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.
Mohamed Farid Jafer Shaikh Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. The appellant original accused No.1 has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 3rd August, 2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.699 of 2011. By the said judgment and order the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under section 376(2) (f), 342, 363 r/w. 34 and 452 r/w. 34 of the IPC. For the offence under section 376 (2) (f) the appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10000/- i/d rigorous imprisonment for one year. For offence under section 342 of the IPC the appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1000/- i/d rigorous imprisonment for three months. For offence under section 363 r/w. 34 of the IPC the appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.3000/- i/d. rigorous imprisonment for five months. For the offence under section 452 r/w. 34 of the IPC the ap...
Wind World (India) Limited and Others Vs. Enercon GmbH and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
1. By this petition filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ), the petitioners have impugned the order dated 8th March 2016 passed by the arbitral tribunal (as decided by the majority) directing the petitioners herein to produce various documents to the respondents and also granting various interim measures. The petitioners have also prayed for stay of the operation and implementation of the time-table contained in the order no.7 dated 3rd February 2016 passed by the arbitral tribunal and also stay of all further proceedings before the arbitral tribunal. By consent of parties, this petition is heard finally at the admission stage. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this arbitration petition are as under:- 2. The petitioner no.1 is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is a joint venture company between the petitioner nos.2 and 3 along with others currently holding 44% of th...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashok and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
1. This appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the said Act) raises the following substantial question of law : "Whether the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation was justified in holding that there was an employer-employee relationship between the respondents without giving due weightage to the award passed by the Labour Court on 29th January, 2003 wherein it was held that there was no employer-employee relationship between the parties and the said award had reached finality?" Facts giving rise to present appeal are that the respondent No. 1 claims to have been serving as a driver on a vehicle owned by the respondent No. 2. According to the respondent No. 1 on 30/12/1997 he was driving a tanker owned by the respondent No. 2 for fetching diesel from Bhilai. The said vehicle met with an accident near Gondia resulting in the respondent No. 1 sustaining various injuries. According to respondent No. 1 on account of aforesaid accident, he became han...
Padamchnd M. Chordiya Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
P.C. 1. Leave to amend prayer clause. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP and also perused the record annexed to the petition. 3. By the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed that the proclamation dated 14.8.2012 issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court at Mazgaon, Mumbai may be stayed and the standing warrant issued against the petitioner may be cancelled. He has further prayed that the orders dated 12.1.2016 and 12.2.2016 passed by the Trial Court may also be quashed and set aside. 4. The petitioner is an accused in CR No.197/2007 registered with Pydhonie Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 420, 511 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The record discloses that as the Investigating Agency could not complete the investigation within the stipulated period, the applicant was released on bail by the Trial Cour...
Balaji Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Transport ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
Oral Judgment: (S.S. Shinde, J.) 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. This petition is filed seeking direction to respondent nos.2 and 3 to issue appointment order appointing the petitioner to the post of Driver in the employment of respondent no.3. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.2 initiated recruitment process for filling up the posts of Drivers in the year 2015. The petitioner is possessing requisite qualifications for appointment to the post of Driver. Therefore, he applied for the said post. Respondent no.2 conducted written examination. The petitioner passed the said examination, and his name is included in the select list at Serial No.550. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for verification of the documents by respondent No.3. During the course of verification of documents, the petitioner was told by respondent no.2 that, he possesses Secondary ...
Sunil Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through the P.S.O.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) 1. The appellant who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the Penal Code) has challenged judgment dated 31/07/2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No.82 of 2012. The case of the prosecution as can be gathered from the material on record is that on 08/05/2012 a call was received by the City Police Station, Chandrapur that a foul smell was coming from a house owned by one Harishchandra Chamate. The appellant along with his family was residing therein. Said Harishchandra came on the spot after which the lock of the door was broken by the police. There the dead body of one Panchafula, the sister of Harishchandra was found. On that basis, said Harishchandra lodged his report on 08/05/2012. 2. After the report was registered, investigation was carried out. A chargesheet was duly filed in which the appellant was arrayed as an a...
Afzal Khan and Others Vs. Mehboob Ayub Khan and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
1. Company appeal Nos.55 of 2014 and 56 of 2014 impugn an order passed by the Company Law Board, Mumbai Bench ( CLB ) on applications under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956 ( Act ), by which the first Respondent company was inter alia directed to transmit shares held by a shareholder of the company and rectify the register of members. Companion Company Appeal Nos.31 of 2015 and 54 of 2015 are cross appeals which impugn another order passed by the CLB on the same day on a petition filed by the same Petitioners under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act, complaining of the same facts as are the subject matter of the rectification petitions in addition to some other facts. 2. The short facts of the case may be stated as follows: 2(I) In or about 1947, the first Respondent company Mehboob Productions Pvt.Ltd. ( Company ) - was incorporated by the reputed filmmaker, late Mehboob Khan. The company owns a large immovable property admeasuring about 4.2 acres at Hill Road, Bandra (West), Mumba...
Sajid and Others Vs. The State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
Oral Judgment: (S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) 1. This Court had issued notice on 17.3.2016 and 23.3.2016. Mr.Kagne and Mr.Patil, learned A.G.Ps submit that necessary instructions are received from the Officers who are present in the Court. 2. With the consent of the parties taken up for final hearing. 3. Both these Writ Petitions are based on similar set of facts and involve common question of law, as such to avoid rigmarole are decided by common judgment. 4. Mr.Mandlik, learned Senior counsel and Mr.Rakhunde, learned counsel for respective petitioners submit that the village Panchayat Waibazar, Tq. Mahur,Dist.Nanded and Village Panchayat Gokunda, Tq.Kinwat, Dist.Nanded are entirely scheduled areas. In case of Village Panchayat Waibazar, there are 13 seats, out of that 7 seats are reserved for Scheduled Tribe category and one seat is reserved for Scheduled Caste. As per Ist proviso to Section 10(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, the reservation of the seats meant for Backward c...
S.P. Rajkumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, S.C.B. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
1. Rule. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The Applicant, the accused No 2 in Sessions Case No. 177 of 2013 @ 178 of 2013 @ 577 of 2013 @ 312 of 2014, has challenged the impugned order dated 28.7.2015 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the application filed by him to drop PW 105Nathuba Jadeja and PW 106 Gurudayalsingh Chaudhary as prosecution witnesses and to array them as accused in the said sessions case. 3. The brief facts necessary to decide this application are as under: The Applicant is a senior IPS Officer of Gujarat Cadre. In the year 2005 he was posted as Superintendent of police of anti terrorist squad, Ahmedabad, Gujarat. It is alleged that pursuant to secret information received from the State of Rajasthan that one Sohrabuddin was to reach Gujarat on 26.11.2005 with an intention to spread terror and target the leaders of State of Gujarat, the Anti Terrorist Squad Gujarat registered a crime no.15 of 2005 against Sohrabuddin under sections 120 B, ...
Nitin @ Babloo Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amravati and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) 1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 16-11-2015 passed by the respondent No.1 under provisions of Section 56(1) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 externing the petitioner from the limits of Amravati City as well as Amravati District for a period of two years. 3. Shri P.V. Navlani, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of externment is vitiated inter alia on the following grounds: Firstly, in the show cause notice, it was stated that a Court case that was filed against the petitioner on the basis of Crime No.3007/2009 was pending. It is submitted that the aforesaid matter was disposed of on 14-7-2011 by acquitting the petitioner. Secondly, it is submitted that in the show cause notice there is no reference made to the recording of in camera statements of two witnesses. However, in the impugned order, the respondent No.1 has relied upon...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »