Mumbai Court June 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.
Sonya @ Sonba Chandrabhan Watkar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-10-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha in Sessions Trial No.35 of 2006 dated 31.07.2014 thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, the appellant has approached this Court. 2. The prosecution story as could be gathered from the material placed on record is thus:- Deceased Subhash is the son of PW1 Shewantabai and was aged about 24 years. The deceased and the first informant were the neighbours and were having common courtyard. The appellant was residing with his wife and children. He was having doubt on the character of his wife. He was having doubt that she was having illicit relations with the deceased. 3. It is the prosecution case that on 5.2.2006 at around 7 p.m. there was...
A.N. Radha Vs. of Technical Education, Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2016
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. (Oral) 1.By this petition filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner, a retired Principal of Polytechnic College run by respondent no.2, seeks a declaration that her superannuation at the age of 58 years is unsustainable as the age of superannuation is 60 years. Second contention is that petitioner is entitled to change her option and avail benefit of pension and gratuity scheme and communication dated 10/8/2005 refusing that benefit is unsustainable. 2. It is not in dispute that petitioner got knowledge of her proposed superannuation at 58 years when Management moved office of respondent no.1 seeking permission to advertise the post of Principal. After filing of writ petition, this Court on 29/4/2005 issued rule in the matter and in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ahmedabad Education Society v. Gilbert B. Shah and others (2004 1 SCC 612) granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (ii) o...
Diago Pereira Vs. State of Goa, Through Police Inspector and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-10-2016
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR bearing No.133/2015 dated 16/12/2015 of P.S. Verna, by which offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 8 of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 (for short, Act of 2003) and Section 3 and 25 of the Arms Act have been registered against the applicants. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner Aleixo happens to be the Bhatkar of the complainant Custodio Pereira, the third respondent herein. The fourth respondent is the son of the third respondent. The fourth respondent is a teacher and is conducting tuition classes at his house. As per the complaint lodged by the third respondent, on 16/12/2015 he was sick. At around 9.45 p.m., the complainant was sitting outside his house when the petitioner Aleixo was seen coming towards his house....
Ashok and Others Vs. Gajanan and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-10-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. In Regular Civil Suit No.691 of 1993 the trial Court has passed a decree on 05.12.1996 granting a declaration that the defendant No.3 - Venutai was the owner of only 4 acres of land, and therefore, she had no right to transfer the land more than that to the defendant Nos.1 and 2 out of field Survey No.85. The trial Court further grants a declaration that the defendants No.1 and 2 are not having the title or interest in the land more than 4 acres from field Survey No.85. The defendants are restrained from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit field. 2. In Regular Civil Appeal No.254 of 1996 the lower Appellate Court has set aside the decree passed by the trial Court on 13.10.2000 and the Regular Civil Suit No.691 of 1993 has been dismissed. The plaintiffs are therefore, before this Court challenging the judgment and order passed by the lower Appellate Court and seeking restoration of the decree passed by the trial Court. 3. On 20.11.2000 this Court ...
Sunanda Arun Mahale Vs. Schedule Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Nashik, Gad ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2016
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner has challenged impugned order dated 25 January 2012 passed by Respondent No.1-Schedule Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Nashik whereby, the Petitioner's caste claim was rejected solely on the ground that the caste certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nasik City, Dist. Nashik is invalid as the Applicant is ordinary resident of village Betawad Tal. Sindkheda Dist. Dhule. 3. The submission is made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the Petitioner's forefathers were definitely, at the relevant time, resident of village Betawad Tal. Sindkheda Dist. Dhule. However, the whole family migrated to Nashik in the year 1965 and therefore, being resident of Nashik, he applied for the Caste Certificate in question, at Nashik. The Division Bench of this Court (Coram:A. M. Khanwilkar and S.S. Shinde, JJ) in Pratibha W/o Rajendra Thakur @ ...
Manohar Chand Pinjari Vs. Sultana and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-10-2016
Per Court: 1. This matter was admitted on 16/12/2004. Interim relief was not granted. 2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Deshmukh seriously contends that an exorbitant amount has been granted by the learned Magistrate while allowing the application of the respondents u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. The said application was allowed exparte without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner had preferred Cri.Rev.No.217/2002 for challenging the order dated 07/07/2001. By the impugned judgment dated 17/08/2004, the Revisional Court dismissed the revision application. 3. It is strenuously submitted that the petitioner was working as a Khalashi in the Indian Railways and was earning a salary of about Rs.4 to 5 thousand per month. Despite the same, the learned Magistrate has granted Rs.800/- per month as maintenance to respondent No.1 wife and Rs.500/- per month to the two children. It is further submitted that there is a deduction of Rs.2,400/- from the salary of the petitioner. It is, therefore, ...
Joao C. Pereira and Another Vs. State of Goa and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-10-2016
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners, who are original accused nos.2 and 3, before the learned Magistrate are seeking quashing of the said charge sheet/proceedings. 3. On 20/05/2014, respondent no.4 lodged a complaint. According to the complainant the incident had occurred on 19/05/2014 at around 20.30 hrs. It was reported that the complainant was knowing Mr. Sairaj Naik @ Sona (accused no.1) resident of Majorda, Salcete Goa. The said Sona was supposed to give a carpet to the complainant on 19/05/2014. At around 20.30 hrs., the complainant met Mr. Sona and asked him about the carpet, however, Sona refused to give the same. Subsequently, the complainant and Sona went on the motorcycle of the complainant bearing no.GA-02-0596 to Pacheco Wine Shop at Pacheco Wado, Majorda to see the owner of the said shop as he was present at the t...
Lalita Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-10-2016
Oral Order: 1. Heard. 2. Pursuant to judicial order passed by 3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad on February 1, 2016, directing the Assistant Superintendent to report the matter to the Police Station in the matter of practising fraud on the Court and in the judicial proceedings particularly in the matter of impersonation, crime No.118 of 2016 came to be registered on February 1, 2016 for the offences punishable under section 417, 465, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The said order came to be passed on the application bearing MARJI No.942 of 2015 preferred by one Pooja and others in which the present applicant is shown to be applicant no.5 for issuance of legal heirship certificate, as Gopal Dagdudas Rathod, father of the first applicant-Pooja has expired on 24/2/2014. The legal heirship certificate was in relation to certain properties and it is prayed that the same be issued in favour of applicant no.2 and one Sudha Gopal Rathod. 4. While trying to ma...
The Divisional Office The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pramila ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties heard forthwith. 2. The above First Appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 09/01/2013 passed by the learned Additional Ex-Officio Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solapur by which order the application filed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein came to be partly allowed, and the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were held to be entitled to get total compensation of Rs.9,12,000/- jointly and severally from the Appellant and the Respondent No.4 herein i.e. the original Opponent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. 3. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein who are the original Applicants are the widow and sons of the deceased one Raman Ghatule who met with an accident which took place on 20/07/2007 in which accident he expired. It seems that the said Raman Ghatule had been to Phaltan for taking Darshan of the Palanquin of Sant Shri Dnyaneshwar Mauli on 18/07/2007. Thereafter on the morning of 20/07/2007 the said Ra...
Bhaskar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Issue notice to the respondent-State. 2. Shri S.J. Kadu, learned A.P.P. waives service of notice. 3. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent. 4. This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27/5/2016 delivered in Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2011 thereby dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and order passed in Summary Criminal Case No.270 of 2009 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandur Bazar, Amravati dated 21/10/2011. 5. By the judgment delivered on 21/10/2011, the learned Magistrate has convicted the revision-applicant of the offence punishable under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code while acquitting him of the offences punishable under Sections 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations made against the revision-applicant were to the effect that on 08/3/2009 at about 5.30 p.m., in the evening, when some persons were working in the field owned by Mohan Nerkar, the applicant, owner of the adjoining field, with a...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »