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.
M/s. Trimurti Exports, through its Authorised representative and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
1. By this Petition, the Petitioners/Judgment Debtors are challenging the Orders dated 17.02.2016, 25.02.2016 and 03.03.2016 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, South Goa, at Margao in Execution Application no. 100 of 2015. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Petition may be stated thus: That the parties herein had entered into an Agreement dated 17.07.2009, a supplementary Agreement dated 01.09.2009 and lastly an additional Agreement dated 29.05.2010 pertaining to a transaction of purchase of iron ore and its consequent sale to the overseas buyers. Disputes and differences arose between the parties and the matter was referred to sole Arbitrator who by an Award dated 18.04.2013 and addendum to the Award dated 19.05.2013 has held the Respondents to be entitled to recover an amount of Rs.14.76 Crores along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum w.e.f. 31.12.2010 until realisation. The said Judgment and Award was unsuccessfully challenged by the Petitioners...
Rahul and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The applicants have approached this Court for quashing and setting aside Summary Criminal Case No.719/2010 pending before the Court of 5th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amravati for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 324, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with 4 and 25 of the Arms Act. 3. The first information report came to be lodged on the oral report of applicant no.7 on 10.05.2010 stating therein that applicant Nos.1 to 6 who had some financial dispute with the son of the first informant, had come to the house of applicant no.7 armed with the hockey sticks and a sword. It is also stated in the FIR that when the first informant tried to take her son inside the house and closed the door, one of the accused assaulted her with the sword due to which she sustained serious injuries. It is also alleged that t...
Baboo @ Surendra Gadekar Vs. Jivottam Krishna Naik, (since deceased) b ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner, who is a tenant, is challenging the order dated 12/10/2004 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Collector and Rent Controller, Mapusa in Rent/MAP/7/1992, which has been confirmed by the learned District Judge vide judgment and order dated 20/12/2013 in Rent Appeal No.33/2013. As a result, the petitioner has been directed to be evicted, as being consistently in arrears of rent under Section 32(4) of the Goa Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (the Rent Act, for short). 3. The brief facts are that, premises known as 'Adarsh Niwas', situated at Feira-Baixa, Mapusa, wherein the petitioner is conducting a bar and restaurant, are subject matter of dispute. The disputed premises were let out by now deceased Jivottam Naik to late father of the petitioner Shripad Atmaram Gadekar. After the death of S...
Bhushan Rajesh Deore Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
P.C. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed on 18th September, 2015 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik. 2. The petitioner was issued a caste certificate dated 18th January, 2014 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Nashik, District Nashik. That certificate was referred for verification and scrutiny by the committee, as the petitioner was desirous of pursuing his education in the junior college. It is, therefore, the case of the petitioner that this tribe certificate should be validated by the committee. On the strength of a validation certificate issued by the competent scrutiny committee, the petitioner can obtain benefits and concessions meant for the concerned Scheduled Tribe. 3. The petition states as to how the petitioner belongs to Thakur Tribe, which is notified as Scheduled Tribe by the first presidential order of 1950. The petitioner clearly states that his family members hail from village Fagane of District Dhule. 4. Thereafter, the fami...
Appasaheb Vs. The State of Maharashtra (Copy served on Public Prosecut ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
1. The appellant - accused (hereafter referred as accused) is husband of deceased Usha, and has been convicted by 4th Adhoc Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.79/2004 for offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C. in brief). He has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 498-A and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. There are orders of fine also. He came to be acquitted of offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C. His co-accused - parents accused No.2 Gorakhnath and accused No.3 Kamlabai came to be acquitted. Thus this appeal. 2. In brief, the case of prosecution is as under: (a) On 27.12.2003, at 6.15 p.m., complainant Ratnabai Ramdas Ahire, the mother of Usha (hereafter referred as victim) filed F.I.R. with Police Station, Silegaon, Tq. Shrirampur, which was registered as Crime No.137/2003. She reported as follows: She is first wife of Ramdas...
Chheda Properties Vs. Amogh Enterprises and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
P.C. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent of the parties. 2. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner herein happens to be the original complainant in C.C. No.488 /SS/2012. The petitioner herein had filed a complaint against the respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It appears from the record that the affidavit of evidence was filed on 24.10.2013. The cross-examination had in fact commenced on 19.1.2015. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that intermittently the accused filed an application seeking adjournment and the learned Magistrate has been liberal enough to adjourn the matter from time to time. It appears from the record that cross-examination was conducted on 5.8.2015 partly. It then commenced on 29.9.2015. It was adjourned on 6.4.2016, 5.8.2015 and 6.4.2016. It was in these circumstances that the present petitioner was constrained to file the present Writ Petition seeking expedi...
Ashok Vs. State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary, School ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-08-2016
Oral Judgment: (S.S. Shinde, J.) 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 3. This petition is filed seeking direction to the respondent/authorities to grant approval to the proposal for appointment of the petitioner as Teacher from 21.08.2013 in respondent no.5 School and to release the arrears of salary of the petitioner. 4. During pendency of the petition, the proposal for approval to the appointment of the petitioner has been rejected by respondent no.3 Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Latur on the ground that in view of the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2012 issued by the School Education Department unless all the surplus teachers are absorbed, no approval can be granted to the fresh appointments. The petitioner has amended the petition and also challenged the said communication issued by the Education Officer. To that effect, the petitioner has incorporated prayer ...
Dattatraya Vs. The Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribal C ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard Shri Ahirrao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Joshi, learned AGP for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has questioned the order dated 10.02.2003 passed by Respondent No. 1 Scrutiny Committee, invalidating his caste claim as belonging to Thakur, Scheduled Tribe. This Court has issued notice in the matter on 02.05.2003 and protected his employment. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is born on 14.12.1959 and reaches the age of superannuation in the next year. 3. Shri Ahirrao, learned counsel, submits that entry 44 in the Presidential Scheduled Tribe Order envisages Thakur, Scheduled Tribe and hence distinction as higher caste Thakur and Thakur, Scheduled Tribe as used by Respondent No. 1 Scrutiny Committee in the impugned order is unsustainable. He further contends that all documents produced by the petitioner to substantiate his caste claim are found genuine and have mentioned caste as Thakur. In view of these old docum...
Sitakant Kashinath Parab Vs. The Goa Housing Board, Through its Managi ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Naik and Mr. Kanekar, learned Counsel, waive service on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. Although the dispute, out of which, this petition arises, is still at an interim stage, the same has acquired a checkered history. 3. The respondent no. 1-the Goa Housing Board had carried out an auction of a residential plot at Porvorim, Penha de Franca, Bardez, Goa, which auction was held on 30.08.2010. The petitioner, who is the original plaintiff was the highest bidder in respect of plot no. 19 admeasuring 335 square metres and had bidded for an amount of Rs.44,98,200/-. Accordingly, as per the order of allotment dated 26.11.2010, the said plot (hereinafter referred to as the suit plot) was allotted in favour of the petitioner, subject to payment of remaining amount of the price, within 25 days. According to the petitioner, subsequent to the date of auction when he went to inspect the site, ...
Shriram and Others Vs. Rameshwar, Since deceased, through his legal re ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of Special Civil Suit No.296/2002 which was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad and also against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.197/2005 which was pending in District Court Aurangabad. Heard both sides. 2. The suit was filed by present respondent Rameshwar for possession of some portion of the house property viz first floor and it is part and parcel of CTS No.4474/1 situated at Aurangabad. In Municipal record to this property House number is given as 4-5-20/P. It is the case of the plaintiff that under registered sale deed dated 20-10-1994 he purchased portion of 10 27 ft. from this property from the defendant for consideration of Rs.1.5 lakh. It is contended that there was structure of building having ground floor and first floor and the structure was having roof of tin. It is contended that symbolic possession of the ground floor was given at that time as one tenant was occupyi...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »