Mumbai Court April 2016 Judgments
Nitesh Prataprai Kothari Vs. John Braganza and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
1. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession of the suit premises. The Plaintiff has taken out a notice of motion in the suit (Notice of Motion No.4016/2007) for appointment of Court Receiver and interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants from creating third party rights in respect of the suit premises. During the pendency of the suit, the original Defendant expired and his heirs were brought on record as Defendant Nos.1(a), 1(b) and 1(c). These Defendants object to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of bar of limitation and have moved a notice of motion (Notice of Motion No.659/2014) for framing and deciding a preliminary issue in that behalf. By his order dated 29 January 2015, a learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to frame the following issue as a preliminary issue : "Whether the suit is filed within the period provided under Law of Limitation?" The parties have chosen not to lead any oral evidence on the preliminary issue and instead arg...
Tag this Judgment!Emgee Housing Private Limited and Others Vs. ELS Developers Private Li ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
1. By this petition, the petitioners (respondents before the Arbitrator) are challenging order dated 09.08.2012, passed by the Company Law Board, Mumbai Bench (CLB) in Company Application No. 27/2012 in Company Petition No. 8/397-398/CLB/MB/2012. By the impugned order, the CLB has dismissed the Company Application No. 27/2012, thereby refusing to refer the dispute to arbitration. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus: That, the respondent herein (petitioner before the CLB) had filed the aforesaid company application alleging mismanagement by the petitioners, as majority shareholders of the petitioner no. 1-Company. That, company petition is filed for seeking action in respect of oppression and mismanagement. It appears that the petitioners filed Company Application No. 27/2012 therein, under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Arbitration Act, for short), seeking reference of the dispute to the Arbitrator. That applica...
Tag this Judgment!Amol Bhairavnath Gangane Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P for the State. 2. By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.260 of 2015 registered with the Pandharpur Taluka Police Station, Pandharpur, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 328, 188, 272, 273 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 26(1), 26(2)(I), 26(2)(IV) and Sections 3, 1, 7 of the Food Products Standards and Food Activities Act and Sections 2, 3, 4 of the Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales, Regulation 2011 and Sections 7, 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was a cleaner of the truck which was seized, in which 52 bags of Vimal Pan Masala worth Rs.12,48,000/- and 31 bags of V-1 Chewing Tobacco worth Rs.3,72,000/- were found. He submitted that the applicant is neither the owner of the truck nor the owner of the banned articles/substances. He submitted that the considering the na...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Princ ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
1. There are multiple prayers in the Petition, however, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that at present the petitioner is seeking directions to stop the supply of water for manufacturing of liquor and make available the said water for drinking purposes to the citizens as per the State Water Policy, 2011. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that because of drought and acute scarcity of water many people and particularly the farmers are striving for their lives. The citizens are not being provided with drinking water. However, the production of liquor is no way affected, though there is acute scarcity of water. The respondents are under a legal obligation to provide water to the citizens for drinking rather than for liquor production, which directly or indirectly adversely affects the health of the citizens. As per Article 47 of the Constitution of India, the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of livi...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanraj Bhaidas Patil (Jadhav) Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Nasik and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
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 5.1.2012 delivered by respondent No.2, thereby allowing the Complaint filed by respondent No.5 and concluding that the petitioner stands disqualified under Section 14(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the judgment of respondent No.1 - appellate authority dated 18.6.2012, by which Appeal No.16 of 2012 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 5. The submissions of Shri Patil, learned Advocate for the petitioner can be summarized as under:- (a) Respondent No.5 - Gram Panchayat resolved in 1980 to allot a piece of land to 12 agriculturists for erecting a cattle shade and for residing in the said area. Respondent No.5 was the Chairman of the Gram Panchayat committee which granted / allotted the land admeasuring 30...
Tag this Judgment!Kiskinda Bapu Kale Vs. Sushilabai
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
1. Learned counsel for the Applicant-original complainant submits that this Appeal is against acquittal. According to him the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("N.I. Act" for short) was clearly established as the cheque issued by the Respondent-accused when presented, bounced and the Respondent should have been convicted. According to the counsel, the reasonings recorded by the trial Court for dismissal of the complaint were not maintainable. It is stated that the document Exhibit 25 was wrongly treated by the trial Court as withdrawal slip and not cheque. 2. The learned counsel for the Respondent-accused opposes and states that the reasonings recorded by the trial Court were correct and the acquittal was justified. 3. With the assistance of counsel for both sides, I have gone through the contents of Exhibit 25 which the complainant wants to rely on as a cheque. The document is of "Lokshradha Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd.". The printed wordings in the...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Vyankatesh Shetty Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
P.C. 1. Heard Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant and the learned APP for the Respondent - State. 2. By this Application, the Applicant seeks her enlargement on bail in connection with C.R.No.67 of 2014 registered with the Faras Khana Police Station, District - Pune, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 344, 363, 363B r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Prevention of Immoral Trafficking Act. 3. The Complainant is PSI Nevase, who was attached to the Faraskhana Police Station, Pune at the relevant time. He has stated that on 04.04.2014, he was informed by P.I.More, Faraskhana Police Station, that on 31.03.2014, a victim girl was rescued from a brothel house, situated at Budhwar Peth, Pune and that the said victim girl was in the custody of Rescue Foundation, Hadapsar, Pune and that he should submit a report alongwith the statement of the victim-girl. Accordingly, the Complainant visited the said shelter home, met the victim-girl, ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhrubajit Amiya Kumar Ghosh Vs. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Com ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
S.C. Gupte, J. 1. The Petitioner has challenged an order dated 8 February 2016 passed by Respondent No.2, terminating the services of the Petitioner who was, according to Respondent Nos.1 and 2, on probation. 2. On 29 June 2012, the Petitioner was appointed to the post of Deputy Director (Legal) with Respondent No.1 on nomination basis, to be governed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Employees) Regulation, 2007. Under Regulation 20, the Petitioner's appointment was on a probation for one year, with option to Respondent No.1 to extend the probation period by a further period of one year. The Petitioner remained on probation without the period of probation being extended by any specific order. 3. On 17 December 2014, Respondent No.1 appointed Respondent No.3 for conducting an enquiry against the Petitioner as per Rule 8 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1979. On 8 February 2016, Respondent No....
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Namaji Sahare Vs. Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard Shri Shambharkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Hiwase, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Nobody appears for other respondents. 2. Shri Shambharkar, learned counsel submits that the petitioner claims promotion as Junior Clerk in view of provisions of Part 3 of Schedule 'F' of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as MEPS Rules, 1981). He contends that one post of Junior Clerk became vacant and as the petitioner was senior-most candidate, who had improved his educational qualification and was eligible for it, he needed to be given that post. He points out that this Court on 04/01/2005 directed the parties to maintain status quo. Though respondent No.5 was selected and appointed as direct recruit on that post, respondent No.5 did not report for duty and post is lying vacant since last about 10-11 years. He points out that the petitioner h...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Sarvdaman @ Manohar Bagmare
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-26-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri S.S. Doifode, Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Shri M.P. Khajanchi, Advocate for the respondent. 2. State of Maharashtra has filed the appeal challenging the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 163 and 164 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The case of the prosecution is : On 14-12-1999 at about 4-00 p.m., the accused obstructed the complainant - Aawadtabai Sahadeo Shamkule when she was taking she-buffaloes to cattle pond and the accused intentionally insulted her by abusing her on her caste. According to the complainant, the accused was knowing that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste and to humiliate her the accused had abused the complainant at a public place in public view. The accused had ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »