Mumbai Court April 2016 Judgments
Sindhubai Balkrishna Mayur and Others Vs. Jafarali Ismail Meghjani (di ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition has been admitted by this Court on 4.5.1995. 2. The respondents in this petition are the original defendants. Shri Jafarali passed away during the pendency of the suit and his legal heirs, therefore, participated in the suit and thereafter in the Appeal proceedings. 3. The Court notice issued to the original defendants returned unserved since the defendants were not found to be residing at the suit premises. By order of this Court, dated 20.10.2004, notices were issued to the defendants on their new address. It is stated that the new address is the place where the defendants had a vacant plot during the pendency of the suit and the appeal and have subsequently, constructed a house. Since notice could not be served even on this address, the petitioner was granted liberty by order dated 1.12.2004, passed in Civil Application No.10401 of 2004 to serve the respondents / defendants by paper publication. Having so done, the petition was posted for final hearin...
Tag this Judgment!Shilpa Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
P.C. 1. Applicant is praying for quashment of the First Information Report registered by Hingoli police being crime No.57/2015 on 29.05.2015. The crime is registered at the instance of Child Development Project Officer, Akhada-Balapur for commission of offences punishable under sections 468, 471, 420 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is alleged that applicant is instrumental in preparing false caste certificate with a view to claim employment from amongst the Scheduled Caste category. Caste certificate certifying that applicant belongs to Bhuddha caste is prepared by applicant and the same has been utilised for claiming employment from amongst the reserved category. Sub-Divisional Officer, Hingoli, by communication dated 28.08.2013 informed the office of Zilla Parishad that the caste certificate in question has not been issued by the said office. Writ petition bearing No.3988/2014 was presented by the objector which was disposed of with direction to the Zilla Parishad auth...
Tag this Judgment!Aires D'Costa @ Ayres Genesio Jose Estevan Da Costa Vs. The Chief Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
Oral Judgment : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Considering the limited controversy involved, as set out hereinafter, it would not be necessary to serve the unserved respondent nos.14, 15, 20, 38, 39 and 40. I find that at the highest, the respondent nos.6 and 7, who are original defendant nos.6 and 7 would be the contesting parties. They are served. However, none appears for them. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner has filed Civil Suit Not.22/2014 in which there are 42 defendants. The present issue pertains to defendant nos.41 now deceased Gause Mohidin Bepari, who was said to be proprietor of Al Sharif Beef Centre. 3. The case made out in the plaint is that the respondent nos.6 and 7 have erected a Sports cum Commercial Complex by encroaching on the land belonging to the petitioner. It was contended that out of said complex, Shop no.14 was allotted to now deceased Gause Mohidin Bepari, who was running Al Sharif Beef Centre , therein. It appears that on the de...
Tag this Judgment!Siddharam Parshuram Takale and Another Vs. Adveshwar Grurubasyya Hirem ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
1. By consent of the learned Counsel for parties, taken on board for final hearing. 2. Heard learned Counsel for parties. This Petition preferred by Defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 8th March 2016 passed by the learned District Judge, Kolhapur below Exh.24 in Civil Appeal No.235 of 2015 rejecting the Defendants' Application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for carrying out an amendment in the Written Statement at Appellate stage. 3. It is the case of the Defendants that the Appellate Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the Defendants failed to make out any case for carrying out amendment in the Written Statement. He submits that the Defendants filed the Written Statement on 19th March 2013. He submits that at the time of filing the Written Statement, it remained on the part of Defendants to provide all the information to his Advocate. Hence, the Defendants preferred Application below Exh.24 under Order...
Tag this Judgment!Omkarsingh Sajjan Singh Jat and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
1. These two Appeals can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment, as both arise out of one and the same judgment i.e. judgment and order dated 26th July 2004 delivered by the Addl. Sessions Judge at Bombay in Sessions Case No.1505/99. 2. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.923/04 were the accused nos.2 and 10, respectively, in the said case, while the appellant no.1 in Criminal Appeal No.1024/04 was a witness (P.W.8) therein. 3. The circumstances giving rise to these Appeals and the facts necessary to understand the controversy are as under: On 6th July 1994, a dacoity took place and cash of Rs.12,63,100/- belonging to Killburn Engineering Ltd (respondent no.6 in Criminal Appeal No.923/04 and respondent no.4 in Criminal Appeal No.1024/04) was robbed from the possession of its employees. On the First Information Report lodged by one of the employees, investigation commenced. In the course of investigation, cash of Rs.7,07,805/- was seized by the police claiming it to be a p...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Sunder Mishra Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
1. Heard S.P. Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri R.K. Joshi, Advocate for the applicant and Shri A.D. Sonak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The applicant has filed this revision application challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the application filed by the applicant under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that he be discharged of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 465, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The relevant facts are as follows : The applicant had been working in the Indian Forest Services and was allotted to Maharashtra cadre. By the order dated 19-03-1991, the applicant was directed to assume additional charge of the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests, Nagpur and he accordingly held the additional charge for the period from 23-03-1991 till 22-08-1991. During this period, the office of the Deputy...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order delivered by the Special Judge (appointed under section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act) for Greater Mumbai, convicting the appellant of offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'P.C. Act') and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3(three) years, and to pay a fine of Rs.7,500/- on each of the said two counts. 2. The prosecution case, as put forth before the trial Court, can be best taken from Form No. 5E of the Printed Prescribed Proforma of the police report (Final Report Form) u/s.173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In brief, it be stated thus : Hemant Bhagwat, (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') at the material time, was doing his Garment business under the name and style of Four Seasons Garments at Unit No.IV, Star Delta Industrial Estate, Saki Naka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. He had no permits or licences re...
Tag this Judgment!Eknath Balu Warhe Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
Oral Order: (V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner has prayed for parole for a period of 30 days on the ground that the marriage of his niece is to take place on 12.5.2016 and the engagement is on 3.5.2016. Hence, it is prayed that parole may be granted for a period of 30 days. It is seen that the petitioner has not preferred an application to the concerned authority for parole, but he has directly approached this court with the prayer for parole. 3. Mr. Khamkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of full Bench of this Court in the case of S. Sant Singh @ Pilli Singh Ajit Singh Kalyani v. The Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors. [2006 ALL MR (Cri) 625]. He placed reliance on paragraph 26 and 27 of the said decision to contend that a prisoner can directly approach this court with the prayer for parole leave. We have carefully perused the entire decision, more, pa...
Tag this Judgment!Children of the World (India) Trust Vs. Roy Edward Roos and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
PC: 1. The Petitioners are two United State citizens. The adoptive father is 54 years of age, and the adoptive mother is 50. 2. This Petition is unusual in many respects. First, it is in respect of not one but two minors: Vaibhav, born on 3rd December 2007, and Shrutika, born on 6th January 2009. This means that Vaibhav is today nine years old and Shrutika is about seven years old. They were found abandoned on 31st December 2012 by the Central Police Station, Ulhasnagar. This means that at the time of their abandonment Vaibhav was already five years old and Shrutika was three years old. They were taken to the Child Welfare Committee, Thane and custody was given to Shejar Chhaya, Vasai by an order dated 31st December 2012. The Child Welfare Committee then declared them free for adoption. An Inter Country adoption Foreign Adoption Petition No.60 of 2013 was filed. Those proposed adoptive parents were of Indian origin from Canada. They were not the proposed adoptive parents who are before...
Tag this Judgment!Sudha Yeshwant Jadhav and Others Vs. Rajendra Laxman Pol
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this Civil Revision Application, the petitioner original defendant Nos.2 to 4 challenge the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below. 2. In the present proceedings the respondent Nos.1 to 3 original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.67/2011 in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur for vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises i.e. a room, admeasuring 10' x 10' situated at revision survey No.632 out of plot No.M-7, new number 132-A, Kolhapur (hereinafter referred to as suit premises) on the ground of arrears of rent, bona fide requirement etc. The trial court, by judgment and decree dated 10.03.2014 held that the plaintiff has made out a case for eviction decree on the ground of bonafide requirement and arrears of rent. 3. Said decree was challenged by defendant Nos.2 to 4 before the District Judge, Kolhapur vide Regular Civil Appeal No.124/2014. The appellate court also held that the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »