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.
Madankuwar and Others Vs. Sushila and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
Oral Judgment: Facts 1. The respondent, plaintiff, Smt. Sushila wife of Gyanchand Kataria, filed Special Civil Suit No. 129 of 1987 in the Court of Civil Judge [Senior Division], Chandrapur, for a declaration, partition and separate possession. In the suit, she stated that Jethmalji, who died in November, 1956, left behind his widow Smt. Heerabai, her step-son, Rekchandji. Smt. Heerabai died on 30th June, 1983, and was a member of Hindu Joint Family with Rekchand, possessing undivided immovable and movable properties. For the purpose of partition, Schedules-A and B were the properties, immovable and movable attached with the plaint. Rekchand died on 20th January, 1980, leaving behind his widow, Smt. Madankunwar and three daughters, namely Smt. Sharadkunwar, Smt. Shantakunwar and Smt. Sushila, the plaintiff. Rekchand had no son and, therefore, the defendant no.4 Deepakkumar was adopted as a son, for which plaintiff, Sushila, had a reservation. Further, according to the plaintiff, Smt. H...
Santosh and Another Vs. Namdeo and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
1. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 02.01.2007 in Regular Civil Appeal No.300/2001 passed by Ad hoc District Judge 10, Nagpur by which the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2001 in Regular Civil Suit No.214/1989 dismissing the suit filed by respondents-plaintiffs was set aside and the decree for specific performance of contract etc. was made, the present second appeal was filed by the unsuccessful defendants. FACTS: 2. The respondents-plaintiffs, through their power of attorney holder by name Dhairyasheel, instituted Special Civil Suit No.214/1989 for specific performance of contract against the defendant no.1-Santosh Vaidya. Defendant no.2-Kailash Lute was in fact the proposed vendee in the agreement who was joined as defendant because of his absence. The case of respondents-plaintiffs was that defendant no.1-Santosh Vaidya was the owner of field survey No.32, 1.57 HR at mouza Hudkeshwar and he entered into an agreement on 07.04.1986 in favour of the plaintiff and defendant ...
Priyatama Sakharam Wakle Vs. The Divisional Commissioner and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
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 is aggrieved by the order dated 3.2.2015 delivered by respondent No.2 by which the Complaint filed by respondent No.6, challenging the appointment of the petitioner was allowed. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.2015 delivered by respondent No.1, by which, Appeal No.3 of 2015 filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite having fulfilled all the requirements as described by the public proclamation dated 6.12.2013 and having been rightly appointed on the basis of merit as an Anganwadi Karyakarti, respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 have erroneously interfered with the appointment of the petitioner and have set aside her appointment. 6. The petitioner submits that if the merit list prepared by the competent authority after th...
Sagar Prakash Bhosale Vs. The Commissioner of Police and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1. The petitioner / detenu - Sagar Prakash Bhosale has preferred this petition questioning the preventive detention order passed against him on 1.6.2015 by the respondent no.1 i.e. Commissioner of Police, Solapur. The said detention order has been passed in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment-1996 and 2009) (hereinafter referred to as the "MPDA Act"). The said detention order is based on one C.R. i.e. C.R. No. 350 of 2014 dated 7.12.2014 of Vijapur Naka Police Station, Solapur and two incamera statements. The said C.R. is under Section 392 read with Section 34 of IPC. The detention order was passed whilst the detenu was already lodged in Jail in connection with C.R.No. 350 of 2014. After passing of the detention order, the said detention order along with grounds of detention was served to the de...
Sanjay Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
Oral Order: 1. Heard both sides. 2. The present applicant, who is arrested by Upanagar Police Station, District Nandurbar in Crime No.3 of 2016 for the offences punishable under section 376, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3(A), 3, 4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, is praying for his release on bail. 3. Submissions from both sides would show that the present applicant is serving as a Primary Teacher at Lonkheda, Tq. Shahada, Dist. Nandurabar. The present applicant was the friend of the mother of 15 years and 10 months old victim. According to the victim, on 26/12/2015, in the night, the present applicant had been to her house and the house of her widowed mother at Nandurbar, since her mother wanted to purchase a house at Nandurbar on the advice of the present applicant. In the night of 26/12/2015, however, he committed forcible sexual intercourse in the house and in the morning of 27/12/2015 at 8.00 am, he again had sexual intercourse with th...
Kaluram Chaudhary Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
S.C. Gupte, J. 1. Criminal Writ Petition No.282 of 2016 is filed by the Petitioner Kaluram Chaudhary ("Petitioner") under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. It seeks transfer of investigations in an NDPS Remand Application pending on the file of Special Judge appointed under NDPS Act, 1985 to the Central Bureau of Investigations ('C.B.I.') or other Central Government Agency to whom the present investigating officer, namely, Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau is sub-ordinate. The Petitioner along with Respondent Nos.2 to 4 is a co-accused in a criminal case pending before NDPS Special Judge under NDPS Act, 1985, for possession of contraband. Another Accused, Respondent No.3 herein has filed the companion writ petition, namely, Criminal Writ Petition No.117 of 2016, praying for similar relief in addition to quashing of the criminal prosecution. 2. The Petitioner alongwith Respondent Nos.2 to 4 and one Jayantilal...
Jai Hind Education Trust, Dhule through its Director, Iccharam Gangara ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-02-2016
Oral Judgment: (S.S. Shinde, J.) 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. This petition takes exception to the order passed by respondent no.4 on 20th December, 2014, whereby one post of trained graduate teacher from the approved staff of the petitioner no.2 school came to be cancelled permanently. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Education Officer had directed to absorb the surplus teacher to teach Mathematics subject, however, three vacancies, which were advertised for appointment of the Assistant Teachers, were for Science and Hindi subjects. There was no vacancy for the teacher of Mathematics subject. He further submits that the Education Officer is not empowered to cancel the approved post. He further submits that already the petitioner Institution has absorbed 13 surplus teachers as directed by the respondent Education Officer. He further submits that a surplu...
Indira Vs. Bhikhubhai Vesta Dubli @ Dubla @ Rathod and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2016
P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner is challenging the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below while dismissing the application made by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for setting aside exparte decree dated 08.06.2010 by which the Trial Court directed the petitioner to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises viz. room No.3, Vesta Mangal Chawl, Malpadongri No.1, Azad Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400 093 (ground plus 1 floor) to the respondent plaintiff and also to pay sum of Rs.700/- towards arrears of rent for a period January 2005 to February 2006. 2. In the present proceedings, the respondent plaintiff filed RAE and R suit No.114/237/2006 in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai for vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises on the ground that the petitioner/ defendant sublet the suit premises and br...
Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate T ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2016
1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - Maharashtra State Financial Corporation (MSFC) challenges judgment and order dated 20 June 2014 made by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (DRAT) in misc. appeal no. 241 of 2012. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, DRAT has set aside order dated 7 August 2012 made by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) refusing to grant leave to the respondents to cross-examine MFSC's officer, who has filed affidavit in support of the original application seeking to recover loan amounts and interest from the respondents, who are the guarantors for the repayment of said loan amounts. 3. Dr. Barthakur, learned counsel for MSFC has submitted that the impugned order made by DRAT is in violation of the Rule 12(6) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (said Rules) and if the impugned order is allowed to stand, cross-examination shall have to be permitted, not merely in the cases at hand, b...
Dr. Vandan Vs. Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-02-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard Shri Sunil Manohar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri S. Khedkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri N.D. Khamborkar, learned Counsel for respondent no.1. None appears for respondent Nos.2 and 3 though served. Considering the nature of controversy raised in the petition and with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. Rule is therefore made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner who has crossed age of 60 years, questions order of compulsory retirement dated 16.10.2014, passed after departmental enquiry. 3. Without prejudice to other contentions raised in the Writ Petition to assail that order, Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to meet the adverse findings recorded in the enquiry report, and he was straightaway called upon to submit his say upon quantum of punishment. He contends t...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »