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.
Pramod Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Deputy Superintendent of ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
1. Appellant, a Medical Officer had been convicted by the Special Judge, Amalner in Special Case No.11 of 1999 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 ( Act in brief) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.750/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four months. He has been further convicted of offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.750/-, and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four months. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Thus, this Appeal against conviction. 2. In short, the case of prosecution is as under: (A). On 28th September 1993 complainant Ramsing Walvi (PW-1) approached the Dy.S.P. PW-5 Prabhakar Shankar Patil in the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Dhule and filed complaint (Exhibit 12). The complainant, resident of Hisale, Tq-Shirur, raised grievance that he had taken his wife Bairabai f...
Kirit Navnitlal Damania and Another Vs. Anuradha Anil Bhagwat and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The Plaintiffs seeks probate to a Will dated 4th July 1993 said to have been left by one Shashikala Baburao Alandkar ("Shashikala"). Shashikala died in tragic accident on 27th February 1994, succumbing to severe burn injuries. Shashikala was unmarried, and had no children. She was survived by the two branches of her brothers' families. One of these branches is the family of Mahavir Baburao Alandkar. Mahavir had seven heirs. None of them have challenged this Petition. The other brother, Padmakar Baburao Alandkar, had a daughter Anuradha, who in turn has three children, Aseem, Ajay and Preeti. They oppose this probate petition; Anuradha is Shashikala's niece, and the other three Defendants are her children. The 2nd Defendant filed the Affidavit in Support of the Caveat for himself and as the Constituted Attorney of the other Defendants. 2. I turn now to the Will in question. The Will has four pages. It is typewritten. There were two witnesses to this Will, one Mr. R. G....
G. Chelad Joseph and Another Vs. Goa University, University constitute ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri S. G. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Ms. A.A. Agni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, Shri. P. Sawant, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 and the learned Additional Govt. Advocates for the respondents No.4 and 5. Both the above petitions were taken up together by consent of the learned Counsel as it was pointed out that issues involved are similar. 2. Rule. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel. 3. We have extensively heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and though there were rival contentions raised by Shri S.G. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. A. Agni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 University with regard to the legality or otherwise of the impugned Order passed by the respondent No.1 dated 15/1/2016 cancel...
Ramesh J. Chauhan Vs. Merwan K. Irani and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
1. Heard respective counsel. Petitioner herein is original accused No.2 in R.C.C. No.9 of 2002 which was initiated by present Respondent No.1. Petitioner herein questions the correctness and the validity of the order of issuance of process against him by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dahanu for offence punishable under section 406, 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code vide Order dated 17/01/2002. 2. Being aggrieved by the said order, Petitioner herein has filed Criminal Revision Application No.25 of 2002 before Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Palghar. Learned Additional Sessions Judge Palghar vide Order dated 03/07/2002 has been pleased to dismiss Revision Application. Hence, this Writ Petition. 3. Present Respondent No.1 had filed a complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dahanu on 17/01/2002, alleging therein that she is an entrepreneur. According to her, original accused No.1 i.e. Smt. Uma Chavan was also into manufacturing of food products in the name and sty...
Mohamed Arif Sagir Ahmed and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
1. None present for the petitioners. Heard the learned APP and perused the compilation of the Petition. 2. The petitioners herein have challenged the correctness and validity of the order dated 24.7.2002 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Criminal Misc. Application No.948 of 2002 filed in Sessions case No.698 of 1993. The present petitioners happen to be the accused in Sessions Case No.698 of 1993. Charge is framed against them for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC for having committed the homicidal death of one Mohamed Shafi on 16.2.1993. The substantive evidence of the witnesses was also recorded. It appears that there was a cross-case, which was registered as C.R. no.71 of 1993 against the complainant/witnesses in C.R. No.70 of 1993. The witnesses in Sessions Case No.698 of 1993 were being tried for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and charge had been framed against them for the alleged offence...
Madras Pharmaceuticals and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP. 2. The petitioners herein are seeking the relief of quashing of the order of issuance of process against the petitioners in RCC No.4/S/2001 by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 3. At the threshold, it is apparent on the face of the record that the petitioners herein are placing implicit reliance upon the notice issued to them by the Drug Inspector,Brihan Mumbai, dated 20.6.2001, by which the petitioners were informed that a prosecution has been filed against them for sub-standard quality of a drug Tab. E-PRIL-2.5 However, it is mentioned in the body of the petition that the petitioners had not received any summons from the concerned Court till the date of filing of the petition. However, on enquiry, it was learnt that the process was issued against them and the matter was scheduled on 3.8.2001 as per the notice dated 20.6.2...
M.I.D.C. Prakalpgrast Majur Kamgar and Another Vs. Amravati District L ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. By these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 11.1.2016 passed by the District Co-operative Election Officer-cum-District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Amravati. Both the petitioners are the Co-operative Societies registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (in short, Act, 1960 ) and the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 (in short, Rules, 1961 ). They are classified as producer societies in view of the Rule 10(1) of the Rules 1961. The respondent No.1, in both the writ petitions, is a Federal Society to which the petitioners-Societies are affiliated and respondent No.2, in both the writ petitions, is the Election Officer appointed for conducting the elections of respondent No.1-Society. 3. On 1st September, 2009, there was an election of respondent No....
Kamal Constructions Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. The Appellant/original Claimant has challenged the order dated 19th July, 2005 passed by the learned single Judge whereby claim Nos.3 and 4 awarded by the learned Arbitrator have been set aside. The appellant is not pressing other claims. 2. Admittedly, the Appellant/original claimant has not led any oral and/or supporting evidence in support of the claims in question. Claim No.3 is for underutilization of resources. The contesting respondents resisted the same by a specific reply : "In fact no resources have been mobilized so there is no question of under utilization of resources." The learned Arbitrator based upon the documents placed on record though restricted the amount and granted the claim of Rs.2,43,750.00 but, no finding whatsoever is given and/or dealt with about the actual proof of such supporting documents. This is in the background when the respondents specifically resisted and denied the claim so prayed. 3. Claim No.4 was for extra e...
Naval Jatan More Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
1. This Jail Appeal is by Appellant-original accused (hereafter referred as accused ) against his conviction in Sessions Case No.121 of 2013, awarded by Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule on 26th December 2014. The accused has been convicted to ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC in brief), and fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for two months. He has also been convicted under Section 201 of IPC to rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for ten days. Under Section 506 of the IPC, he has been convicted to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently and the fine amount, if realized, has been directed to be paid to the prosecutrix as compensation. Thus, this Appeal. 2. In a nutshell, the case of prosecution can be stated to be as follows: (A) Prosecutrix in this matter is a rustic ...
Sampat Arjun Dangde and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
1. The Appellants - original accused Nos.1 to 5 (hereafter referred as "accused") have been convicted in Sessions Case No.141 of 2002 by First Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, on 13th December 2002 for offence punishable under Section 143 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" in brief) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs.300/- each. In default, they are liable to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days each. They have also been convicted for offence under Section 506 read with 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five months and fine of Rs.300/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days each. Under Section 436 read with 34 of IPC, they are convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.3000/- each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for five months each. They came to be acquitted of offence punishable under Section 32...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »