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.
Devidas Laxman Pithe Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V.Mohta, J.) 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent, heard learned Counsel for the parties forthwith finally. 2. The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 19 November 2011 passed by the Respondent No.2-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Thane, whereby his caste claim Koli Mahadeo was not accepted. 3. Based upon the decision of the said Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee, prior to filing of the present Petition, Respondent No.3-Mumbai Port Trust, Mumbai terminated the services of the Petitioner by an order dated 2 August 2014. The Petitioner therefore filed present Petition on 7 August 2014. The Respondents have filed their Reply. 4. After going through the submissions and the reasons given by the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee, we have noted that the basic submission of Petitioner as recorded specifically in Ground no.3 to the Petition which is reproduced as under: (iii) It is respectfully submitted that the documents submi...
Rajesh Dinkar Bhalerao Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
P.C. 1. This Application is moved for bail, as the applicant/accused is facing charges under sections 307 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3, 25 of the Arms Act. The offence is registered at the instance of Praveen Prabhakar Kanade who has stated that on 13th July, 2012 when he was in his office, his friend Rajesh Ghadge came there at 8.45 p.m. and they were chitchatting. At around 9 p.m. he heard sound of a fire cracker and suddenly Rajesh Ghadge fell down. Two persons arrived there and they were holding revolver. One person fired at Rajesh Ghadge and other person assaulted him with chopper. The person who fired at Rajesh Ghadge told the other person to cut the neck of Rajesh Ghadge. They warned the complainant and thereafter they ran away. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that co-accused Ramesh Salve and Manish Salve and his associates were having previous enmity with the victim, as they belonged to different political parties. The victim had disputes on number...
Blue Prime Aluminum Ltd. and Others Vs. LandT Finance Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
1. By this notice of motion, the applicants seek condonation of delay of 24 days in filing the present arbitration petition. 2. Mr.Poojary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petition is not filed within the period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the signed award by the applicants from the learned arbitrator. He submits that delay is not of 24 days but much more than 30 days and thus this Court has no power to condone the delay of more than 30 days. 3. Mr.Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the papers in the arbitral proceedings were not served upon the applicants. He submits that the copy of the impugned award was received by the applicants in the first week of December 2014. He submits that the applicants, thereafter, made an application on 20th January 2015 through their advocate to the learned arbitrator requesting the learned arbitrator to set aside the impugned award by correcting various mistakes. He submits that th...
Ramnath @ Sameer Verekar Vs. State, Through Panaji Police Station and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Mahesh Amonkar waives service on behalf of the respondents. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking execution of the order dated 21.08.2013 passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 90/2013 and the consequent order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 18.09.2013, directing the return of the motorcycle bearing registration No. GA-07-B-3110 to the petitioner or in the alternative for reimbursement of the value of the said vehicle alongwith compensation. 3. The brief facts are that in June, 2006, the petitioner was arrested for an offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and during the investigation, a motorcycle bearing no. GA-07-B-3110 belonging to the petitioner was seized from him. The petitioner was put on trial before the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 19/2006. It appears that in June, 2009, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonme...
Rameshwar Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. The appellant challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gondia in Sessions Trial No.41/2012, dated 6.4.2013, vide which the learned Trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas the accused is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is thus: The deceased Motabai was a mother of the appellant and they were residing together at Brahmni, TahsilAmgaon, District-Gondia. Deceased Motabai was receiving pension after the death of her husband. The appellant was not doing anything and was addicted to ...
Asha Vs. The President, District Selection Committee/Collector and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
P.R. Bora, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 2. Petitioner has filed the present petition, seeking quashment of the select list prepared by Respondents Nos.1 to 3 pertaining to the appointment to the posts of Pharmacists on the establishment of Zilla Parishad, Beed so far as it relates to inclusion of the names of Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the said list. The petitioner has also sought the direction against respondents Nos.1 to 3 to issue appointment to her on the post of pharmacist on the establishment of Zilla Parishad, Beed. The select list so prepared by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the inclusion of the names of Respondent Nos.4 and 5 therein has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it is in violation of the constitutional provisions and against the reservation policy. 3. The contents of the petition reveal that the petitioner had applied for the post of Pharmacist to be filled in by Zilla Parishad, Beed in pursuance of the adv...
Narayan M. Morajkar Vs. Asst. Registrar of Co-operative Societies and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 11/2/2014 passed by the learned Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Margao, by which the deduction from the salary of the petitioner has been enhanced to Rs.3700/- per month from Rs.700/-per month. 3. The petitioner was one of the sureties in respect of a loan granted to Basha Hussain Sahib Shaikh, who was the principal borrower. The loan sanctioned was of Rs.50,000/-. Indisputably, the second respondent had initiated recovery proceedings in respect of the loan and by a judgment and award dated 2/5/2000 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies a final award was made, which was confirmed in Cooperative Appeal No.27/2004 by an order dated 21/8/2012. It further appears that from out of the salary of the petitioner, an amount of Rs.700/- p....
Nicky Simoes Vs. Minguelia Rebello and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the contesting respondent No.1 waives service. Notice to respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 is dispensed with. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 04.09.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.54/2014. By the said judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the order dated 29.03.2014, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Margao in Criminal Case No.25/PWDV/2013/D. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has granted interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and the child alongwith other reliefs. 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that admittedly, the petitioner is serving abroad and as such, the notice cannot be said to be properly served on the petitioner. It is submitted that thus, the impugned order was passed without effecting pr...
ICICI Bank Limited Vs. M/s. Welways Engineers (India)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
1. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Arbitration Act ), the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 30th December 2015 passed by the learned arbitrator allowing various claims made by the respondent. By consent of the parties, this arbitration petition was heard finally at the admission stage. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. Some time in the year 2010, the petitioner floated a tender for awarding a contract for Civil, Plumbing and Sanitary and Road works for construction of ICICI Disaster Recovery Data Centre at Jaipur. The said contract was awarded by the petitioner to the respondent on various terms and conditions recorded in the contract entered into between the parties including General Conditions and Special Conditions of Contract. 3. Disputes arose between the parties. The respondent vide their letter dated 3rd August 2013 addressed to the petitioner ...
Shreeji Construction Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Considering the nature of the challenge raised, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The Writ Jurisdiction of this court is invoked against the order dated 25-2-2016 passed by the Hon'ble Minister for Revenue, Government of Maharashtra, by which order the Hon'ble Minister has ordered status-quo in respect of the possession of the Respondent No.5 herein pending the proceedings. The Respondent No.5 had his structure in CTS Nos.1110(part) and 1111 (part) of Mauje Kandivali, Taluka Borivali. The said lands are part of a slum redevelopment scheme which is implemented by the Petitioner herein. In so far as the said scheme is concerned, since the lands in question belonging to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short the MCGM), Annexure II containing the list of eligible slum dwellers was finalised by the Competent Authority of the MCGM i.e. the Assistant Commissioner, R south ward, Mumbai. The Respondent No.5 is an eligible slum dweller, who is entitl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »