Mumbai Court June 2016 Judgments
Ajay Sukhdas Kumbhare Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-28-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. Being aggrieved by his conviction and consequent sentence imposed upon him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - 12, Nagpur, in Sessions Trial No.327 of 2009, the appellant is before this Court. 2. By the impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. He was further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and on that count he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a ...
Tag this Judgment!Tome Carvalho Vs. Communidade of Cortalim and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
1. By this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code, for short), the petitioner is seeking modification/ recalling of the part of the order dated 07/08/2015 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.33/2015. 2. By the said order, the respondent no.1, Communidade of Cortalim was allowed to withdraw the aforesaid Criminal Revision Application and while doing so, this Court had noted the submission on behalf of the respondent no.1 that the respondent no.1 in the capacity as a "victim" as defined under Section 2(wa) of the Code, would have a right to file an appeal against acquittal, before the learned Sessions Judge by virtue of proviso to Section 372 of the Code and that the respondent no.1 intends to take recourse to the said remedy. 3. This Court in para 4 of the order, after noticing the definition of victim under Section 2(wa) of the Code, had observed that the respondent no.1 Communidade would come within the ambit of definition of 'victim'. 4. The brief ...
Tag this Judgment!Rita Pannalal Kanojia Vs. The Principal, Lokmanya Tilak High School an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
1. We are informed that Respondent No.1-School has granted admission to the Petitioner's son and he has started attending the school. We express our sincere appreciation on the decision of the School Management of granting admission to the Petitioner's son by not insisting on the payment of fees demanded by them. We hope and trust that Respondent No.1-School shall take proper care of such students from weaker section of the society. 2. Though the grievance of the Petitioner does not survive in the present case, we are of the view that the issue raised in this petition is of public importance. 3. Right to education is no longer a statutory right but is a fundamental right on account of inclusion of Article 21A in the Constitution of India, which reads as under: 21A. Right to education - The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may by law, determine. 3. Apart from, it being a constitutional and f...
Tag this Judgment!Vishal Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. I have heard the learned Advocates for the Petitioner and Respondents at length. 3. A peculiar situation has emerged in this case in the light of the submissions of the learned Advocates which are said to be on the basis of the record in this petition and from Criminal Application No.5229/2014, which has been dismissed by the learned Division Bench of this Court (Coram : S.S. Shinde and A.I.S.Cheema, JJ.) by order dated 30.10.2014. 4. The Petitioner in this petition has specifically challenged the order of issuance of process dated 08.10.2013 by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of Regular Criminal Case No.253/2013 and by a short order of a single paragraph has held that an offence punishable under Sections 193, 417, 418 and 420 of the IPC has been made out. 5. The Petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Application No.4/2014 under Section 397 of the Code of Crimina...
Tag this Judgment!Anandji Virji Shah and Others Vs. Ritesh Sidhwani and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
Oral Order: 1. This is the 5th Defendant's Chamber Summons for leave to lead secondary evidence to prove certain documents. Such a Chamber Summons, it is well settled, is not maintainable. 2. In Indian Overseas Bank v Trioka Textile Industries and Ors., AIR 2007 Bom 24 : 2006 (6) Bom.C.R. 85, Vazifdar J (as he then was), held that such a Chamber Summons is unnecessary, and is misconceived. It is neither necessary nor desirable. It is always open to the party to lead secondary evidence before the Judge recording evidence or hearing the matter without having to file such an application. He said: "2. A party desiring to lead secondary evidence must do so before the Judge recording the evidence. It is the Judge recording evidence who must decide, if any objection as raised, whether or not to admit the secondary evidence in evidence. If evidence is led before a Commissioner the objection to secondary evidence naturally can only be recorded and not decided by the Commissioner. It is then the...
Tag this Judgment!Cupid Shipping Pte Ltd. and Another Vs. Cargo of Sand and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
1. The present Notice of Motion is taken out by the owner of the vessel m.v. Ocean 39 ( the ship ) for a direction from this Court inter alia against the Plaintiff to offload the cargo laden on board the ship which cargo was arrested and continues to be under arrest at the instance of the Plaintiff by an ex parte order dated 15th March, 2016, and to permit the ship to sail out immediately. The owner of the ship shall be hereinafter referred to as the ship interests . 2. On 15th March, 2016, the Plaintiff secured an ex-parte order of arrest of cargo laden on board the ship. The cargo thereupon became custodia-legis at the instance of the Plaintiff. 3. No orders were sought or granted for arrest of the ship. There is therefore no legal impediment against the ship sailing out. Practically however the order of arrest has operated as a restraint against the ship leaving port since the cargo remains on her board. 4. The ship interests are anxious that the cargo be off loaded and the ship be ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrudul and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. A common question has been raised in all these Writ Petitions filed by the students, and hence we have heard these matters together. The said question is Whether facility of fee reimbursement can be declined to the students who are admitted at Institute level, though their admissions are duly approved by the Admission Regulatory Committee (Pravesh Niyantran Samiti)? 2. The basic facts are not in dispute. As per Government Resolution dated 04.03.2014, a reimbursement scheme has been extended to all students, who have taken admission to degree course in any of the Health Sciences in First Year after competing in Common Entrance Test (CET), through Association of Management of Unaided Private Medical and Dental Colleges of Maharashtra. The Scheme is applicable to such a student till he completes the Course. 3. On 30.03.2015, a proviso has been added to this Clause and it stipulates that students who are admitted on seats remaining vacant after co...
Tag this Judgment!Smart Chip Pvt. Ltd., Through its Authorised Signatory Vs. State of Ma ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2016
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is invoking extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court against the act of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 of treating Respondent No.3 as a qualified Bidder, despite Respondent No.3 being debarred and blacklisted by the State Government of Sikkim, which act of Respondent Nos.1 and 2, according to the Petitioner, is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and in violation of the express terms of the Tender Document dated 17th August 2015. The Petitioner is, therefore, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to declare Respondent No.3 to be a disqualified Bidder and reject its technical and financial bid and further directing Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to declare the Petitioner as L-1 Bidder and, therefore, entitled to get contract under the said tender bid. ...
Tag this Judgment!Vimalbai Supdu Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, through the Ministry of ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
Santigrao S. Patil, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally. 2. The petitioner has challenged the validity of rejection of her claim for family pension made upon the death of her son namely Deelip Supdu Patil in harness. 3. The son of the petitioner was serving as a Gram Sevak since 3rd April, 1984. He was the permanent employee of respondent Nos.2 and 3 namely Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon and Panchayat Samiti, Amalner, respectively. He died on 29th January, 2007 in harness. The petitioner is the only Class I legal heir of her son. Accordingly she obtained heirship certificate from the Tahsildar on 21st March, 2007. On the basis of that certificate she was paid an amount of Rs.1,41,450/- towards gratuity vide order dated 30th September, 2008. Being the only legal heir of her deceased son and being wholly depending on him for livelihood, the petitioner claimed family pension. However, her claim for family pension came...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sushila Harendra Bahadur Singh a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. With the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties heard forthwith. 2. The above First Appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 19.09.2013 passed by the Learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai ("MACT" for short), by which order, the application in question being Application No.3534 of 2005 came to be allowed and the claimants were held entitled to compensation of Rs.8,01,000/- which was directed to be paid jointly and severally by the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company i.e. Appellant herein. 3. The facts involved in the above First Appeal can in brief be stated thus:- The Respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein are the original claimants and are the widow of the deceased one Harendra Singh Lal Bahadur Singh, children of the deceased and the parents of the deceased. The said Harendra was driving a motorcycle bearing No.MH-04-T-7744 on 19.03.2000 from Mumbai towards Panvel. A motor truck bearing No.MH-04-H-1137 came from the Poyna...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »