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.
Narayan Ramchandra Patil and Others Vs. Babasaheb Mahadeo Patil and An ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2016
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, by consent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. As all these three Writ Petitions take an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 28th March 2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Criminal Revision Petition No.277 of 2010, Criminal Revision Petition No.278 of 2010 and Criminal Revision Petition No.2 of 2012, respectively, they are being decided by this common order. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli, on 14th December 2010 of issuing process against the Petitioners and other co-accused for the various offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 463, 465, 468 and 472 r/w. 34 of IPC. 3. Brief facts of the Petitions are as follows:- Respondent No.1 herein is the Original Complainant, who was working as Branch Manager at Sangli District Primary Teachers Cooperative Bank Limited. Some of the Petitioners are the Members of the Managin...
Sunil Maruti Padval Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2016
1. The appellants herein are the original accused No.1 and 3 respectively in Sessions Case No.215 of 2006. The appellant are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years and fine of Rs.3,000/- each in default further R.I. for one year They are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.500/- each. The accused No.1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 366-A of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to pay fine, to undergo further R.I. for 2 months by the learned Sessions Judge, Pune, vide judgment and order dated 19.7.2008. 2. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows :- (a) On 20.11.2005 at about 8 p.m., the prosecutrix, who happened to be 15 years old, had been to Chaitanya Stationary Shop at Poud Road for p...
N. Sujata and Others Vs. Sarat Srikanta Mahanta and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-07-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. On 30.03.2015, this Court issued notice for final disposal of the matter. The Respondents are served. Shri A.J.Pophaly, the learned counsel appears for respondent No.3 and Shri J.A.Anthony, the learned counsel appears for respondent No.6. None appeared for other respondents. In view of the fact that the notice for final disposal of the matter was issued, it is not necessary to issue fresh notice to the Respondents who are not present before this Court. Hence, Admit. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 3 and 6 waives service of notice. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. In M.A.C.P. No. 122 of 2008, decided on 22.09.2014, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur, passed an award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, holding the owner of the jeep bearing registration No. MH-34-D-2034 liable to pay the amount of Rs.27,21,800/- inclusive of 'no fault liability' together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date...
Central Bank of India Vs. Anil Puranmal Bansal and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2016
1. Admit. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties heard forthwith. 2. The revisionary jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 24/10/2015 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court in Appeal No.351 of 2009 and Appeal No.61 of 2009 in Misc. Notice No.4705 of 2004 in RAE and R Suit No.1486/4851 of 1983. ( Misc. Notice No.4705 of 2004 is herein after for brevities sake referred to as the Misc.Notice ). By the said order the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court has held that the Application being the Misc. Notice No.4705 of 2004 filed by the Respondents herein is within limitation. The parties would be referred to as per their nomenclature in the Suit i.e. the Respondents as Plaintiffs and the Applicant as the Defendant. 3. The factual matrix involved in the above Civil Revision Application can be stated thus: The Respondents herein i.e. the Plaintiffs are the owners and landlords of the premises i.e. Block Nos. 7A and 7B on the 7th fl...
Shankar V. Talpe Vs. Union of India through Ministry of Finance and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2016
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. We are inclined to dispose of the present writ petition at the stage of admission itself, as we have noted, after going through the documents placed on record and submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, that for opting the family pension scheme the Petitioner was required to submit the option on 20 November 2010. The Petitioner appears to have submitted such option before the stipulated date. There is a letter on record to show that Respondent No.5 had already intimated the same to Respondent No.3 on 30 August 2010 also referring to the contribution made towards the pension fund by the Petitioner, along with other optees, who joined the pension scheme in terms of the Bipartite settlement dated 27 April 2010. There is an acknowledgement on record of the branch office of Respondents dated 30 August 2010 of the same. There are further document...
ICICI Bank Limited Vs. Unimers India Limited and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2016
1. A Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 25th August 2015 expressed an opinion that the following questions should be decided by a larger Bench of this Court. The said three questions read thus: (i) Whether a debenture trustee suing on behalf of the debenture-holder for recovery of sums payable to the debenture-holder can file a suit on the original side of this Court since suit is for recovery of the debt? (ii) Whether such proceedings can be initiated by the debenture-trustee before the Debt Recovery Tribunal? (iii) Whether the judgment in the case of Krishna Filaments (supra) would be applicable to the facts of the present case and whether there is any difference of opinion between two judgments which are delivered by two Division Benches of this Court? 2. The Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice by order dated 6th October 2015 directed that the present Full Bench be constituted to decide the aforesaid questions. 3. Though Larger Bench cannot decide the factual controversy, for ...
Janu Bendu Wagh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. The appellant-original accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.11.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No.476 of 2011. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 for causing the death of his wife Manjula, under Section 326 for causing injuries to his brother Babu and under Section 325 for causing injuries to his nephew Kisan. For the offence under Section 302, the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- in default S.I. for five months. For the offence under Section 326, the appellant was sentenced to R.I. for five years and fine of Rs.3000/- in default S.I. for three months and for the offence under Section 325, the appellant was sentenced to R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.2000/- in default S.I. for two months. The learned Sessions Judge directed that all the substantive sentences sha...
Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran Vs. Adinath Devappa Magdum
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. By this writ petition filed under under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has impugned the order dated 28th July, 2015 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Pune thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 30th November, 2012 and restraining the petitioner herein from making any recovery pursuant to the said impugned notice issued by the petitioner. 2. The respondent was appointed as a Tracer with the Kolhapur office of the petitioner by an order dated 4th September, 1985. It is the case of the petitioner that by an office order dated 2nd June, 1987, the respondent along with three other Tracers came to be exempted from passing the departmental examination of Tracers due to the bona-fide mistake on the part of the petitioner in applying Rule 8(C) and (D) of the Regulations applicable to the respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of the said error alleged to have been committed by the pet...
Waverley Private Limited Vs. Diversey India Private Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally. 2. The Appellant (original Respondent) has challenged judgment dated 9 June 2015 by invoking Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Arbitration Act ). 3. The learned Judge, by impugned judgment/order, allowed Section 34 Application filed by the original Claimant/Respondent and passed the following order : The impugned award dated 4th May 2012 in so far as the issue of jurisdiction rendered in paragraph 17.1 (i) of the impugned award holding that the arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the claimant's claim for the sum of USD 37,505.60 claimed in the invoices listed in Annexure B of the request for Arbitration dated 20th July 2010 is set aside. Rest of the award is upheld. No order as to costs. At the request of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, operation of the order passed today is stayed for a period of two weeks from today. 4. The learned Judge has recorde...
Ganesh Pandurang Jadhao and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Throu ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
A.V. Nirgude, J. 1. All these Criminal Applications and Criminal Writ Petitions are taken up for final hearing by consent of all the parties, and since the point raised in all these cases is more or less similar, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For the purpose of disposal of the cases, we would utilise facts of Writ Petition No. 1027 of 2015 as representative. We understand that in most of the cases the facts are similar and the petitioners / applicants are similarly placed. 2. On 14th May, 2015, the petitioner was found transporting larg quantities of pouches of tobacco which is called 'Gutka' in common parlance, pouches of pan-masala in a truck. The truck was stopped by respondent no. 4, who is Food Safety Officer of Osmanabad district. He alleged that he not only seized the goods but even lodged a police complaint alleging that the petitioner had committed violation of Government Notification, dated 15th May, 2014, prohibiting certain acts pertaining to Gutka/Pan Masal...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »