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.
Anil Balu Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellant and one Prakash Kambale were convicted of offences punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 506 of the IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khed. They were sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, with respect of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC, and to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, with respect to the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and the sentences imposed upon him, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 2. The co-accused Prakash Kambale, who was also convicted as aforesaid, had preferred a separate appeal, being Criminal Appeal No.1099 of 2013, before this court, which was allowed by an order dated 23rd January 2015 (Coram : Smt.I.K .Jain, J.) and the said Prakash Kambale was acquitted of the said offences. This court held that it was unsafe to rely on t...
The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Anti Corruption Bu ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
1. This Appeal by State is against acquittal of the Respondents original accused Nos.1 and 2 (hereafter referred as "accused Nos.1 and 2" respectively), under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("Act" in brief). Accused No.1 Vishwas Bhoi was working as Sub Engineer at M.S.E.B. Warul, Tq-Shirpur, Dist-Dhule, at the concerned time. Accused No.2 Devaba Girase was his line helper at the said posting. 2. Facts in brief are as under: (A). Complainant Nimbaji Bapu Sapkale PW1 (here after referred as "complainant"), had a field at village Abhanpur. He had, in 1998, taken electric connection for the field after depositing necessary money in the office with accused No.1 Bhoi. Thereafter complainant had not received any bills of the electric connection. He sold the said field to one Sada Rama Thelari for Rs.81,000/-. As per the terms of the sale deed, he was required to clear the electricity dues and the revenue dues. As such he approached acc...
Kashinath Naik Vs. State of Goa and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of respondent No.2. The State-Respondent No.1 is a formal party. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of grant of interim maintenance to respondent No.2 in proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 3. The respondent No.2 filed an application being Maintenance Application No.2/2013/A under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ponda, in which she also claimed interim maintenance. By an order dated 17.01.2014, the learned Magistrate has granted interim maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month. The petitioner unsuccessfully tried to get the order cancelled by filing an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., which was rejected on 25.06.2014. The petitioner challenged the original order of grant of interim maintenance before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No.2...
Mour Marbles Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Bank of India and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an interim order which has been passed on 25-2-2016 by the Presiding Officer of the Mumbai Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, below Exhibit-01 in Securitisation Application No.77 of 2016. 2. Since we have extensively heard the senior counsel appearing for the parties and perused the pleadings with their assistance, we formally admit this petition. Rule. All respondents waive service. With their consent, we pass this final order. 3. This order shall be taken as continuation of the earlier directions issued by us, but so as to complete the chain of events we are narrating some essential facts. 4. The petitioners before us are a private limited company and its share-holders/Directors. They had availed of various credit facilities from the first respondent-Bank and created mortgage and hypothecation in respect of the properties, more particularly described in the Schedule a...
Enercon GmbH and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.L. Achliya, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, petition is heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 2. Petitioners herein have filed this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They have challenged the order dated 18th July, 2008 passed under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Code") by Metropolitan Magistrate, 22nd Court, Andheri and consequential FIR registered bearing MECR No.2/2008 dated 22.7.2008 on various grounds as set out in the petition. 3. At the time of taking up petition for hearing, the learned counsel for both the side agreed to restrict their arguments on the limited issue as to whether in the absence of a complaint to the police u/s 154 of Code, a Complaint can be directly made before the Magistrate under section 156(3) of the Code. 4. In view of limited issue posed for our consideration, it is not nec...
Namdeo Sukdeo Saptale Vs. The Chairman, Kai Ramchandra Patil Shikshan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order and judgment dated 17th October, 2011 passed by the school tribunal thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner impugning the order of termination dated 25th June, 2008 terminating his services passed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :- 2. The respondent no.1 had established an aided school by name Shri Hudebaba High School, Kunikonur, Tal. Jat, Dist. Sangli. The petitioner belongs to the S.C. category. On or about 4th January, 2006 the petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of two years on clear permanent vacancy. On the date of the appointment of the petitioner, the petitioner had already completed the required qualification of B.A.B.Ed., B.P.Ed. Shiksha Visharad. When the respondent no.1 had started the said school in the year 1990, initially there was a division...
Kausar Imam Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
P.C. 1. The application is moved for pre arrest bail as the applicant/accused is facing charges for the offence punishable under Sections 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No.65 of 2016 registered with Shivaji Nagar police station, Mumbai. The offence is registered at the instance of one Asir Khan on 6th February, 2016. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant and his friend Murtuja Ansari came into contact with one Farhan Khan, the co-accused who told them that he would be in a position to provide job at Qatar. Thereafter, the co-accused Farhan Khan has demanded Rs.25,000/- from the complainant and his friends for Visa and Passport and again he demanded Rs.1,25,000/- each i.e. in total Rs.10 lacs to obtain job. It is the case of the complainant that they received visa and travel ticket and a letter of employment in the company at Qatar. They traveled abroad on 1st February, 2016 from Mumbai to Qatar where they were received by one car owned by the same...
The Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Manag ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. In the case of injury caused as a result of the accident which occurred on 22.06.1998, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has recorded the finding under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act that the claimant has proved the permanent disability to the extent of 10% and accordingly, the owner of the vehicle, the driver and the Insurance Company are held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- including 'no fault liability' along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realization. This decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur, rendered on 31.03.2004 in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 14 of 1999 is the subject matter of challenge by the Insurance Company in this appeal. 2. None appears for the respondents. I have heard Shri Dhanagare, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company, who says that the Insurance Company has produced on record Exh. 63, ...
Ashok Baliramji Bramhne Vs. Sudhir Baburao Landge and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. On 05.01.2016, this Court issued notice for final disposal of the matter. The Respondents are served. Shri B.Lahiri, the learned counsel appears for respondent No.3. None appeared for other respondents. In view of the fact that the notice for final disposal of the matter was issued, it is not necessary to issue fresh notice to the Respondents who are not present before this Court. Hence, Admit. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 waives service of notice. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. In M.A.C.P. No. 243 of 2012, decided on 20.08.2015, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati, has directed payment of compensation of Rs. 72,400/-, inclusive of 'no fault liability' along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization, on account of disability which the claimant is said to have suffered as a result of an accident in question which occurred on 22.03.2012. The claimant is ...
Saurabh and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The applicants have filed present Criminal Application u/s.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing F.I.R. No.158 of 2015, dt.26.6.2015 registered by Police Station, Kalmeshwar, District Nagpur against them. 3. The F.I.R. is lodged for the offences punishable under Section 394 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that there was a dash in between the vehicle i.e. Tata Ace of the first informant and Wagon R vehicle bearing registration No.MH31 AK 1185 of the applicants/accused. After the dash, the present applicants stole certain amounts from the pocket of the first informant and also certain other goods from his vehicle. 4. It appears that, though the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons, on the basis of number of the vehicle of applicants, the present applicants were arrested and were immediately released on bail. 5. In the present case, an affidavit was...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »