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.
Pandit Vs. Shakuntala
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
P.C. 1. The respondent moved Misc. Criminal Application No.78/2014 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Hadgaon [District : Nanded], which came to be allowed on 22nd July 2015, ordering payment of maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the respondent by the present petitioner, she being stepmother of the petitioner. The revision carried before the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded, vide Criminal Revision No.90/2015 suffered same fate, as is apparent from the order dated November 21, 2015. As such, the present petition. 2. Mr. Gangakhedkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, would strenuously urge that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kirtikant D. Vadodaria Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1996(4) SCC 479, has taken a view that a childless stepmother may claim maintenance from her stepson, provided she is a widow or her husband, if living, is not capable of supporting and maintaining her. According to Mr. Gangakhedkar, there is married daughter to the present responde...
Rajaram Vishnu Gawas and Others Vs. State of Goa, Through Chief Secret ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri J. J. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 to 3 and 9 and Mr. Kansar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 4 to 8. 2. The above Petition, inter alia, seeks to quash and set aside the Order dated 11.11.2014 of the Respondent no. 2 as well as the decision of the Under Secretary (Revenue) i.e. Respondent no. 9 in the letter dated 03.11.2014 and also the Order dated 27.03.2015 passed by the Respondent no. 2. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that handbills were issued somewhere in the year 2013 in the name of Shri Devi Sateri Jirnoddar Samiti in the Village of Ibrampur. It is further the case of the Petitioner that in September, 2013, the Petitioners were shocked to learn that the Respondent nos. 4 to 8 were planning to demolish the existing temple. Being dissatisfied with the action of the Managing Committee to bring do...
Suryabhan and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Both these appeals take exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon in Sessions Case No.79 of 2010 thereby convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. Sections 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The prosecution case, as could be gathered from the facts of the case, is thus : All the accused, the deceased and the witnesses are relatives. On 11.4.2010, there was a marriage of cousin of Raju Bhaidas Bhat (PW-5) at village Paladhi in Jalgaon District. The accused were also invited for the said marriage. After marriage ceremony, when lunch was served to the guests, oral altercation took place between Jambhir Bhat and accused no.2 Bhikaji @ Bhikan Suryabhan Kharat on account of maintaining registers of pedigree. It is to be note...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. M/s. Klip Nail Care
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. In all these applications, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for opinion and answer of this court:- Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessment orders were non-est orders even though the person Mrs. Janaki Soman, proprietress of the business has accepted the notices, attended the assessment proceedings as well as the first appeal proceedings and has not challenged the legality of notice on the ground of issuing it in the trade name before the assessing authority, revisional authority as well as the first appellate authority only on the ground that the notices were issued in the 'trade name'? 2. We take the facts, as they are stated to be common to all the references, from Sales Tax Reference No. 4 of 2009. The applicant sought a reference of the above question because the respondent in this case, though duly served and absent, was a dealer. The responde...
Engineering Workers Association Vs. M/s. Radium Creation Ltd. and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 20th February, 2016 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane rejecting the application filed under section 30(2) of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 (for short hereinafter referred to as the said ULP Act) inter alia praying for a direction to the respondents not to give effect to transfer order dated 19th December, 2015 of the employees and to allow them to resume their work with equitable relief. The said application for interim order was filed in a complaint filed by the petitioner under section 28 read with items 3, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the said ULP Act. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. The petitioner is a trade union registered under the provisions of Trade Unions Act, 1926 and represents the large number of employees as its members in the respondent no.1 company. The employees of the respondent no.1 who a...
Ambadas Raghunath Wagh Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporatio ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court dated 12.1.2016 by which application (Exhibit U-2) seeking interim relief u/s 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, has been rejected and the status quo granted on 8.12.2015 was vacated. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23.2.2016 delivered by the Industrial Court by which Revision (ULP) No.5/2016 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 3. Shri Barde, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submits that on 10.3.2014, it was alleged by the respondent Corporation that the petitioner is under the influence of liquor. He was charge-sheeted on 12.4.2014 and suspended on 13.3.2014. The suspension was revoked on 14.5.2014. He, therefore, submits that notwithstanding the charges leveled upon him, the petitioner was reinstated in service as a Dri...
Money Nair Vs. Sharekhan Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Admit. The parties have filed short synopsis and written notes of submissions. The appeal is taken up for final hearing, by consent. 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act ) against Judgment dated 13-3-2015 passed by a learned single Judge, thereby rejecting the arbitration petition under Section 34 of the Act, that resulted into confirmation of the Award passed by learned Arbitrator under the provisions of the Bye-laws, Rules and Regulations of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited (NSE). 3. Heard learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant. Insofar as availability of the Appellate Forum under the NSE is concerned, the learned single Judge, after hearing the parties, has passed the order in the Section 34 petition of the year 2010 and thereby maintained the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator of the year 2009. Submission is also made by the le...
The State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Vitthal Tukaram Atugade and A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The Confirmation No.1 of 2015 arises out of the Reference made by the learned District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur, District-Sangli for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the accused Vitthal Tukaram Atugade (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') by its judgment and order dated 18th April 2015 passed in Sessions Case No.4 of 2014. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer death sentence and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. It is directed that the accused be hanged by neck till he is dead subject to confirmation of death sentence by the High Court under Section 368 of Cr. P.C. By the aforesaid judgment and order, the accused is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced t...
Kishor L. Purohit Vs. Prem Saxena and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 4th September, 1998 passed in Criminal Case No.289/S/1995 by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai thereby acquitting the accused / respondent No.1 of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Briefly stated, facts of the case are as under: The appellant, the original complainant running a shop under the name and style of M/s. Kalatmak, situated at Super Bazar, Station Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai advanced a hand loan / friendly loan of Rs.3,40,000/- to the respondent No.1, to enable the respondent to finance one company M/s. Kaveri Pharmaceuticals Ltd., that the accused was intending to promote. As a part of the repayment of the said friendly loan, the accused issued a cheque dated 10th October, 1995 bearing No.380241 for Rs.71,000/-, being the first installment of the schedule of repayment to the complainant. This cheque was due on 20th October, 1985 and it was depos...
Minguelino D'Costa Vs. State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary and O ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
Oral Judgment: (K. L. Wadane, J.) 1. Heard Mr. D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. S. R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.3. 2. Rule. 3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent no. 3. 4. The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to quash and set aside the impugned FIR No. 19/2014 dated 8.8.2014. 5. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- The petitioner is a co-owner in possession of a property, bearing survey no. 67/0 known as TARIPANTO situated at village Sanquem (hereinafter referred to as the suit property ). The suit property corresponds to new survey nos.60/1, 64/1, 67/0 and 68. T...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »