Mumbai Court April 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.
Jaddasingh Antarlal Nat Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
A.M. Badar, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner / accused is praying for quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. bearing No.4/2014 for offences punishable under section 457, 380, 511 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered against him on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by Police Naik Mohan Shivaji Patil on 4th January, 2014 with Colaba police station, Mumbai. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By taking us through the entire charge-sheet annexed to the petition, he vehemently argued that there is no iota of evidence against the present petitioner and as such, the F.I.R. so also the resultant charge-sheet and criminal case against the petitioner needs to be quashed and set aside. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, informant / Police Naik had seen five women sitting in front of shop named and styled as International Currency Exchange Indi...
Padma @ Vaishali Dhammapal Ghanbahaddur Vs. Dhammapal Tejrao Ghanbahad ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri N.B. Jawade, advocate for the wife and Shri U.J. Deshpande, advocate for the husband. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The wife had filed proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure E.P. No.225/2009 which was allowed by the order dated 23rd July, 2010 and husband was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month. At that time, the husband was working as Shikshan Sevak and getting honorarium of Rs.3000/- per month. Subsequently, the husband acquired the status of permanent Teacher and his salary increased substantially. In view of changed circumstances, the wife filed an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for enhancement in the amount of maintenance. The Family Court, by the impugned order, has partly allowed the claim of the wife and has directed the husband to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to the wife from the date of the order and to pay Rs.20,000/- in lumpsum towards arrears of enhanced...
Khadi Gramodyog Emporium, Gandhi Sagar by its Secretary and Manager Vs ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. On the basis of the inspection carried out in the establishment of the appellant on 25.10.1985, the appellant was called upon by the communication dated 22.01.1986 to remit the total contribution of Rs. 4447.50 under the Employee State Insurance Scheme in respect of honorarium at the rate of Rs.150/- per month paid to one Shri Shankarrao Padhye from April, 1984 to September, 1986 (Rs.474.90) and to Shri R.M.Aswale at the rate of Rs.350/- per month (Rs.6550.00) and daily wages paid to Choukidar for the period from April, 1985 to 24.09.1985 of Rs.29.75. The appellant replied to this communication stating that two persons namely Shri Shankarrao Padhye and Shri R.M.Aswale were not the employees but the members of the Society for rendering service to the appellant establishment. 2. The respondent passed an order under Section 45A of the Employees State Insurance Act (in short "the ESI Act") rejecting the contention and calling upon the appellant to pay Rs.4447.50 towards c...
Ankit Rajendra Kumar Tiwari and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
P.C. 1. At the outset, learned counsel for the Applicants seeks leave to amend. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Applicants and the learned APP for the Respondent - State. 3. By this Application, the Applicants seek quashing and setting aside of the order dated 19.12.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in S.C.No.299 of 2015 as well as the order framing charge dated 19.12.2015. 4. The Applicants are facing prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 376 and other offences of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that after lodging of the FIR and before filing of the charge-sheet, the Applicants filed W.P.No.4610 of 2014 before the Division Bench of this Court seeking quashing of the FIR. It was contended that the parties have amicably settled their grievances. Learned counsel for the Applicants contended that during the pendency of the aforesaid W.P. No.4610 of 2014, as the Apex Court in the case of State of Mad...
M/s. Gill and Company Pvt. Ltd., Through its authorized Representative ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
1. By this appeal filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short the 'Arbitration Act') the appellant has impugned the judgment dated 30th June, 2015 passed by the District Court, Nashik allowing the arbitration application filed by the respondent herein under section 34 of the Arbitration Act and setting aside the impugned award dated 17th February, 2012. The appellant herein was the original claimant whereas the respondent herein was the original respondent in the arbitral proceedings. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under:- 2. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant and the respondent entered into an agreement being Contract No.AUR-19A dated 23rd September, 2010 for 1200 fully pressed bales of cotton at Rs.36,400/- per candy to be delivered by the respondent during the period between 10th October, 2010 to 25th October, 2010. According to the appellant, the said agreement was subject to the bye-law...
Annarao @ Pintu Baburao Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
A.M. Badar, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. By the instant petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22nd December, 2015 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune in Appeal No.AR/EA-102/2015 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner / externee and confirming the order dated 31st August, 2015 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Solapur-2, Solapur whereby the petitioner / externee was directed in exercise of powers under section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 to remove himself from the territorial limits of Solapur, Pune and Osmanabad Districts for a period of one year. 3. The facts leading to the institution of the present petition can be summarized thus :- On 7th June, 2014, a proposal (record page 21) came to be moved by the Police Inspe...
Dilip Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
R.M. Borde, J. 1. Accused/appellant was tried for commission of offence of murder of his wife Sonabai in Sessions Case No.57/2011 before the Court of Sessions at Nanded and has been held guilty for commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and, is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. According to prosecution, accused Dilip is the husband of deceased Sonabai and they were residing together alongwith son Amol at Janta Colony, Nanded in the rented premises owned by Arunabai Mane PW2. The incident in question has occurred on 27.11.2010 at about 9.30 pm at the rented residential house of the accused. It is alleged that accused was suspecting fidelity of his wife and used to beat her. On 27.11.2010 at about 9.30 pm while deceased Sonabai was at the residence, accused came in drunken condition and started abusing her. He assaulted deceased on the count of her refusal ...
Nitin Baliram Kharatmol Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) 1. Rule. Learned APP waives service for the Respondent. Forthwith taken up for final disposal. 2. First Information Report ('FIR') was registered being CR No.355 of 2005 on 30th November 2005 at R.A.K.Marg Police Station, Mumbai against the Applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC') and under Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Code'), it is disclosed that on 30th November 2005 itself, the Applicant was arrested and was released on bail on the same day. It is pointed out that the Applicant is a driver by profession. He made an application for employment to Bhabha Atomic Research Centre ('BARC'), at Mumbai. It is claimed that the Applicant was selected by BARC. The Applicant is relying on the letter dated 19th June 2013 (Exhibit-B to the petition), in which the Assistant Personnel Officer of BARC informed the Applicant ...
Atmaram and Another Vs. Prakash and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 24.4.2001, passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation and Civil Judge S.D (Beed) in W.C.No.1 of 2000, the original claimants preferred this appeal to the extent of quantum. 2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are as under:- a] Deceased Bibhishan was working as a labourer with respondent no.1 Prakash since one year prior to his death for loading and unloading tractor bearing registration No.MH-23-3452 and trolley bearing registration No.MH-23-C-3569. On 20.9.1999 said tractor was proceeding to Beed from Kaij and on way one truck bearing registration No.AP-04-T-5121 coming from the opposite direction gave dash to the Tractor. In consequence of which, deceased Bibhishan had sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. The appellants/legal representatives preferred claim before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation for grant of compensation. b] Respondent No.1 Employer has not disputed ...
Dnyaneshwar @ Dinesh Waman Bhosale Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Throu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
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 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 25.09.2014 passed by the then Hon'ble Minister for Co-operation, Government of Maharashtra, by which order, the Appeal filed by the Respondent No.4 herein came to be allowed and resultantly, the order dated 15.05.2014 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai, came to be set aside and the order dated 29.04.2013 passed by the Deputy Registrar, A Ward, Mumbai, came to be confirmed. 3. The facts giving rise to the filing of the above Petition in brief can be stated thus: The Petitioner herein has purchased Office No.10 in the building of the Respondent No.4 society which is a commercial premises society from one Smt. Nargis Jal Pardiwala who was the member in respect of the said Office No.10. The Petitioner vide his application ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »