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.
Village Panchayat at Veling Priol-Cuncoliem Vs. Ashok Raghu Naik
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-03-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. It is the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the application compositely filed by invoking the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 9 of C.P.C. has been rejected on grounds not at all germane to the issue involved. He further submits that it was nobody's case that the attorney of the petitioner did not act in good faith. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent pointed out that the use of word "Attorney" is a mistake on the part of the learned Civil Judge and she should have referred to the word "Administrator" because the paragraph 1 of the application states that the Administrator of the petitioner acted illegally, when the lease of the subject shop was granted to the respondent. 4. Whatever might be the case, the fact remains, and it can be seen from the impugned orders that the reason that it is the own case of the petitioner/defendant that some of its Age...
Fr. Ralin De Souza and Another Vs. Goa Basketball Association, Through ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-03-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks leave of the Court to delete respondent no. 2. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent no. 1 has no objection. Leave is granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. By this Writ Petition, the petitioners have challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 26.02.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Panaji in Regular Civil Suit No. 33/2015/D, thereby allowing the amendment application (Exhibit-30) under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. filed by respondent no. 1. 4. It is the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order ignores the fundamental principles of law, which govern the discretion of the Court in the matter of amendment of pleadings. He submits that although there is a power given to the Court to allow the amendment of pleadings, it cannot be exercised when the amendment sought change...
Shambabu Lathujisingh Yadav Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.790 of 2011 convicting the appellant of an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. There were two accused in the said case. The appellant was the accused No.1 therein. The accused No.2 one Kamarali has been acquitted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. 2. The prosecution case, as put forth before the trial Court, in brief, be stated thus: The appellant, one Atahussain Mohd. Hassan Shaikh (PW1) and his cousin Arif Shaikh Mohd. Hanif Shaikh (PW6) are all Ice Cream vendors, who carry on their business in the area near Gate of India. There were some disputes between them which arose over the business rivalry and in connection with the disparity in the price of the ice-cream that used to be...
Vijesh Chawla Vs. Jacob Verghese
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Having regard to the nature of the challenge raised, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 26-11-2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, by which order, the Revision Application filed by the Petitioner came to be rejected and resultantly the order dated 4-7-2014 passed by the Competent Authority in Application No.25 of 2013 came to be confirmed. 3. It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary details considering the directions to be issued. Suffice it would be to state that the Petitioner herein was the Respondent in Application No.25 of 2013 filed by the Respondent herein under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short the said Act) for possession of the suit premises in question. The said application was founded on the fact that there was a Leave and Licence Agreement entered nto between the parties on 10-12-1994 for the period comme...
Bharat and Another Vs. Rajkumar and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-03-2016
1. The appeal is filed by owner of the vehicle against the judgment and award of Claim Petition No.29 of 2009 which was pending before the Claim Tribunal Nilanga. As the insurance company is exonerated, it is not asked to indemnify the owner, the owner has challenged the decision. Heard both sides. 2. The accident took place on 4-6-2008. Deceased Priyanka was aged about 14 years and she was daughter of claimant Nos.1 and 2. It is contended that at the relevant time the deceased was present in the truck-tanker bearing No.MH-11/A-5498 as the employee and she was proceeding to the place of work. The tanker was being used for carrying tar. The tanker turned turtle and Priyanka died in the accident. In claim petition filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act compensation of Rs.2.5 lakh was claimed against the driver, owner and insurance company of aforesaid vehicle. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,84,500/- on the principle of fault but the insurance company is exonerat...
Hind Finance Industries and Investment Limited Vs. Vinayakrao and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-02-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This Court on 5th September, 2005 framed the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the renewal of the licence under the Bombay Money Lenders Act is required to be obtained before the date of advancing of the loan? 2. Whether subsequent renewal of licence under the Bombay Money Lenders Act specifically covering under the date on which the loan was advanced is enough compliance? 3. Whether in respect of the suit on a mortgage, licence under Bombay Money Lenders Act is required? 2. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.9.1996, passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati and confirmed by order dated 1.3.2002, passed by the 2nd Adhoc, Additional District Judge, Amravati, in Regular Civil Appeal No.378/2000. 3. In support of the appeal Mr. V.G. Bhonsule, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that renewal of licence under the Money Lenders Act is on an application to be filed for renewal thereof every year ...
Nariman Point Churchgate Citizens Welfare Trust and Others Vs. The Sta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-2016
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) FACTS OF THE CASE 1. The submissions were heard on the earlier date. This Petition concerns a plot of land known as Jawaharlal Nehru Garden located to the north of Madame Cama Road, adjoining Mantralaya, Mumbai. The said plot of land is in the prime area of South Mumbai. In the Development Plan sanctioned under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short MRTP Act ) in the year 1967, the plot of land subject matter of this Petition (for short the said land ) was shown in green zone. In the subsequent sanctioned Development Plan (1981-2001), the same is reserved as a Recreational Ground (for short RG ). The issue concerns the structures which are in possession of the Respondent Nos.4 to 9 which are situated on the said land. The first prayer in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the demolition and removal of all encroachments and structures constructed on the said land ...
Anil Laxman Hichami Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-02-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. By the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, in S.C. No. 06 of 2012 dated 30.09.2013, by which he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Consequent to the conviction, the appellant is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. We have heard Advocate Mir Nagman Ali for the appellant and Shri V.A. Thakare, learned APP for the State. With their able assistance we have gone through in detail the record and proceedings and also the notes of evidence with a view to re-appreciate the entire prosecution case. 3. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that though there are two written dy...
Saraswati Sopan Tanpure and Others Vs. The Superintendent, Zillha Krus ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-02-2016
Oral Judgment : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The issue raised by the petitioners-employees is as to - 'whether the grant of permanency by the Industrial Court with arrears and all monetary benefits, would also include payment of wages for the period during which the petitioners had not worked and had not earned their wages?' 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the Labour Court dated 11.07.2014 by which Application IDA No. 2/2006 seeking recovery of money due from an employer, has been dismissed. 4. Mr. Shelke, learned Counsel for the petitioners strenuously criticizes the impugned judgment of the Labour Court. He contends that these petitioners were parties to Complaint ULP Nos. 218/1992 and 15/1997 which were filed before the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar through their union viz. Ahmednagar Zillha Shetmajoor Union, Shrirampur under the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. These complaints were allowed by the Indus...
Vasant Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-02-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. The present appeal is directed against judgment and order of conviction dated 17.1.2013 in Sessions Trial No.199 of 2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge-12, Nagpur. By the impugned judgment, appellant Vasant Bhalavi is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The appellant is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and on that count it is directed that he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and, in default of payment fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for two months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under : From the night hours of 1.2.2012 to 10:00 hours of 2.2.2012, at police station Sonegaon, Shri Vishwas Subhash Jadhav (PW 9), Polic...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »