Mumbai Court April 2016 Judgments
Harishchandra Vs. Kishor
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The applicant in Criminal Revision Application No.162/2012 is hereinafter referred to as "the applicant" and the non-applicant in Criminal Revision Application No.162/2012 is hereinafter referred to as "the non-applicant". 2. Heard Shri Ramesh Mohod, Advocate for the applicant and Shri A.R. Prasad, Advocate for the non-applicant. 3. The applicant filed complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the non-applicant be punished for the offence punishable under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, on the following accusations : The applicant who is Graduate in Arts and having experience of agricultural operations was employed as Diwanji with the non-applicant, however, as the requests made by the applicant about his needs were not taken cognizance of by the non-applicant, the applicant had left the employment of the non-applicant in October 2010 and taken up employment as Diwanji with Shri Vijaykumar Jain who owned agricultural field adjoin...
Tag this Judgment!Kalpesh Jitendra Sachdev Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
P.C. 1. The application is moved for bail. The applicant/accused is facing charges for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No.410 of 2014 registered with Mulund police station, Mumbai. The offence is registered at the instance of one Hiren Lakhani on 25th August, 2014. The applicant was arrested on 29th November, 2014 and since then he is in prison. Hence, this bail application. 2. It is the case of the complainant that in the year 2012 the applicant/accused phoned him and informed him that he is working as a insurance adviser/investment consultant and LIC agent. He, thereafter again and again contacted him for the purpose of business and told that he has good acquaintance with the higher management of LIC officers and he knew some Board of Directors from some companies. He told the complainant that he has a pull account in LIC and the person who invest money in the said scheme in different plans of LIC, gets double the amount within a ye...
Tag this Judgment!Padmsey Khimji Chheda and Another Vs. Kesarben Laxmichand Dedhia and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. The Applicants/Appellants have taken out this Notice of Motion dated 6 January 2016 for a condonation of delay of 3014 days in filing Appeal (Lodging) No. 569 of 2014, against the Judgment and order dated 14 November 2005 passed in Arbitration Petition No. 380 of 2005. 2. The prayers are as under: (a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to condone the delay of 3014 days in filing the present Appeal which delay has occurred as following manner: (i) Delay of 360 days in filing the Appeal No.210 of 2008 (lodging No. 1056 of 2006) in this Hon'ble Court from Impugned Order dated 14th November 2005 in Arbitration Petition No. 380 of 2005 which Appeal was disposed off as withdrawn with liberty on 1st April 2008. (ii) Delay of 467 days in prosecuting the Appeal No. 210 of 2008 which was filed on 19.12.2006 before Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court and withdrawn with liberty on 1st April, 2008. (iii) Delay of 2187 days in prosecuting the following proceedings: (a) the Cha...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Dharampal
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri S.M. Bhagde, Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant. 2. The State of Maharashtra has filed this appeal challenging the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate acquitting the respondent-accused of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The case of the prosecution is : The complainant Alka Dharampal Gadpayale lodged complaint that she was subjected to cruelty, mental and physical ill-treatment by her husband-accused. On the basis of the complaint, crime came to be registered, investigation was conducted and charge-sheet was filed before the learned Magistrate. The charge came to be framed and explained to the accused. The accused did not accept the guilt and claimed to be tried. The learned Magistrate conducted the trial and by the impugned judgment concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused subjected his wife-complainant to cruelty as his illegal demand of money was not fulfilled. The learned Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Jagganath Gorakh Patil and Others Vs. Bhagirathibai Gorakh Patil and O ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No.152/2000 (Old No.Special Civil Suit No.54/1992), which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nandurbar and also against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.31/2001, which was pending in the District Court, Nandurbar. The suit filed for partition and separate possession of Joint Hindu Family property was partly decreed by the Trial Court. Both the sides challenge the decision in first appeal which was filed by original defendants. The plaintiffs filed cross objection. The cross objection of the plaintiffs was allowed and the extent of share of plaintiffs in the suit properties is increased. Both the sides are heard. 2. Plaintiff No.1 - Bhagirathibai and plaintiff No.2 -Sushilabai, daughter of Bhagirathibai, had filed the aforesaid suit. Gorakh Patil was the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2. Defendant No.1 is the real brother of Gorakh. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 are...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri D.A. Sonwane, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri S.S. Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. The appellant has challenged the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for period of three months. 3. The case of the prosecution is : The complainant-Ku. Shalini (aged about 14 years 11 months 9 days at the time of incident) filed report with the police station stating that she was having love affair with the accused No.1 (appellant) and the accused No.1 assured her that he will marry her and had sexual intercourse with her forcibly. The complainant alleged that accused No.2-Sunil had embraced her on road and outraged her modesty. On the complaint made by ...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Vs. State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary, Schoo ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. This Petition is filed aggrieved by the refusal to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Primary Teacher by respondent no.3. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is appointed after following due procedure in the year 2011, and therefore, the reasons assigned in the impugned communication that, there is ban on recruitment from 2nd May, 2012 cannot be considered as a valid ground for not granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Primary Teacher. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner tendered across the bar the copy of Government Resolution dated 21st August, 2013, issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Maharashtra and submitted that, by way of the said Resolution, the Government of Maharashtra granted extension of time so as to fill up the post of ...
Tag this Judgment!Shaila Parveen Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The applicant has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting her application by which the applicant prayed that the Investigating Officer be directed to return her passport which is deposited in compliance of the directions given by the Sessions Court while granting bail. The applicant is being prosecuted along with co-accused in Case No.58 of 2015 pending before the Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant is sister of husband of the complainant. The applicant is married to Dr. Abdul Wahid who is permanent resident of Hajipur, Post : Ghosipur, District : Meerut (U.P.) who at present is working as Assistant Professor in Jazzaan University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The applicant is pursuing her Ph.D. in Electrical En...
Tag this Judgment!Netaji Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2016
1. This appeal against acquittal has been filed by original complainant. Respondent Nos.2 to 10 (hereinafter referred to as accused) were arrayed as accused No.1 to 9 respectively in S.T.C. No.582/2009 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ghansawangi, District Jalna. The complaint was dismissed for want of taking steps by the complainant on 11.1.2012 and hence this appeal. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he has filed civil dispute against accused No.1 Bakulabai. It is argued that, the complainant claims to be adopted son of accused No.1 Bakulabai, aged about 70 years. The case of complainant is that, he has filed suit against accused No.1 and while the suit was pending, accused No.1 sold the disputed land to accused Nos.3 to 6. The concerned land had various fruit bearing trees and the purchasers cut down the trees since 13.4.2007 and on 13.5.2007, burnt off the cattle fodder depot in the field. Accused No.2 purchased the wood after trees were cut. The complainant fil...
Tag this Judgment!CIPLA Limited Vs. CIPLA Industries Private Limited and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
Oral Order: 1. The Suit is an action in trade mark infringement combined with the cause of action in passing off. I have heard Dr. Tulzapurkar for the Plaintiff and Mr. Kamat for the Defendants briefly. The dispute is about the mark CIPLA registered to the Plaintiff in Class 05 of the Fourth Schedule to the Trade Mark Rules, 2002. 2. In this order, I do not propose to decide this Notice of Motion. The reason is that a decision of a Division Bench of this Court has been cited before me on the central issue; although that decision is undoubtedly binding on me, I have, for the reasons that follow, expressed my reservations about its correctness. For these reasons, I have directed that the questions I have then formulated be placed before the Hon ble the Chief Justice for his decision as to whether these should be referred to a larger Bench or not. Both sides have also addressed me on the correct procedure to be followed in such matters. I will refer to these decisions and the relevant Rul...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »