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.
Sanjay Narayanrao Meshram Vs. The Election Commission of India through ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a citizen of India, claims that Respondent No. 7 has become disqualified and, therefore, ceases to be a Member of State Legislative Assembly from Umred Constituency of Nagpur district because of his conviction on 24.04.2015 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhiwapur. The declaration is claimed under Article 191 (1) of the Constitution of India with further declaration under Article 190(3)(a) read with Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as R.P. Act, 1951), that the said seat is vacant. A communication sent by the office of the Governor of State of Maharashtra to Respondent No. 1 Election Commission is also assailed on the ground that it is without jurisdiction and unconstitutional. Writ is sought to Respondent No. 1 to immediately initiate process for Bye-Election from Umred Constituency as mandat...
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Tufel Habib Bagvan and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
Common Judgment: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondents in both petitions. None appeared for the second respondent though served. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally. 3. Both of these Writ Petitions are arising out of the common orders passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ["MACT", for short], Shahada, whereby the request of the petitioner [hereinafter called as "Insurer"], seeking permission to cross examine the above-named first respondents (i.e. the claimants) and their witnesses, came to be rejected. 4. The claimants, who got injured in the same incident that took place on 29.12.2009 at about 10.30 p.m., near village Korit on Nandurbar to Shahada road, filed Claim Petition Nos. 121/2010 and 122/2010, respectively, for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 20,00,000/-, respectively, vide Section 166 of the ...
Tulsidas Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of conviction passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara, dated 26th June, 2014 in Sessions Trial No.1 of 2013, thereby convicting the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to suffer Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for two months, the appellant is before this Court. Facts of the case, which are in short compass, are described herein below :- 2. When Eknath Gadpayale [PW 9] was on duty at Police Station, Sakoli, in the night between 23rd and 24th September, 2012, between 2.30 and 2.45 a.m., Ganpat Narayan Thakre [PW 1] came to the Police Station with his grand-sons, Sumedh and Umesh. He lodged his report [Exh.19]. On the basis of the oral report, Eknath Gadpayle registered a crime for the offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, against the appellant vide Crime No....
Sulochana Neelkanth Kalyani Vs. M/s. Takle Investments Company and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
1. This company appeal impugns an order passed by the Company Law Board, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai ( CLB ) on petitions filed under Section 111(4) of the Companies Act, 1956 for rectification in the register of members. The petitions for rectification were filed in respect of eight different companies, who were arraigned respectively as Respondent No.1 in eight separate petitions. The facts of these eight petitions are more or less similar and considered hereinbelow in Company Appeal (L) No.41 of 2015 arising out of Company Petition No.19 of 2011 as a representative case. 2. The short facts of the Petitioner's case may be noted as follows: (i) The Petitioner Sulochana Neelkanth Kalyani ( Sulochana or Petitioner ) is one of the trustees of a private family trust known as N.S. Trust . This trust was settled by Mr. M.B. Hattarki, brother of Sulochana, under an Indenture of Trust dated 10 April 1999, the initial trustees of the trust being (1) Sulochana, (2) her late husband Dr. N.A. Kalyani ( ...
Ankush Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. Felt aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed in Sessions Trial No.4/2009 by which the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-3, Nagpur convicted the appellant, he is before this Court in this appeal. 2. By the impugned order of conviction, the appellant is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and on that count, he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months. 3. The facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are stated hereunder:- Mohan Makde (PW4) is the Sarpancha of village Welgaon. On 13.08.2008, when he was available at his house, some boys from the village had come to him at 12.30 noon. They inform...
Gokul Vs. Union of India, Through the Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalay ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition takes exception to the impugned judgment and order dated 8th May, 2013, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench at Mumbai [for short 'CAT'] in Original application No.217/2013. There is also prayer for quashing and setting aside the order of termination of the services of the petitioner issued by the Commissioner of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghatan, New Delhi. Further direction is sought to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the employment. It is further prayed to hold and declare that Article 81 [B] of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalaya, is ultra vires to Article 14 of the constitution of India. 2. The CAT has extensively referred the facts of the case in the impugned judgment, and therefore, we do not feel it necessary to reproduce the said facts; as and when it is necessary we will make a reference to the relevant facts from the impugned judgment. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the ...
Ashok Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 17.6.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, in Sessions Case No.14 of 2013, thereby convicting the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 304-II of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with the default sentence of 15 days of rigorous imprisonment. 2. The appellant was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code on the allegation that at about 6 a.m. of 25.10.2012, at mouza Gangalwadi, Tahsil Bramhapuri, District Chandrapur, the appellant assaulted deceased Deepak and gave him a blow of wooden stump on his head. As a result of the blow, deceased Deepak fell down sustaining bleeding injury over his head. It appears that before Deepak could be taken to the hospital, he had breathed his last at the spot of incident itself. 3. The background of this incident was in...
Abhilash Hasrath Savale Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-2016
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. The Petitioner has filed this petition thereby challenging the impugned Order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee (Respondent No.2) dated 19 January 2012 whereby his caste claim of Tokare Koli Scheduled Tribe, has been rejected though there are validity certificate issued by the same Caste Scrutiny Committee, in favour of Petitioner's cousin namely Ganesh A. Sawale dated 06.08.2005 and Rajesh A. Sawale dated 30.04.2008 (sons of real uncle). Both these certificates are part of record, show that the first cousins (paternal side) of the Petitioner have been granted the caste validity certificate being belong to Tokare Koli Scheduled Tribe. 2. There is nothing on record to show that the Respondent and/or any Authority have challenged and/or tested the validity of those certificates at relevant time and till this date though time was sought for the same. Last affidavit which is placed on record dated 15 June 2012 filed by the State Government only s...
Mithun M. Naik Vs. Village Panchayat of Kundaim and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the first and second respondents waive service. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 17/12/2014 passed by the learned District Judge, Panaji sitting at Ponda in Civil Revision Application No.18/2014, by which the judgment and order dated 25/03/2014 passed by the learned Additional Director of Panchayat in Panchayat Appeal No.170/2010, has been confirmed. The learned Additional Director of Panchayat had, in turn, confirmed the order dated 12/10/2010 passed by the Deputy Director of Panchayat, whereby the petitioner was directed to demolish his house on the ground that it is constructed without permission/ licence from the respondent no.1-Village Panchayat. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner is the owner of house No.479 of village Kundaim, Ponda, Goa, which was said to be in dilapidated condition, requiring urgent repairs and repla...
Navinchand Khushalchand Mutha Vs. Banaji Damu Sonde, Since deceased pe ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.358/1997 which was pending in District Court Ahmednagar. The appeal of the present respondents, plaintiffs, is allowed by the District Court and the suit filed by the respondents for relief of redemption of mortgage is decreed. Both the sides are heard. 2. The suit was filed in respect of land Survey No.655/4 (Gat No.2132), admeasuring 2 hectares 31 R situated at village Deolali Pravara, Tahsil Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. The owner of this land has right to take water from the well situated in previous Survey No.655 in the proportion of the area. 3. It is the case of the respondent, plaintiff that in the year 1970 the suit property was given by way of mortgage to Khushalchand, the predecessor-in-title of present appellant for securing debt amount of Rs.5000/- taken from Khushalchand. The document of mortgage was registered and the period of 5 years was mentioned in the document. It is contended that befo...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »