Mumbai Court April 2016 Judgments
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Madhav Vitthal Bansode
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
1. This Appeal by State has been filed against the orders passed by the Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhusawal on 31st May 2003 in Summary Criminal Case No.32 of 1999 whereby the trial Court, while convicting the Respondent accused for offence under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, instead of passing sentence of imprisonment or fine, directed his release on the bond of Rs.5000/- and the bond of "one month's period contemplated in Section 4" of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 ("Probation Act" in brief). The present Appeal was filed by the State seeking leave under Section 377 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C." in brief), with prayer to enhance the sentence awarded by the J.M.F.C. The Appeal was admitted on 5th October 2005. 2. In brief, the case is as follows: (A). On 17th December 1998 at about 4.15 p.m., complainant Raman Chaudhari (PW-1) filed F.I.R. with Bhusawal City Police Station informing that when he was at his tailor's shop in the...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Chagan Kannu Bankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. By this appeal, the appellant-State is challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned 5th Jt. J.M.F.C., Ulhasnagar on 19th November, 1998 in Regular Criminal Case No.135/1998 thereby acquitting the respondent / accused for the offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Facts leading to the institution of the present appeal can be summarized thus:- (a) The respondent / accused Chhagan Bankar married informant Chandabai Chhagan Bankar on 16th March, 1997. Thereafter, informant Chanda started co-habiting with the respondent / accused at Village Rahtoli, Taluka Ulhasnagar, District Thane. According to the prosecution case, after initial nice treatment for four months, married life of Chanda had seen rough weather. Her husband Chhagan started subjecting her to cruelty by asking her to bring golden necklace from her mother. She was reached to her maternal house thereafter. When she returned to her matrimonial home after stay of eight ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra, Through The Public Prosecutor and Others Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
1. Respondent original accused Rajendra Namdeo Shinde was convicted by VIIth J.M.F.C. Aurangabad in Regular Criminal Case No.1332 of 2001 on 11th January 2002 under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("I.P.C." in brief) and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to suffer R.I. for further three months. Accused Rajendra Shinde carried Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2002 before Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad and in the Appeal he came to be acquitted by Judgment and Order dated 6th March 2003. Thus, the State has filed this Criminal Appeal No.511 of 2003 against acquittal. The complainant Hanumant, who lost his daughter in the incident of rash and negligent driving, filed the Criminal Revision Application No.333 of 2003 against the orders of the Sessions Court. On his death, his Legal Representatives have come on record. 2. The facts in brief are as under: (A). Complainant Hanumant Pawar, on 10th Mar...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Rajendra Vs. Takhatmal Shrivallabh Brothers and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The respondent No.1-Takhatmal Shrivallabh Brothers firm filed Criminal Complaint Case No.4291/2010 praying that the accused be tried and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. After verification of the complainant and examining the complaint and the documents on record, the learned Magistrate passed order on 15th June, 2011 directing issuance of process against the petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the above order filed Criminal Revision No.120 of 2011 before the Sessions Court which is dismissed by the impugned order. The petitioner, being aggrieved in the matter, has filed this writ petition. 5. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and have ex...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kudtarkar Vs. State, Represented by the PP and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
1. This Revision Application at the instance of the original Accused no. 6, takes exception to the Order dated 09.02.2016, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, at Mapusa in Session Case no. 13 of 2015. By the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge has directed framing of charge against the Accused under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and alternatively under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Revision Application may be stated thus: That, Ankita Kudtarkar, is the daughter of the cousin brother of the Petitioner. Ankita and now deceased Pranay Padloskar, were in a relationship since about seven years prior to death of Pranay. There were disputes and differences between the families of Ankita and Pranay on account of the affair/relationship between them which were said to be patched up at Valpoi Police Station where the parties had landed on account of filing of complaint and counter complaints. 3. On 06.03.201...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Tulshidas Naik Vs. Chandar Barkelo Fadte and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-25-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the Respondents waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2.Heard Shri Desai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri Coutinho, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5, who are the original Plaintiffs and the only contesting Respondents. The service of notice to Respondents No.6 and 7, who are original defendants No.2 and 3 is dispensed with. 3.The Petitioner, who is the original Defendant No.1, filed an application for production of additional documents being Application Exhibit 104-D. Thereby, the Petitioner sought to produce a CD of photographs which were clicked on 03.10.2007 by a professional photographer namely Eknath Uttam Khedekar and a certificate dated 09.03.2015 issued by Rucha Photo Studio. The Trial Court found that the Petitioner had filed a list of documents on 25.02.2009 and as the CD was generated on 30.06.2008, which was prior to the filing of the list of documents, th...
Tag this Judgment!Yesumithra Sabanna Vs. Chief Manager, Nitin Arun Nivsarkar, Central Ra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
P.C. 1. Writ Petition No.460 of 2016 is filed by Central Railway Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., who is the employer of the Respondent. The petition challenges an order of the Industrial Court, Mumbai passed in a revision application. The revision application was filed by the first Respondent, whose complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 was dismissed by the Labour Court. The Revisional Court partly allowed the revision application and set aside the order of the Labour Court, directing the Petitioner employer to reinstate the first Respondent employee in his original post with continuity of service and with 50% back wages. Writ Petition No.638 of 2016 is filed by the first Respondent employee challenging the revisional order referred to above to the extent that it does not allow full back wages to the employee and also to the extent that it does not issue a sanction to prosecute the employer for filing...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Wine Shop Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Issue notice to the respondents for final disposal. Learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 3. Upon going through the impugned order, I find myself in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner when he submits that the order does not spell out any reason for which the licence in question has been suspended until further orders by the respondent-Collector. 4. It appears that the respondent-Collector has been swayed away only by the fact that some persons were found in illegal possession of bottles of country liquor in a district, district of Chandrapur, where policy of prohibition of liquor is being implemented and that these persons made a statement that they purchased the bottles of country liquor from the shop of the petitioner. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner had made any attempt or had indeed sold the country liquor bottle...
Tag this Judgment!Adi Dara Patel and Others Vs. S. R. Jondhale and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. PREFACE:- A) This writ petition is one more in the series of matters where jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked not by rightful owners but builders and developers, to reclaim the vacant lands in excess of ceiling limits, which have already vested in the State. The surplus land holders and owners of these lands very well know that their fate is sealed for they are divested of their right, title and interest in these lands by due process of law. However, they are propped up by builders and developers with ulterior motives to file such petitions by relying on the repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Principal Act) in the State of Maharashtra with effect from 29th November, 2007. Though physical possession of these lands is with the State and not challenged by the owners and surplus vacant land holders at the relevant time, now they raise such challenge being financed by builders and dev...
Tag this Judgment!Edwin Britto and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) 1. The question in this PIL is whether two lakes in the suburban district of Mumbai admittedly vesting in the State should be allowed to be used by individuals? The other question is whether the act of respondent No.6 of illegally filling in one of the two lakes is legal? Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, 8 and 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5. We have also heard the learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos.6 and 7. The issue concerns two lakes in the city on the land bearing CTS No.1550 admeasuring 3381.60 sq meters and the land bearing CTS No.1612 admeasuring 12,929.50 sq meters at Village Eksar, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District. What is mentioned here is the area of the two lakes as per the City survey/Revenue records. 2. With a view to appreciate the submissions made across the bar, it will be necessary to make a reference to the factual aspects...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »