Mumbai Court May 2016 Judgments
Khizzer Akhtar Shah Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2016
P.D. Naik, J. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned APP appearing for the Respondent-State waives service. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Code') preferred by the Applicant challenging the criminal proceedings arising out of CR No. 75 of 2014 registered with Shivaji Park Police Station for offence punishable under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code (`IPC') and Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows. The complainant is a Police Constable attached to Shivaji Park Police Station. It is alleged that the complainant along with other police personnel were posted for Nakabandi during the night of 23 March 2014 and 24 March 2014 at Baban Prabhu Veer Savarkar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai. It is alleged that the accused persons were found recklessly and negligently driving their vehicles on the said road. The accused were apprehended and their vehicles were taken into c...
Tag this Judgment!Vidyalata Nilkanth Patil Vs. Chairman / Secretary, Shikshan Prasarak S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. The respondents waive service. 2. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order dated 16th July, 2015 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary) under Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Employees Of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short MEPS Rules) thereby declaring the respondent no.5 as senior to the petitioner. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this writ petition are as under: 3. The respondent no.1 is a trust / society registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and conducts the respondent no.2 school. The petitioner passed B.A. Examination in the year 1980 and obtained B.Ed. degree in the year 1983. The petitioner belongs to O.B.C., whereas the respondent no.5 belongs to open category. 4. It is th...
Tag this Judgment!Trajano D'Mello, Social Activist and Another Vs. State of Goa, through ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-06-2016
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service. 4. At the request of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and by consent, both the petitions were taken up together for final disposal. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent nos. 4 and 5, in violation of the various provisions of the Code of Comunidades, namely Articles 342, 326, 329, 334, 334-A have usurped the land belonging to the Comunidade of Serula without following the due process of law, nor the mandatory provisions as contemplated in the said Code. It is the case of the petitioners that they came to know about the usurpation of the land by the respondent no. 4 and the respondent no. 5 in survey nos. 376/6, 379, 379/1, 380/1, and 389/1 of the Comunidade, which according to the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Ramswaroop and Others Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Nagpur an ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-06-2016
P.N. Deshmukh, J. 1. Both these petitions having similar facts can be disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In Writ Petition No. 2423/2003, challenge is to order dated 10/4/2003 passed by respondent whereby petitioners' cases under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) are transferred from Wardha (Maharashtra) to Jodhpur (Rajasthan) while in Writ Petition No. 1455/2004 challenge is to similar orders passed on 15/12/2003 and 28/1/2004 by respondent whereby income tax cases of petitioners therein are transferred from Nagpur (Maharashtra) to Jodhpur (Rajasthan). In Writ Petition No. 2423/2003 by interim order dated 24/6/2003 and in Writ Petition No. 1455/2004 by interim order dated 26/3/2004, the parties were directed to maintain status quo. 3. Following facts would be necessary to reveal the controversy involved in the petitions : Facts in Writ Petition No. 2423/2003 are that petitioner no.1 is the Managing Partner of the firm M/s. Jagdishprasad Ramswaroop (pet...
Tag this Judgment!Common Citizen of India (Common Man) through Rakesh Omprakash Agarwal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2016
S. C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. On this writ petition, along with two civil applications, a Division Bench of this court (Bench at Aurangabad) on 23rd October, 2015 passed the following order:- Party in person present 1) In the present petition the petitioner/party in person has impleaded the High Court as Respondent No.1; Hon'ble the Chief Justice as Respondent No. 2; Hon'ble Shri Justice A. S. Oak, as Respondent No. 3 and Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Menon as Respondent No. 4. Secondly, vide one of the prayers, the petitioner is seeking addition of some provision in the Circular/Order dated 6th January, 2010 issued by the High Court. 2) In view of the above, in terms of Circular/Order dated 6th January, 2010, this matter will have to be heard by the principal seat at Mumbai. Hence, the present writ petition along with the Civil Applications filed therein, be placed before the principal seat. 2. It is in the above circumstances that the writ petition, along with two civil applications ...
Tag this Judgment!Shaikh Zahid Mukhtar and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2016
A.S. Oka, J. 1. As per the administrative order dated 17th November 2015 passed by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, this group of Petitions has been specifically assigned to this specially constituted Bench. OVERVIEW 2. The challenge in this group of Petitions is to various provisions of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 (for short Animal Preservation Act ) as amended by the Maharashtra Animal Preservation(Amendment)Act,1995 (for short the Amendment Act ). The Amendment Act received the assent of the Hon'ble President of India on 4th March 2015. By the Amendment Act, in addition to existing prohibition on the slaughter of cows, a complete prohibition was imposed on slaughter of bulls and bullocks in the State. A ban was imposed on possessing the flesh of cow, bull or bullock slaughtered within and outside the State. Moreover, by introducing Section 9B, at the trial of certain offences, a negative burden was put on the accused. 3. Before we deal with the facts of each P...
Tag this Judgment!Karansing Vs. The State of Maharashtra (Copy to be served on Govt. Ple ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-06-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, Petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2. The petitioner claims to be owner of land bearing gat no.12 admeasuring 1 H 62 R situated at village Ramrai, Tq. Gangapur, Dist.Aurangabad which he has purchased from respondent no.7 for valuable consideration of Rs.20 lakh vide registered sale deed executed on 22/1/2010(which is hereinafter referred as said land). The vendor of the petitioner i.e. the respondent no.7 had purchased the said land vide registered sale deed dated 11/1/1982. Immediately after the purchase of said land, the name of respondent no.7 was duly recorded in the revenue record. Since after purchase of said land, the respondent no.7 was in physical possession and cultivating the land. He had also obtained loan of Rs.1 lakh from Prerana Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. Aurangabad which was repaid in the year 2006 by providing the same as colateral security for the loan. Since respon...
Tag this Judgment!Excel Enterprises Vs. Mahendra Karsandas Mehta and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2016
1. The above Suit is filed by the Plaintiffs for a declaration that there is a valid and binding Agreement/MoU dated 28th September, 2012 (Exhibit-D to the Plaint) and Deed of Assignment dated June, 2014 (Exhibit-E to the Plaint), between the parties to the said Documents, and that this Court be pleased to pass an order and decree against Defendant No. 1 to specifically perform and comply with his obligations under the MoU dated 28th September, 2012. The Plaintiffs have subsequently amended the Plaint and have inter alia also sought a declaration that the Plaintiffs, as co-owners of the property admeasuring 1957 sq.yds. equivalent to 1636.28 sq. mtrs. or thereabouts, bearing CTS Nos. 4581 to 4600 (Part), near Rajawadi Post Office, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai-400 077, together with the structures standing thereon and known as 'Janjira Chawl' and "Janjira House' ( the Suit Property ), are entitled to redevelop the Suit Property, by reconstruction of the buildings, on such terms and conditio...
Tag this Judgment!Mayur Mulji Parmar and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2016
Anuja Prabhudessai, J. 1. The appellants are the original accused nos.1 and 3 in Sessions Case No.275 of 2000, and shall be hereinafter referred to as accused no1 and accused no 3. These accused have challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 12.11.2009, whereby the learned Session Judge, Mumbai convicted them for offences under Section 302 r/w. 201 r/w 34 of IPC. They have been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/ each, in default R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC; and to suffer R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.500/- each in default further R.I. for six months for the offence under section 201 r/w 34 IPC. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as under: On 23.10.1999, PW7 Dilip Herekar informed Mahim police, that a suspicious looking gunny bag was lying on the footpath outside the gate of BPT Quarters, Mahim. PW17 PI Suresh Angadi, PW8 Police Constable Vishnu Ladkar and other police personnel visited the spot. They opened the gun...
Tag this Judgment!Indorama Synthetics (I) Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2016
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. 1. This is a Reference made before us so as to resolve a conflict between two views recorded in two Single Judges' Judgments of this High Court. The question framed for Reference is as follows:- Whether the expression 'suit or other proceedings' in Section 446(1) and the expression 'suit or proceedings' in Section 442, under Chapter II of Part VII of the Companies Act,1956, include criminal complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881? 2. The facts giving rise for making of this Reference can be stated, in brief, as follows:- The Petitioner herein has filed a Criminal Case, being C.C. No.899/SS/2005, in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 21st Court, Bandra, Mumbai, against Respondent Nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short N.I. Act ). Respondent No.2 is the Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, whereas, Respondent No.3 is its Director. Cogn...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »