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.
Imran Khan Vs. Sobiya Tabassum
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
Oral Judgment: (K.K. Sonawane, J.) 1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 31st October, 2015, passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Nanded, in Petition No.D-03 of 2014, rebuffing the relief of custody of minor son, namely, "Umarkhan" claimed under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1890"). 2. It is not in dispute that parties to the proceeding are governed by Mohammedan Law. The appellant - original petitioner was married with respondent on 28-03-2010 as per the Muslim rites. Appellant was in service as Headmaster in the school at Manwat. He used to travel daily from the place of his residence at Parbhani to place of avocation at Manwat. After the marriage, respondent - wife joined company of husband for cohabitation. During wedlock, she begotten one male child on 14-03-2011 from the appellant - husband. It has been alleged on behalf of respondent - wife that since marriage she was being hara...
M/s. Sea Eagle Dredging Marine Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. Reli ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Act ), the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 26th December, 2014 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,03,22,491.08 ps. as per the foreclosure statement together with further interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 5th July, 2014 till payment or realization with costs fixed at Rs.7500/-. 2. The respondent no.1 vide their letter dated 1st September, 2011 informed the petitioner that an amount of Rs.1,92,00,000/- was sanctioned as and by way of loan to the petitioner. The respondent no.1 thereafter disbursed an amount of Rs.1,73,34,075/- to the petitioner along with letter dated 1st September, 2011. It is the case of the petitioner that during the period between 30th September, 2011 and 30th April, 2013, the petitioner made a payment of Rs.38,58,057/- to the respondent no.1. 3. It was the case of the respondent no.1 that since the petitioner com...
Rajendra Govindrao Kunde and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, the learned A.P.P and learned counsel for the intervener. 2. By this application, the applicants seek their enlargement on bail in connection with C.R. No.190 of 2013, registered with the Pimpalgaon Baswant Police Station, Nashik, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The applicant no.1 was the passing officer and clerk of 'Shree Ganesh Sahakari Sanstha Bank Limited, Nashik' at the relevant time and applicant no.2 was the counter clerk working in the same bank. There are 6 accused in the present case; Sanjay Suryakant Kadam, who was the Manager of the said bank, the present applicants - Rajendra Govindrao Kunde, Shriram Chandrabhan More, who were the passing officer and counter clerk of the said bank and 3 other lady officers i.e. Sunita Gyaneshwar Wagh, Minaji Rambhau Nyaharkar @Meenakshi Sanjay Tope and Rupali Shankarrao Mogal @Rupali Sandeep Bhavar, who...
Dadaji Vs. The State of Maharashtra. Copy to be served through Public ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 6th November, 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli in Special Case (ACB) No.3 of 1999. By the said judgment and order, Appellant was convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced as under Conviction under SectionSentence7Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.2,500/- in default Rigorous Imprisonment for two months.13(2)Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default Rigorous Imprisonment for four months. 2. For the sake of convenience Appellant shall be referred in his original status as Accused as he was referred before the Special Court. 3. Prosecution case in nutshell is as under: In the year 1999 Accused was working as Assistant Grader in Cotton Federation Centre, Jarikot, Taluka Biloli. He was assigned with a duty to examine quality of cotton and give gradation for the p...
Swati Anil Sawant Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the Petitioner has impugned the order dated 28 January 2015 passed by the Respondent No.3-Assistant Municipal Commissioner (Estate) of the Respondent Corporation, whereby the representation of the Petitioner seeking conversion of the allotment of staff quarters to her from leave and licence basis to that of tenancy, came to be rejected. The impugned order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, pursuant to the order dated 28 November 2014 in Writ Petition No.1892 of 2014 of learned Single Judge of this Court directing the Assistant Commissioner to take a fresh decision after following principles of natural justice. 2. A brief narration of facts would be necessary to bring out how the matter had proceeded leading to the passing of the impugned order. The Petitioner was appointed as a clerk with the Respondent Corporation in the year 1964. She retired on account of superannuation on 1 July 2003 as Superintendent (Court) in the L...
Subhash Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Govt. Pleader
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
1. The Appellant original accused (hereafter referred as 'accused') has been convicted for offence under Section 306 and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( I.P.C. in brief). For Section 306 of I.P.C. he has been directed to suffer sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rupees One Thousand. In default of fine, he is directed to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months. Under Section 498A of I.P.C. he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period of one year and to pay fine of Rupees Five Hundered, and in default to suffer further imprisonment for a period of one month. The sentence was passed by Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No.128 of 2000 on 11th July 2003. 2. Agitated by the conviction the Appellant-accused filed this Appeal. 3. In the Sessions Court, along with the present Appellant-accused, there were two more accused i.e. accused No.2 Arjun Kamble and accused No.3 Gojarbai w/o Arjun Kamble. Accuse...
Nitin Vs. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-20-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Shri Mohokar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mohgaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Shri Mohokar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that 10.09.2014 was the last date for submission of application form, however, on that date result of Trade Test conducted by the Directorate of Vocational Education and Training, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, was not declared and hence the petitioner could not file on-line application. The respondent extended last date to 20.09.2014. The result of Trade Test was declared on that day only and the petitioner immediately sent his on-line application. The application was within time and was found in accordance with law, therefore, the petitioner was permitted to participate in selection process but ultimately on the ground that his application is belated, his candidature has been turned down. There were total 1...
State of Maharashtra, through Sub Divisional Officer and Special Land ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-18-2016
R.K. Deshpande, J. 1. In Land Acquisition Case No.37 of 1997, the Reference Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has held on 30-9-2000 that the respondent-claimant shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per hectare for the land acquired, and Rs.10,000/- for well. The Reference Court has further directed that the claimant should be paid additional component on the amount of enhanced compensation at the rate of twelve per centum per annum from the date of the possession, i.e. from July, 1985, till the date of the award, i.e. 16-9-1995. The learned Single Judge (Shri Z.A. Haq, J.) has rejected all the challenges to the determination of market rate and to the award of compensation for the well. 2. This reference to a Larger Bench is concerned with the direction of the Reference Court to the appellant-State to pay to the respondent-claimant an interest at the rate of nine per centum per annum on the amount of enhanc...
The State of Maharashtra (DCB, CID, Unit II Vs. Narendra G. Goel and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-2016
the present petition are as follows; On 23rd August, 2003 Dr.Asha Goel, a Canadian National of Indian origin was found murdered in a flat belonging to her brother Suresh Agarwal, at Malabar Hill, Mumbai. Pursuant thereto, at the behest of Suresh Agarwal, the brother of the deceased, the Malabar Hill Police Station, registered C.R.No.93 of 2003 against unknown persons, alleging offences punishable under Sections 302, 397, 452 r/w 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. As there was no progress in the investigation, the case was transferred to the DCB, CID, Unit II, Mumbai. Thereafter, accused came to be arrested and on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed. Before the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, original accused no.1 i.e. respondent no.3 herein gave his confession, which was recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 26th and 27th September, 2005. On 28th December, 2005, cognizance was taken and process was issued against the accused pers...
Narendra G. Goel Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-2016
Revati Mohite Dere, J. 1. By this petition, preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 10th January, 2006 by which pardon was tendered by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, to the respondent no.2 herein; and the order dated 22nd September, 2014 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, in C.C.No.525/PW/2005, by which the application of the petitioner seeking compliance of the order dated 15th February, 2013 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.1309 of 2012, was dismissed. According to the petitioner, the learned Magistrate in compliance with the order dated 15th February, 2013, ought to have taken fresh cognizance, by giving the petitioner, an opportunity of being heard, on the application for grant of pardon to the main accused (respondent no.2 herein). 2. At the outset, we may note a few facts as a...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »