the other three petitions are identically placed. Considering the common issues involved in these matters, all these matters have been taken up together for hearing, by consent of the parties. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the identical judgment delivered by the Cooperative Court, Nanded dated 07.05.1990 and the judgment delivered by the Cooperative Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai dated 15.10.1993. 4. Mr. Shelke, learned Counsel for the petitioner-management submits as under:- (a) The respondents were working with the petitioner since around 1963...
Mallappa Shivling Nndani Vs. Bhushan Prakash Risbud and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
1. By this second appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the appellant (original defendant) has impugned the oral judgment delivered on 29th November, 2012 by the Principal District Judge, Sangli (hereinafter referred to as the lower appellate Court ), allowing the appeal filed by the respondents herein (original plaintiffs) and thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Miraj on 25th January, 2006 dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs and has decreed the said suit. The lower appellate Court has also granted permanent injunction against the appellant (original defendant) from disturbing the possession of the respondents herein over the suit property. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this judgment are described as they were described in the proceedings before the learned trial Judge. 2. By an order dated 10th June, 2015, passed by this Court, this Court has formulated two substantial que...
Dilip Trimbak Alve and Another Vs. The Chief Officer, Margao Municipal ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
1. Heard. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. By this writ petition, the legality and correctness of the order dated 03/09/2014 passed by the Goa Municipalities Appellate Tribunal in Municipal Appeal No.67/2014 is challenged. Facts of the case, in so far as they are relevant for adjudicating upon the challenge involved in this petition are stated in brief as under : The case of the petitioners is that they are the owners of shop bearing No.14/482 situated at New Market, Margao, Goa which is under occupation of the respondent no.3 and in this shop, the respondent no.3 has, without any permission from the petitioners or the respondent no.1 Municipal Council, made some illegal construction/ repairs. According to the petitioners, the works carried out by the respondent no.3 in the shop qualify to be termed as construction of a building as contemplated under Section 184 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968 (the Act, 1968, for short). The petitioners, on notici...
Babasaheb Vs. Jayshree and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
1. By the present petition, the petitioner - husband questions legality and validity of the order dated 31st October, 2014, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, in Criminal Misc. Application No.45 of 2013, whereby the application preferred by the respondent - wife for restoration of maintenance proceedings, which had been dismissed in default, came to be allowed. 2. Facts, as are necessary for decision of the present petition, are as under :- Respondent no.1 claimed to have married to the petitioner and has given birth to child, namely, Sakshi - respondent no.2. In view of indifferences between the parties, the proceedings seeking maintenance were initiated before the Family Court, Aurangabad. The said proceedings came to be dismissed in default for absence of respondent no.1 Jayshree. Respondent no.1 thereafter filed application for restoration before the Family Court, which was strenuously objected by petitioner Babasaheb by filing reply, refuting the cause for restor...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »