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.
Sidhharth Madhukar Meshram Vs. Sau. Suchitra Sidhharth Meshram and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-01-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The applicant has challenged the order passed by the Family Court directing the applicant to pay maintenance @ Rs.2,500/-per month to the non-applicant No.1 (wife) and Rs.2,000/- per month to each of the non-applicant Nos.2 and 3 (minor sons). The Family Court has directed the applicant to pay Rs.1,500/- to the non-applicants towards the cost of the application. 4. Shri S.D. Malke, learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the non-applicant No.1 (wife) is educated and has qualifications of B.P. Ed., M.P.Ed. and is working as Physical Training Instructor. It is further submitted that the applicant had filed petition praying for decree for restitution of conjugal rights, in which decree for restitution of conjugal rights is passed on 13th December, 2012 and the non-applicant No.1 has not complied with the decree and therefore, the applicant has filed execution pro...
Executive Engineer, Kukadi Project Land Development Division No.2 Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-01-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition was admitted by this Court on 25.6.2003. By order dated 18.10.2007, the impugned award was stayed by this Court as a consequence of which, the respondent / employee is out of employment. 2. The petitioner / establishment is aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 27.6.2002, by which, Reference (IDA) No.126 of 1993 has been partly allowed and the respondent has been granted reinstatement with continuity w.e.f. 1.6.1989. He has been deprived of backwages. 3. Shri Sangle, learned Advocate for the petitioner has made a serious grievance about the impugned award. Contention is that though the respondent claimed to have worked from 4.5.1984 till 31.5.1989, he had actually worked intermittently in the said period. The petitioner had prepared a chart of the number of days worked below Exhibit E-5/1. The said chart was proved in the Court and it was, therefore, established that the respondent had not worked continuously in the uninterrupted service of the petit...
Deepak Laxminarayan Verma Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule, having regard to the challenge raised made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 10-3-2015 passed by the Learned Judge of the Family Court No.4, Mumbai by which order, the application Exhibit 4 filed by the Respondent No.2 herein for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), came to be partly allowed and the Petitioner who was the Respondent in the said proceedings was directed to pay interim maintenance @ Rs.4000/- per month to the Petitioner wife from the date of the application i.e. 9-7-2012 (wrongly mentioned as 9-7-2014 in the order). 3. The Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 got married on 11-2-2005. The Petitioner husband had filed the Marriage Petition No.A-1935 of 2007 for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The said Marriage Petition it seems has been dismissed by the Family Court, Mumbai. The relations between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 are estrang...
Luis Caetano Guilherme e Melo @ Wellington D'Melo Vs. The State of Goa ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-01-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Rebello, learned Additional Government Advocate waives service on behalf of the respondent. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner who was the claimant before the learned Arbitrator is taking exception to the order dated 16.03.2015, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Panaji in Arbitration Petition No. 21/2012 (old Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 187/2009). By the impugned order, the application for amendment for addition of grounds of challenge, in the application filed by the respondent-State, has been allowed. 3. The brief facts are that the respondent is a tenant in respect of a portion admeasuring 155 square metres of a building owned by the petitioner. The parties had executed a lease deed on 01.07.1998, which shows that the said property was leased out initially for a period upto 31.03.2001, on an agreed rent of Rs.5,050/- per month. The said lease deed contains an arbitration cla...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Mithilesh Harishchandra Yadav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2016
Oral Order: 1. The respondent was convicted of offences punishable under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), but instead of sentencing him to any punishment, the learned trial Judge thought it fit to give benefit of the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to him. Accordingly, the respondent was directed to be released on his entering into a bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety, to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during a period of two years and in the mean time, to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour. It is against the said order that the State of Maharashtra has filed the present Appeal, purportedly under the provisions of Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code). 2. Section 377 of the Code speaks of an appeal against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy. In this case, no sentence has been awarded. There is, therefore, no question of 'inadequacy of sentence' and there is no quest...
Ravindra Vs. The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Mahara ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-01-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed with following prayers: B) Hold and declare that, inaction on the part of Respondent No.1 and 2 in not conducting the interview of the petitioner on the scheduled date for the post of Assistant Public Relation Officer in pursuance to the advertisement dated 05.03.2014, published in Daily Loksatta is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, hence liable to be quashed and set aside and for that purpose issue necessary orders. C) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and to conduct the interview of the petitioner and to undertake further process of selection of the post of Assistant Public Relation Officer in pursuance to the advertisement dated 05.03.2014, published in Daily Loksatta and for that purpose issue necessary orders. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, on 05.03.2014, respo...
Union of India and Another Vs. V.R. Tripathi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2016
M.S. Sonak, J. 1. Rule. With the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioners-Union of India (Railways) challenge the orders dated 6 March 2014 and 26 August 2014 made by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Original Application No. 110 of 2014 and Review Petition No. 29 of 2014, merely directing that the case of respondent, the son of late Ramlakhan Tripati (Technician Grade-I) a permanent railway employee, who died in harness on 28 November 2009 be considered for compassionate appointment. The directions contained in the impugned orders, it must be noted, do not direct the appointment of the respondent on compassionate basis, but merely directs consideration of the respondent's case for appointment on compassionate basis, on its own merits and in accordance with law. 3. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the Union of India (Railways), has submitted that compassionate appointment, is not a regular so...
Prabhakar Sambhu Chaudhary and Another Vs. Laxman Baban Mali and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-01-2016
R.M. Borde, J. 1. Heard Shri R.N.Dhorde, Senior Counsel i/by Shri V.R.Dhorde, advocate for the Appellant in Second Appeal No.700 of 2008 and for Respondent No.1 in Second Appeal No.793 of 2008 with and i/by Shri P.S.Dighe, advocate; Shri P.M.Shah, Senior Counsel i/by Shri S.P.Brahme, advocate for Respondents No.1 to 3 in Second Appeal No.700 of 2008 and for the Appellant in Second Appeal No.793 of 2008 with and i/by Shri N.B.Suryawanshi, advocate; and Shri A.B.Girase, Government Pleader for Respondent No.5 in both the appeals. 2. These Second Appeals have been presented objecting to the judgment and order dated 29.04.2008, passed by Ad hoc District Judge-2, Shahada in Trust Applications No.1 of 2007 and 2 of 2007. 3. Although there is a chequered history of the litigation, it would suffice to note that after elections to the Managing Committee were held, Change Report No.207 of 2003 was presented by Choudhary group i.e. appellant in Second Appeal No.700 of 2008, whereas, Change Report ...
Vimal Maruti Burute and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2016
P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned A.P.P for the State. 2. By this application, the applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.36 of 2016 registered with the Jath Police Station, Sangli, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The complainant is the father of the deceased. He has stated that on 11th May, 2014, his daughter Archana got married to Rahul Burute, the son of the applicants. He has further stated that after marriage, the applicants' son Rahul was demanding a sum of Rs.3 lakhs from his daughter and was asking her to bring the said amount from her maternal home. He has alleged that on account of the said demand of Rs.3 lakhs, the applicants' son Rahul was even assaulting her. It is further alleged that the present applicants, brother-in-law and co-sister of the deceased, were stating that she had only brought one tola gold in marriage and that she should bring one more tola of...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›