Mumbai Court April 2016 Judgments
Shriniwas Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
P.R. Bora, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The present petition illustrates the harassment suffered by a gazetted officer because of the indifferent and callous attitude and approach of the Government officials, in getting corrected his date of birth, which was wrongly recorded in his service book, without any fault on his part. 3. The petitioner was selected through MPSC as a lecturer and joined his services in the year 1984. At the relevant time, the Service Books of the Gazetted officers used to be retained by the office of the Accountant General of Maharashtra. The said practice suffered change in the year 1989 and the Service books were then transferred to the parent department from 1991 onwards. It is the specific case of the present petitioner throughout that after the service books were transferred to the parent department, the petitioner came to know that his date of birth has been wrongly rec...
Tag this Judgment!Pan India Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
G.S. Patel, J. 1. By this Petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks to challenge an order dated 8th January 2014 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal ( DRAT ) in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 58 of 2013. The present Petitioner was the Appellant before the DRAT. Although Ms. Sethna for the Petitioner says that this is the limited challenge in the Writ Petition, we find that in actuality, there are two other orders that are implicitly under challenge. The first of these is an order dated 22nd November 2012 passed by the Recovery Officer on an application made by the 1st Respondent pursuant to which a certain sale of property, to which we will refer hereafter, in favour of the Petitioner was ordered to be cancelled and was set aside. The second is an order dated 30th January 2013 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal in a First Appeal filed by the Petitioner. 2.We have heard Ms. Sethna for the Petitioner and ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the applicant and Shri R.S. Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The applicant (accused) has challenged the order passed by the Sessions Court allowing the application (Exhibit No.24) filed by the complainant. 4. According to the applicant (accused), the impugned order is unsustainable as the Sessions Court has no jurisdiction to permit the prosecution to record statements of witnesses once the prosecution is committed to the Sessions Court. 5. Shri R.S. Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor states that the prosecution does not intend to record the statements of the witnesses but in fact the witnesses are to be examined before the Court and their names are already submitted earlier. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that the Court has power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the prosecution to examine witnesses. The legal...
Tag this Judgment!Parshwanath Infra Tech Pvt. Ltd., Dhule Vs. Maharashtra Industrial Dev ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
P.C. 1. Heard. Both these writ petitions can be decided by this common order. In both these petitions respondent Nos.4 and 5 applied for allotment of plots to respondent No.1-Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (for short "MIDC") in 2012. In 2013 the MIDC's Land Allotment Committee considered their applications. Before the Committee could take decision, which was taken in November, 2014, the petitioner got incorporated as a company in July, 2014. Immediately thereafter the petitioner applied for a plot of land to respondent No.1 to establish an engineering unit. Respondent No.1-MIDC rejected the petitioner's application on 19.08.2014. On 10th November, 2014, the MIDC allotted plots to respondent Nos.4 and 5 as per their applications. Lease-deeds were executed on 19th January, 2015. The petitioner raised objection to such allotment and transfer, but in-vain. So, the petitioner came before this Court seeking relief mainly to get the allotment, made in favour of respondent Nos....
Tag this Judgment!Amratlal Dhirajlal and Co. Vs. Kamelsingh Harnamsingh Chowhan and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this Civil Revision Application, the applicant defendant No.2 challenges the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below rejecting the application made by the applicant under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for setting aside exparte decree dated 26.02.2014 by which the court directed the applicant to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises i.e. Room No.A-10 and A-11 on the first floor of Lalsing Mansing Building, Lohar Chawl, Mumbai - 400 002 to the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties will be referred to as per their nomenclature in the suit being No.RAE Suit No.291/451/2007 i.e. the applicant as defendant No.2, respondent No.1 as original plaintiff and respondent No.2 original defendant No.1. 3. Few facts of the matter are, as under: The plaintiff instituted RAE Suit No.291/451/2007 in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai for an order of decree against the ...
Tag this Judgment!Rahul Madhukar Patil and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
P.C. 1. The application is moved for pre arrest bail as the applicants/accused are facing charges for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No.I-355 of 2015 registered with Bhiwandi police station, Dist.Thane. The offence is registered at the instance of wife of the deceased namely Geeta Patil on 17th December, 2015. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that deceased Nitin Patil has committed suicide on 20th November, 2015. It is the case of the complainant that she got married with the deceased Nitin on 25th November, 2007 and after marriage she started residing with her husband Nitin at Mansarovar. The applicant/accused No.1 is her brother in law, No.2 is the wife of brother in law and No.3 is her sister in law. It is her case that the applicants/accused used to harass her and her husband. They were not giving money to her husband. Her husband used to work for the shop and their business. However, the applicants/accused used to take ...
Tag this Judgment!Mujammil @ Murgya Sabbir Mokashi Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Pune ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
R.M. Borde, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. The petitioner is assailing order of detention issued by the Commissioner of Police, Pune City on 26.09.2015 under the provisions of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as, `M.P.D.A. Act'). 3. The grounds of detention have been communicated to the petitioner on 26.09.2015. The list of offences within the period of five years and the preventive actions taken against the petitioner from time to time, are recorded in paragraph no.3 of the communication. The petitioner is stated to have been involved in nine offences during the period of preceding five years, whereas, preventive action has been taken against him in respect of two offences. 4. The representation tendered by petitioner objecting to the order of detention has been turn...
Tag this Judgment!Shubham Dattatray Barde and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
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 their enlargement on bail in connection with C.R. No.305 of 2014 registered with the Hadapsar Police Station, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 120-B, 153-A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The incident has taken place on 2nd June, 2014 at about 8:30 p.m. The complainant is the brother of the deceased-Sheikh Moseem. He has stated that when Sheikh Moseem was returning home after Namaaz, 20 to 25 unknown persons came towards him with hockey sticks, bats, stumps and stones and started assaulting him with hockey sticks, bats, stumps and stones, pursuant to which, Sheikh Moseem succumbed to the injuries. It is alleged that at the same time, two other persons also received injuries i.e. Amin Harun Shaikh and Ejaj Bagawan. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that there is no evidence to connect the applicants wit...
Tag this Judgment!XYZ FILMS LLC and Others Vs. UTV Motion Pictures / UTV Software Commun ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
Oral Judgment: A. OVERVIEW 1. By consent, the Notice of Motion is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. Since the time this Suit was filed, the Plaintiffs case in this copyright infringement action has changed more than somewhat. This is partly inevitable: much has transpired since the date of the first application for ad-interim reliefs and today. When Dr. Saraf first made his application for ad-interim reliefs on behalf of the Plaintiffs, he said that suit is based on a copyright infringement claim in, as he put it, everything : his clients film, its underlying script, screenplay and storyline. As we shall see, this also included a slightly more particularized claim. I will return to that presently. 3. I was given a copy of the Defendants screenplay. I struggled through it. It was not shared with Dr. Saraf or his teasm. Much later, I was also given a two-disc DVD copy of the Defendants work, a film called Baaghi, scheduled for release on 29th April 2016. After some initial hesi...
Tag this Judgment!Urmi Developers Private Limited and Others Vs. M/s. Kanoria Brothers a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
1. By these two civil revision applications, the petitioners have impugned a common order and judgment dated 7th January, 2014 allowing Appeal No.454 of 2004 filed by the respondent nos.1 to 3 herein and dismissing Appeal No.44 of 2011 preferred by the original defendant nos.1, 2, 2(A), 2(B) and 2(C). The petitioners in the Civil Revision Application No.345 of 2014 were original defendant no.3 in the suit. The petitioners in Civil Revision Application No.716 of 2014 were original defendant nos.1 and 2(A) to 2(C). The respondent nos.1 to 3 in both the civil revision applications were the original plaintiffs in the suit. 2. Both the matters are placed on board for confirmation of the ad-interim relief granted by this Court on 20th August, 2015 and for determination of reasonable compensation. 3. The original defendant nos.1, 2, 2(A) to 2(C) were claiming to be the tenants of the suit property consisting of the ground floor with a garage, servant quarter and open court yard at the rear of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »