Mumbai Court May 2016 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Amar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-04-2016
Swapna Joshi, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 24.9.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge6 Nagpur in S.T. No.612/2011 thereby convicting the appellant (ori. accd.No.1-Sumit s/o Ramesh Chintalwar and appellant Amar @ Chhotu Ramesh Lohkare (ori. accd.No.2), under sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s. 4/25 of Arms Act and sentencing them to undergo (i) R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and, in default, to suffer R.I. for six months u/s. 302 r/ws. 149 of IPC; (ii) R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default, to suffer R.I. for six months u/s 147 of IPC and; (iii) R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 750/- and, in default, to suffer R.I.for two months, under section 148 of IPC and (iv) R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default, to suffer R.I. for two months, u/s. 4 (25) of Arms Act, the appellant Sumit Chintalwar has preferred the Appeal...
Malabar Hills Citizens' Forum Vs. BEST Undertaking and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2016
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Gupte, J.) 1. This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges bills raised on the Petitioner by Respondent No.1, which is an electricity distribution company. The challenge is based entirely on a claim of incorrect categorization of the electricity meters installed at the Petitioner's premises. 2. The Petitioner is a public charitable trust running a public park and sports complex and has been consuming electricity distributed by Respondent No.1. The park and the complex are situated on a plot of land, which is owned by the Government of Maharashtra and which was handed over by it to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation ('BMC') for creation of a garden and a playground. BMC, in turn, entered into an agreement of licence with the Petitioner for such development and maintenance. The whole park complex, known as 'Priyadarshini Park', is divided into two areas, one a public garden and the other a sports complex which has an athlet...
Kailash Dattatraya Jadhav and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2016
A.S. Oka, J. 1. Submissions of learned counsel for the Applicants were heard on the earlier date. We have also heard learned APP. The challenge in this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Code') is to the first information report ('FIR') registered at Sakinaka Police Station, Andheri, Mumbai. The quashing of the FIR is sought by the Applicants. When the application was called out for admission, we pointed out to the learned advocate for the Applicants that a remedy under the Code is available to the Applicants in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Avinash Trimbakrao Dhondage v. State of Maharashtra, 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 985. The Division Bench of this Court by the said decision held that an order made by learned Magistrate under sub Section 3 of Section 156 of the Code is not an interlocutory order, but it is a final order on an application/ complaint under sub Section 3 of Section 156 of the Code. The Division Bench h...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bharati Adhik Patil and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2016
1. Rule. By consent of the parties, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. In this appeal, the judgment and award dated 31.7.2013 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kolhapur, in Application (WCA) No.25/B-5 of 2009 is challenged by the insurance company. BACKGROUND: 3. The deceased Adhik Patil, aged 31 years old, was working as a driver on a tractor bearing No.MH-13J 8502 when the accident took place i.e., on 24.1.2004. The tractor belonged to one Vishwas Sadashiv Yadav, Respondent No.5, with whom the deceased was working as a driver. The deceased was proceeding in the tractor from Nigdi towards village Tawade, Taluka Shahuwadi, loaded with sugarcane. While taking U-turn, one unknown truck coming from the opposite side gave dash to the tractor. The tractor was upturned and the driver i.e., the deceased, died due to the injuries SO his dependents i.e., his widow, his minor daughter and parents filed claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 192...
Mirai Bahuddeshiya Vikas Sanstha, Through its Chairman, Sharad Murlidh ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-04-2016
Sangitrao S. Patil, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is heard finally. 2. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as Transferee Institution ) has challenged the vires of the Government Resolution bearing No. A.Aa.Sha.2009/Pra.Kra. 126/Ka.11, issued by the Department of Tribal Development, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai, on 14.09.2012, where under the Ashram School which was transferred to the petitioner has been ordered to be retransferred to respondent no.5 (hereinafter referred to as Original Institution ) and the recognition of the Ashram School granted in favour of the Transferee Institution vide Government Resolution dated 04.03.2010 came to be withdrawn. 3. There is no dispute that the Ashram School run by the Original Institution at village Kawadshi (Bor). Taluka Varora, District Chandrapur, came to be derecognized by respondent no.2 as per the order dated 27.02.2009, on the...
UCO Bank (Formally United Commercial Bank) and Others Vs. Asaram and O ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-03-2016
1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 21.09.2007 passed in M.A.R.J.I. No.791 of 2003, the original respondents preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are as follows :- a] The parties hereinafter are referred to as per their status in MARJI No.791/2003. b] The original applicants in MARJI no.791/2003 are the owners of the house No.2-17-25/ 26, CTS No.5274 and 5285 known as "Samdani Chambers", situated at Diwan Deodi, Aurangabad. The appellants/original Respondents-Uco Bank were the tenants of basement floor, ground floor and mezzanine floor on the basis of lease deed executed for a period from 1.3.1983 to 28.2.1993. On 5.2.1985 said lease deed was executed and it was corrected by correction deed dated 28.6.1985. On expiry of period of tenancy of 10 years as aforesaid, the Respondents-Uco Bank did not vacate the suit premises as per the terms of lease deed and continued to remain in possession, but, at increased rate in the rent by 20% as p...
Godfrey Philips India Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Food Safety ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2016
P.C. 1. Issue notice before admission R/o. 28th June, 2016. Learned advocate Mr. G. Hariharan waives service of notice for Respondent No.4. Learned AGP waives service of notice for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. The grievance of the Petitioners is that the goods / stocks manufactured by the Petitioner No.1 prior to 1st April, 2016 have been seized on the ground that the revised specified health warnings covering 85% of the front and the back panels, have not been printed on the cigarette packets. Our attention is also invited to an order passed by the Nagpur Bench of this Court, dated 25th April, 2016 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.313 of 2016. 3. We have perused the impugned notification. It is obvious that the said notification was passed stating that the specified health warning upto 85% on the packets was not applied prospectively from 1.4.2016 and the restriction will apply to manufacture of goods which are manufactured thereafter. It is case of the Petitioners that the goods, whi...
Paresh Pandurang Naik and Another Vs. State of Goa, Through Chief Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-03-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. The learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Both these petitions arise from the Judgment and order dated 10/2/2016 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Panaji, in STAT Appeal No.2/2014, as such, the petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in their respective capacity in W.P. No.398/2016. 3. By a public notice dated 11/6/2013, the second respondent, Regional Transport Authority (RTA) had invited applications from persons desirous of getting a regular contract carriage permit (permit, for short) to operate one yellow black taxi (A.C) from Margao (Konkan Railway station stand). In pursuance of the advertisement, in all four persons including the petitioner and the respondent no.2, Paresh Naik (Petitioner in W.P. No.299/2016) applied for grant of the permit. The applications were initially considered in the meeting of ...
Madanlal Nandlal Zawar (Deceased) through his LRs. Vs. Premsukh Ramday ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-03-2016
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of Special Civil Suit No.130/1974, which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar and also against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.35/2001, which was pending in the District Court, Ahmednagar. The suit filed by Premsukh for relief of partition and separate possession of his share from Joint Hindu Family properties is decreed in his favour. Both the sides are heard. 2. The facts, leading to the institution of the appeal, can be stated in brief as follows :- One Ramdayal was the father of plaintiff. Nandlal was also son of Ramdayal and he was the father of defendant No.1 - Madanlal. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are sons of defendant No.1. 3. It is the case of plaintiff Premsukh that he and defendant No.1 were doing business under the name and style as 'M/s. Ramdayal Nandlal' at Ahmednagar and this was the business of Joint Hindu Family consisting of plaintiff and Nandlal. It is contended that only ...
State of Goa and Another Vs. Laxmikant D. Naik Karmali and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-03-2016
1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the Respondents waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this Petition, the State takes exception to the Order dated 15.10.2014 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, South Goa, at Margao, in Execution Application No.93 of 2013. By the impugned Order, the Executing Court has held that the Petitioners/Judgment Debtors would be liable to pay the amount as computed by the Respondents/Decree Holders. The amount recoverable is to the tune of Rs.1,38,227/- as on 31.08.2014. 3. The precise question is whether the liability of the State to pay interest would cease, when the decretal amount is deposited in pursuance of or as a condition of grant of stay. The question is no longer res integra as it is covered by decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.S.L. Ramanathan Chettiar and Ors. vs. O. R.M.P.R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar reported in AIR 1968 SC 1047 and in the case of Prem Nath Kapur and anr. v...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »