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.
Ulhas Kauthankar Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
Nutan D. Sardessai, J. 1. We have heard Shri G. Teles, learned Advocate for the appellant who took us through the judgment under challenge and submitted that it was a clear case where the impugned judgment warranted an interference and the conviction passed against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC was required to be interfered with. It was his contention that at the highest and without prejudice, the conviction had to be altered to that under Section 304(ii) IPC as no intention to commit the offence of murder was proved against him. Shri S.R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State submitted that there was no reason to interference with the judgment under challenge and the conviction had to be upheld. Shri G. Teles, learned Advocate for the appellant placed reliance in the Division Bench judgments of this Court in Subhash Samal Vs. State of Goa (Criminal Appeal No.5/2011) and Suresh Behra Vs. State (Criminal Appeal No.3/2010). 2. The question which arises for c...
Jamil A. Adhikari of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant Mumbai Vs. M/s. The Ober ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This Petition challenges an order passed by 12th Labour Court, Mumbai on a reference preferred by Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Mumbai, under Sections 10(1) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication in the matter of reinstatement of the Petitioner-workman. 3. The case of the Petitioner-workman is that he was not allowed to join his duty on and from 1 July 1994; and that, whilst he was not allowed to join duty, by a letter dated 30 August 1995 (received by the Petitioner on 7 September 1995), his services were terminated by removing his name from the muster roll with effect from 1 September 1995. It is submitted by the Petitioner that the Respondent did not issue any chargesheet or conduct any inquiry against the Petitioner or give him any opportunity of being heard and terminated his services without following due process of natural justice. It is contended that the services of the Petitioner were termin...
Khalil Ahmed Khan and Others Vs. Nelson Francis Bugri and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
P.C. 1. Heard Mr. P.J. Thorat, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.P. Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents at length. 2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged Judgment and order dated 10.3.2011 passed by the learned Judge, presiding over Court No.7 of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay (Bandra Branch) below Exhibit-35 in R.A.E. Suit No.306/757 of 2005 as also Judgment and order dated 15.11.2011 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court in Revision Application No.114 of 2011. By these orders, the Courts below allowed the application at Exh.35 filed by the respondents, hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiffs', under Order VI, Rule 17 of C.P.C. for amending the plaint subject to costs of Rs.2000/-. 3. In support of this petition, Mr. Thorat submitted that the plaintiffs have instituted suit in the year 2005, i.e. after amendment of C.P.C. in the year 2002. On 7.11.2005, Written Statement was filed resi...
Arvind Sitaram Sakate Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
P.C. 1. The Applicant/accused in Crime No.26 of 2016 for the offence punishable under sections 498(A), 354, 354(a) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered with Sanjay Nagar Police Station, Sangli, by this application is praying for pre-arrest bail. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant/accused as well as the learned APP for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused by taking me through the FIR pointed out that the allegations against the present applicant/accused is to the effect that he had disclosed informant-Mrs. Swati that the proposed bride-groom is not having any vices and earns a handsome salary of Rs.One lakh. According to the learned counsel the next allegation is in respect of outraging modesty of Mrs. Swati and the allegations to that effect are bald and made in order to rope all relatives of her husband. Learned APP accepts that excepts these two allegations, there are no other allegations against the present applicant. 3. Per...
Mansing and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, (Copy to be served on ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 10.01.2006 delivered by the Revisional Court by which Criminal Revision Application No. 160 of 2005 filed by the respondent No. 2 was allowed and process was issued against the petitioners under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The order of the Trial Court refusing to issue process and dismissing the complaint dated 05.07.2005 was therefore quashed and set aside by the Revisional Court. 2. This petition was admitted by this Court on 22.03.2006 and interim relief in terms of prayer Clause C was granted. Prayer Clause C reads as under: Pending hearing and final disposal of this Criminal Writ Petition, grant stay to the impugned judgment and order dated 10.01.2006 passed by the learned 4th Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in Criminal Revision Petition No.160/2005 allowing revision and issuing the process against the petitioners; and for that purpose issue necessary order:...
Ashok Deochand Mali (Bhamre) Vs. Malti Ashok Mali (Bhamre)
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-09-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition was admitted on 02.11.2004 and this Court refused interim relief to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 27.08.2004, delivered by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, by which Criminal Misc. Application No.650 of 2002 filed by the respondent seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was allowed. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the Judgment of the Revisional Court dated 12.10.2004, by which the Revision Application filed by the petitioner was rejected. 3. The petitioner submits that the marriage in between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 11.05.1985. Three daughters and one son are born out of the wedlock. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes a grievance that though a customary divorce was arrived at between the parties on 18.10.2000, the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court failed to consider the effect of Section 125(4) and granted main...
Roptonal Ltd. (Erstwhile the Indian Film Company (Cyprus) Ltd. and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
1. By this review petition filed by the petitioners, the petitioners seek review/recall of the order and judgment dated 12th June 2014 passed by this Court in Arbitration Application No.97 of 2013. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. The Viacom 18 Media Private Limited-petitioner no.2 herein was the original applicant along with the Indian Film Company (Cyprus) Limited in the Arbitration Application No.97 of 2013. The said Indian Film Company (Cyprus) Limited has merged with M/s.Roptonal Limited, Cyprus-petitioner no.1 herein on or about 19th January 2015. The petitioner no.1 is also a body incorporated outside India. The petitioner no.2 is having its registered office at Mumbai. 3. By an agreement dated 12th May 2008 executed between M/s. Indian Film Company (Cyprus) Limited and the respondent, the respondent has been assigned and transferred in favour of the Indian Film Company (Cyprus) Limited, all their rights, title and interest. ...
Dhananjay Mahadev Dessai Vs. Canacona Urban Co-operative Credit Societ ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner, who is facing prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (Act for short) is challenging the order dated 27/1/2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Canacona in Cr. Case No.10/NI/2014, by which the learned Magistrate has rejected an application under section 311 of Cr.P.C seeking recall of PW.1 and PW.2. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that although earlier PW.1, Shri Vassant Devidas, who was the Branch Manager of the respondent/complainant and PW.2, Mr. Amar Gaonkar, who is the Chairman of the respondent were cross examined by the earlier counsel appearing for the petitioner, there are some aspects left out which are necessary for substantiating the defence put forth by the petitioner. It is submitted that under section 311 of Cr.P.C. the Court can direct examination and/or recall of any witness if the examination/re-examination...
Virginia Pascol Patil Vs. Shashikant Mahadeo Patil @ Pascol Francis Pa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent. Today, the appeal is specifically listed under the caption of 'Final Hearing'. The appeal is preferred by the wife. The respondent is the husband. By a Judgment and Decree dated 9th March 2011 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court at Bandra,Mumbai in petition No.A682 of 2009, while granting a decree of divorce under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act,1954, the learned Judge granted a decree of permanent alimony in the sum of Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of decree. 2. The respondent-husband filed Miscellaneous Application No.18 of 2010 seeking modification of the Decree impugned in this Appeal granting permanent alimony. The application was opposed by the appellant-wife. The parties led oral evidence. By the impugned Judgment and Decree, the earlier Decree dated 9th March 2011 was modified and the maintenance amount which was made payable at the rate of ...
Babulal Harchand Beldar since deceased per L.Rs. Vs. Sitaram Kathu Bor ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No.77/1986, which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shripur and against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.151/1996, which was pending in District Court, Dhule. The suit filed by present appellant for relief of specific performance of contract of sale of agricultural land is dismissed by the Courts below. The Appellate Court has given direction to defendant to return back the earnest money, but the plaintiff is held to be liable to pay the mesne profit. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows :- The suit was filed in respect of 6 Acre portion of agricultural land bearing Gat No.69/A situated at village Sangvi, Tahsil Shripur, District Dhule. The portion is eastern side of the property and on western side of this portion, there is remaining portion of Gat No.69/A belonging to defendant. There is a well...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »