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.
Shailesh J. Padh Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
1. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 10th December 2015 passed by the respondent no.1-Assistant Charity Commissioner below Exhibit-34 filed by the petitioner herein requesting the Assistant Charity Commissioner to keep present scheme application proceeding in abeyance till disposal of change report No.450 of 2008. 2. The petitioner claims to be one of the trustees of Shreeji Education Trust, a Public Charitable Trust which was registered on 8th September 1971 and was established for various charitable purposes. On 3rd June 2008, the respondent no.6 had filed a Change Report No.2450 of 2008. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had not attended any purported meeting of the purported Board of Trustees on 2nd April 2008. The respondent no.6 subsequently withdrew certain change reports on 5th May 2008 by which the names of Vasant Chavan, Rajani Bhavke and Sachin Yadav had been add...
Moreshwar and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. These two appeals filed by original accused nos. 1 and 3 take exception to the Judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, dt.7.1.2013 in Sessions Case No.106 of 2011 thereby convicting them for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w. Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The prosecution story in brief, as could be gathered from the material placed on record, is thus : Waman Bhiwapure (PW-4), a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Thutra, received an information on 21.4.2011 that the dead body of unknown person was lying on the road side. As such, he went to the spot, saw the dead body and informed about the same to Police Station, Gadchandur vide report at Exh.53. Accordingly, A.D. No.9/2011, u/s. 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be registered. P.S....
Jawedkhan @ Tingrya and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
Indira K. Jain, J. These three appeals arise out of judgment and order passed on 24th January, 2012 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.463 of 2009. By the said judgment and order Accused No.1 Jawedkhan, Accused No.2 Pradip Chandaliya and Accused No.3 Ram Bodkhe were convicted and sentenced for various offences as under : Accused No.1 Jawedkhan: Conviction under SectionSentence456Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.300/- in default Simple Imprisonment for ten days.457Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.300/- in default Simple Imprisonment for ten days.458Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.300/- in default Simple Imprisonment for ten days.392 read with397Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.300/- in default Simple Imprisonment for ten days.302Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.300/- in default Simple Imprisonment for ten days. 376 Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.3...
Rameshwar Vs. State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary of Rural Dev ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
Oral Judgment:(B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) Heard finally with consent of parties by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. 1. Petitioner presently about 43 years old and a qualified Laboratory Technician in employment of respondent No.3-Zilla Parishad incurred disability (low vision) in 2010 while in employment. The extent of disability is 40%. 2. Proposal to shift the petitioner to a post equivalent in all respects i.e. Extension Officer (Panchayat) was mooted in 2010 and was submitted to State Government. Record shows that on 12th May, 2015 Office of the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati demanded certain clarification from respondent No.3 and it has been furnished on 19.10.2015. The respondent No.3 has pointed out that post of Extension Officer (Panchayat) in open category is lying vacant for direct recruitment. It is also pointed out that qualifications of petitioner are sufficient to enable him to occupy that post. The Chief Executive Officer has expressly mentioned that a po...
Bhagirath Vs. Vithal and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-07-2016
Oral Order: 1. The present application is under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In alternate, it is prayed that the present application be treated as an appeal against acquittal, in view of the provisions of section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Facts, as are necessary for decision of present matter, are as under:- The present applicant Bhagirath claims to have filed Regular Civil Suit No.46 of 2011 for permanent injunction against respondents, in relation to certain agricultural land, which is pending on the file of Civil Judge Junior Division, Shrirampur. In the suit, respondents herein filed their written statement at Exh.28 and in paragraph 38 of the same, it is claimed that since 2008 wife of the plaintiff-applicant herein, namely, Suvarna, is a director of Janseva Rural Non-Agricultural Credit Cooperative society, Belapur (for short society ). It is further claimed in the written statement that the ...
Dhaku Sonu Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2016
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-original accused no.1 against the judgment and order dated 1.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad in Sessions Case No.148 of 2009. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under: (i) Deceased Chandrakant was the husband of PW 1 Tulsabai. Gangubai was the sister of Tulsabai. The appellant is the husband of Gangubai. Tulsabai along with her husband Chandrakant and Gangubai along with her husband Dhaku were working on the brick-kiln of PW 4 Ganesh Shelke. There were about 12 to 13 couples working on brick-kiln of Ganesh Shelke. PW 2 Ram and PW 3 Krishna alias Kisan were also working on the brick-kiln of Ganesh Shelke. For residential purposes, all the workers were allotted one hut each in the premises of the brick-kiln. ...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Through Arjun H. Jaiswar Vs. W ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2016
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. 3. Rule is made returnable forthwith with consent of both parties. 4. This writ petition questions the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 16.5.2011, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Criminal Revision Application No.1257 of 2010, thereby quashing the process issued against respondents herein, for the offence punishable under Section 475A(1)(a) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, by Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 39th Court, Parle, Mumbai, in Criminal Case No.6759/SS of 2010. 5. Facts of the writ petition are to the effect that respondent Nos 1 to 3, are the owners of the property i.e. building bearing No.51, Malang Prasad, Liberty Garden Road No.1, Malad (West), Mumbai. On 1st June, 2010, Junior Engineer P North ward of Mumbai Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay, inspected the premises of respondents and found that the structure of the building was in a ruinous condition. It wa...
Saudagar Dagadu Rokade Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2016
P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and the learned APP for the Respondent - State. 2. By this Application, the Applicant seeks his enlargement on bail in connection with C.R.No.168 of 2015 registered with the Karmala Police Station, District - Solapur, for the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The Applicant, aged 77, is the husband of the deceased. The Complainant is the son of the deceased. He has alleged in the FIR, that the deceased who was his step-mother would regularly quarrel with all members of the family. He has stated that on 29.06.2015 at around 11.00 a.m. his father (the Applicant) was quarreling with his step-mother. He has stated that the Applicant was trying to make his step-mother understand, however, she started abusing him. He has stated that when he returned home in the evening, he saw his step-mother lying still in an injured condition. He has stated that when he asked her as to what had happened, she disclosed to...
Sahebrao Gulabrao Dhamale, Since deceased through legal heirs and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. By this petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioners are challenging the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, acquiring the Petitioners' land bearing Gat No. 554 of village Patas, taluka Daund, district Pune. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners that the land was acquired for the rehabilitation of the displaced persons of Panshet Dam. It is submitted that provisions of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 will apply and under the said Act only 8 acres of a family unit could be acquired. It is submitted that the property in question was partitioned and each brother became owner of one-third share, out of the said land. It is submitted that after the death of Karta of the family, i.e. Gulabrao Dhamale, the property was partitioned and each brother got separate share. It is submitted that 80 Ares land was acquired and the mutati...
Shivayya Marihal Vs. Inspector General of Prisons and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-07-2016
K.L. Wadane, J. 1. Heard Ms. G. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Mahesh Amonkar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-Respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, waives service on behalf of the Respondents. 3. This Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner for his release on furlough for a period of 28 days. The case of the Petitioner is that he is a life convict and has already completed ten years of his imprisonment and has always maintained good conduct during his confinement in prison. The Petitioner is also physically disabled and suffers from 100% ophthalmic disability (total blindness). The Petitioner had earlier applied for furlough and was released. After completion of the leave period, the Petitioner surrendered himself. 4. By an application dated 26.06.2015 addressed to the Respondent No.1, the Petitioner applied for release on furlough for 28 days to visit his...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »