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.
Yogesh and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-11-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside First Information Report dt.22.11.2015 registered vide Crime No.543 of 2015 at Police Station, Gittikhadan for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Perusal of the F.I.R. would reveal that respondent no.4 has alleged therein that her marriage was arranged with petitioner no.1. It is her allegation that when she was working as a Police Constable at the Police Headquarters, one Shashikant Verma, who was working as an Assistant Police Inspector, was indulged in the business of money lending. It is further alleged that she used to assist said Shashikant Verma in the business of money lending and as such, there were telephonic conversations between her and said Shashikant Verma. It is further alleged that huge expenses were incurred on the engagement ceremony and also for the marr...
Shahin Anjum Mehboob Khan and Others Vs. Divisional Commissioner and O ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-11-2016
Oral Judgment: ( B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. In these Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge is to the nominations for constitution of Standing Committee of Akola Municipal Corporation in April, 2015, though grounds of challenge are different. 2. Since the facts giving rise to challenge are identical, it appears that the matters have been clubbed together. In WP 1921 of 2015, general body meetings conducted on 7th as also 13th April, 2015 nominating 8 members each are in question while in WP 2429 of 2015, denial of its due seat to Petitioner on Standing Committee on 13.4.2015 is in dispute. 3. Accordingly, we have heard learned Senior Advocate Shri Gordey with learned Advocate Smt. R.D. Raskar for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.2429 of 2015, learned Advocate Shri U.J.Deshpande, for the petitioner in Writ petition No.1921 of 2015, learned Advocate Shri Gadhiya for respondent no.1 Mayor in Writ Petition No.2429 of 2015, learned Advocate Shri S.V...
Yash @ Bhupesh Kapoor Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2016
P.C. 1. The application is moved for pre arrest bail as the applicant/accused is facing charges for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No.313 of 2015 registered with Versova police station, Mumbai. The offence is registered at the instance of prosecutrix on 17th September, 2015. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 1st May, 2015 she came in contact with the applicant/accused. The applicant/accused told the prosecutrix that he can offer roles to her in films. Therefore, they developed contacts. It is her case that in the second week of May, 2015 the applicant/accused called her at Andheri and introduced the victim with one Rohan Rathi. On that day, the applicant/accused administered some stupefying substance in her cold drink and therefore, she become unconscious. Thereafter friend of applicant /accused had sexual intercourse with her without her consent. Then on the next day, the applicant/accused showed her necked photograp...
Sadanand Parshuram Naik Parsekar @ Sadanand Parshuram Naik Desai and O ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-11-2016
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 and Mr. S. Mahambrey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 4 to 7. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service. 4. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the main grievance raised by the petitioners is that the committee which was duly elected and was holding the office of the concerned Devasthan was according to the petitioners unauthorisedly and arbitrarily dissolved by the impugned order dated 12.02.2016. It is the contention of the petitioners that the term of the office of the concerned committee who are the respondent nos. 4 to 7 was due to expire on 31.03...
Vijay Balu Navarkar Vs. Jalgaon Janata Sahakari Bank Limited and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-11-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. The petitioner / employee is aggrieved by the judgment dated 4.3.2015, delivered by the Industrial Court, by which Revision (ULP) No.12 of 2013, preferred by the respondent / Bank has been allowed and the Part I judgment of the Labour Court, dated 23.11.2012, with regard to the two preliminary issues has been set aside. 5. Shri Barde submits that the petitioner was suspended pending the disciplinary proceedings on 17.8.2006. He received a charge sheet dated 31.10.2006 on 17.11.2006. He denied all the charges. The Enquiry Officer on completion of the enquiry, submitted his report dated 28.6.2007. After hearing the petitioner on the enquiry report, the respondent terminated his services, by way of punishment, on 13.9.2007. 6. The petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No.43 of 2007 before the Labour Court for challen...
Pratibha Niketan Education Society, Nanded, Through its General Secret ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-11-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The question/issue that has been raised in this petition is with regard to the distinction between a fraud / nebulous act and innocuous act. The said issue has been canvassed by the petitioners and the respondents in the light of the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court, which substantially deal with this issue; [i] Shalini Vs. New English High School Association and others, 2013(2) Mh.L.J. 913 = 2014(1) All M R 904 [ii] Arun Vishwanath Sonone Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, Bombay High Court Full Bench, 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21/08/2015 delivered by the School Tribunal, Latur by which Appeal No.42/2014 filed by respondent No.1 / employee has been partly allowed and his termination dated 12/10/2013 has been quashed and set aside in the light of the ratio laid down in the various ...
Jawahar Vs. Rajendra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-11-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioner/complainant has challenged the order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to place on record certain documents to substantiate the averments made in the complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondent. 4. The petitioner has filed complaint against the respondent praying that he be prosecuted and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate has proceeded with the prosecution and evidence of the complainant is recorded. At this stage, the petitioner/ complainant has filed application seeking permission to produce certain documents on the record. The application is rejected by the learned Magistrate observing that the documents which are being sought to be produced are not relevant and are inadmissible being photocopi...
Ornate Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Abhyuday Nagar Sahakari Gruhanirman S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
1. The Appellant, M/s.Ornet Housing Pvt. Ltd. challenges the order passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai, dated 28 October 2015 rejecting the ad-interim relief in the Notice of Motion taken out in the Suit instituted by the Appellant. The notice of motion was taken out for restraining Respondent No.1 Federation from permitting Respondent No.2 Keystone Realtors to participate in the tender process. 2. The Appellant Ornet Housing, the Plaintiff, is a Private Limited Company. Respondent No.1 is the Federation of co-operative housing societies, situated at Abhyuday Nagar, Kalachowki, Mumbai. Respondent No.1 - Federation comprises of 48 co-operative housing societies. Respondent No.2, is a private limited company. Respondent No.3, is a project management consultant and Respondent No.4, is a Association which represents 28 cooperative housing societies, within the Federation. 3. The dispute in the suit relates to the redevelopment of a plot of land bearing C.S.No.6/148 of Parel Division, F/...
Ashok Rambhaji Tupe Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation a ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11/01/2016 delivered by the Labour Court, by which the application Exhibit U2, seeking interim relief u/s. 30(2) in Complaint (ULP) no.37/2015, has been rejected. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the judgment dated 30/03/2016 delivered by the Industrial Court, by which the Revision (ULP) No.6/2016 filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed. 3. The petitioner claims to have joined duties as a Bus Conductor with the Respondent/Corporation on 20/01/2011. On 02/01/2013, the petitioner was on duty on the bus moving from Kopargaon to Somthan. There were 70 students holding bus passes and 14 passengers travelling in the said bus. One lady boarded the bus at Rahuri and was travelling to Pandhariche Pool. Due to rush in the bus, the petitioner could not issue a travelling ticket. 4. That the bus was subjected to a surprise check and it was...
Vibhushit Umiyashankar Trivedi Vs. Bhargav Jasvantrai Trivedi and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
1. The Suit seeks probate to the last Will and testament of one Chhotalal Karunashankar Trivedi ( Chhotalal ; the deceased ; the Testator ). Chhotalal died in Mumbai on 18th October 1982. He was a widower. He had no children. He is said to have left a testamentary writing in Gujarati dated 6th July 1982. In this Will, which is the one propounded, Chhotalal appointed his brother Umiyashankar, and Umiyashankar s son, Vibhushit (the present Plaintiff ) as the executors of his Will. Umiyashankar and Chhotalal had a brother Jasvantrai. He was the original Defendant. After he died, his heirs have been brought on record as Defendants Nos. 1(a) to 1(d). 2. The Will in question is in Gujarati (Exhibit P6 , p. 183).However, the Testator has apparently signed it in English on page 2. There is also a signature on page 1, and this is the subject of some dispute in the trial. I will turn to this presently. An official translation is also on record (Exhibit P7 , p. 185). 3.The execution of the Will w...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »