Mumbai Court June 2016 Judgments
Oslen A. Dsilva and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
M.S. Sonak, J. 1. Rule. With the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The two petitioners in this petition, who claim to be students belonging to minority community, question the legality and validity of the requirement specified in clause 18(18) of the Information Brochure for admission to Post Graduate Technical Courses for Academic Year 2016-17 (Brochure). The impugned clause requires minority candidates seeking admission to Post Graduate Technical Courses to attach 'Domicile Certificate' alongwith the application form for Centralised Admission Process (CAP). 3. Mr. C.K. Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioners, has made the following submissions: (a) The very requirement of "domicile" in State of Maharashtra in order to be considered against the minority quota in minority institutions within the State of Maharashtra, is ultra vires the provisions contained in Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, ...
Tag this Judgment!Shrison Realtors Vs. Costa and Company Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. Admit. 3. Shri A.F. Diniz, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondents in Appeal from Order no.1/2016 and Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondent in Appeal from Order no.9/2016. These are appeals at the instance of the original plaintiffs and the defendants coming up for disposal by a common judgment. The parties would be referred to as the plaintiffs and the defendants for brevity's sake hereinafter in view of the two appeals filed by each of them assailing the same order passed by the trial Court securing the plaintiffs with the partial order of injunction while imposing certain conditions on them and the appeal of the defendants challenging the order securing the plaintiffs with the order of injunction. 4. Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Advocate came to be heard on behalf of the plaintiffs who submitted that appeal was limited to the conditions attached to the injunction o...
Tag this Judgment!Dhananjay Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. This criminal writ petition has been very strongly opposed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5. However, on merits of the case, I find that no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in jail for any longer period of time. The reason is that on 15.4.2013, the petitioner was granted bail on the ground that his role was secondary to the role of the main accused Mukesh Jadhav and that investigation was so far as this petitioner was concerned, was also over. It was also noted by this Court that by 15th April, 2013, this petitioner had spent time of about 40 days in custody. 6. Subsequently, an application was filed by the prosecution seeking cancellation of bail so granted to the petitioner on the ground that the summons issued by the Investigating Officer for attending the police station was disobeyed by this petitioner. The bai...
Tag this Judgment!Mangesh and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) The appellants in the present appeal are convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad in Session Trial No.19 of 2011 on 30th of November, 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 447, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. All the appellants were directed to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two years on account of their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of a fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. All the appellants were directed to suffer simple imprisonment for two months on account of their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 447 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for seven days. All the appellants were also directed to suffer imprisonment for life on account of their...
Tag this Judgment!Chittaranjan Narottamdas Negandhi Vs. Hemkala Alias Meenakshi Mansingh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The Plaintiff seeks probate of a Will dated 24th May 1973 left by his mother, Bhanumati Narottamdas Chapsi ("Bhanumati"). Bhanumati's husband was one Narottamdas Negandhi, but it appears that she did not take his surname. It is not disputed that Bhanumati, born in 1919, was about 54 years old when she made the Will in question, or that she lived for 19 years thereafter until her death at the age of 73 on 14th May 1992. Narottamdas died before she, on 24th July 1979. He was one of the two Executors named in her Will; the Plaintiff is the other. The Plaintiff is, thus, the sole surviving Executor of Bhanumati's Will. 2. Bhanumati and Narottamdas had six children: Pratapsingh, born in 1936; Yaswant, the 2nd Defendant, born in 1941; Indumati, the 3rd Defendant's mother, born in 1943; Hemkala, born in 1948, the 1st Defendant; Chittaranjan, the Plaintiff, born in 1950; and Kirtikumar born in 1952. Of these six children, Pratapsingh and Kirtikumar have not opposed this Petit...
Tag this Judgment!Abhishek Vs. Dr. Ashwinikumar Arvind Deshmukh and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
Z.A. Haq, J. 1. Heard Shri. N.R. Kanungo, Advocate h/f Shri. S.S. Voditel, Advocate for the petitioner original defendant No.1, Shri. J.T. Gilda, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 original plaintiffs and Shri. A.S. Kilor, Advocate for the respondent Nos.9 and 10 original defendants 8 and 9. Petition is dismissed against respondent Nos.3, 4 and 7. None appears for the other respondents. 2. The petitioner defendant No.1 has challenged the order passed by the trial Court allowing the application (Exh. No.86) filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 original plaintiffs and directing exclusion of counter-claim made by the petitioner defendant No.1. 3. The plaintiffs filed the civil suit praying for decree for specific performance of contract or in the alternative for refund of consideration, for damages and interest. According to the plaintiffs, the family of defendant Nos.1 to 7 owned property admeasuring about 8508 Sq. Ft. with the house thereon, out of which the defendant Nos.2 and 3 ha...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Vishwas Jaywantrao Bhosale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
Common Judgment: (M.S. Sonak, J.) 1. Rule in both petitions. At the request of and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The Union of India and State of Maharashtra filed the aforesaid two writ petitions to challenge the judgment and order dated 8 March 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) allowing the Original Application No.743 of 2014 instituted by respondent No.1, in the matter of change of his date of birth from 1 June 1956 to 5 October 1958. 3. In pursuance of recommendations of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC), the respondent No.1 vide appointment order dated 18 January 1984 was appointed as Deputy Collector in the State of Maharashtra with effect from 6 February 1984. At the time of such appointment, his date of birth was recorded as 1 June 1956 in the service book. This was on the basis of School Leaving Certificate furnished by the respondent No.1 himself. It is the case of the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Buwaji Sahadeo Hazare Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2016
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 2007 when he was released on furlough, he overstayed his furlough leave by 132 days. On account of this, three days of remission was cut off for each day of overstay. Thereafter, in the year 2012, the petitioner was released on furlough on 3.12.2012. On that occasion, he overstayed his furlough leave by 31 days. Due to this overstay, four days of remission was cut off for each day of overstay. The prayer of the petitioner is that the prison punishment be waived or reduced to cutting of remission of one day for each day of overstay. 4. Further case of the petitioner is that thereafter, he preferred two applications for parole and furlough which came to be rejected. As far as his case that on two occasions, his parole and furlough applications were rejected is concerned, the petitioner has stated that he has no grievance...
Tag this Judgment!Parbhani District Central Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-23-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 01.04.2013 by which Miscellaneous Application No.1/2013, filed by the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay in preferring an appeal, has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli. 3. The Petitioner contends that pursuant to the complaint filed by the Petitioner against Respondent No.2 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 409, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Regular Criminal Case No.68/1999 was adjudicated upon by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalamnuri. By the judgment and order dated 23.02.2011, Respondent No.2/ Accused was acquitted of the offences. 4. The grievance is that pursuant to the said judgment, the State did not prefer an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Hingoli. After the Petitioner got the knowledge of the judgment, it had approached ...
Tag this Judgment!Himmat Shriram Maghade Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-23-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is not having any intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss to anybody and, therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Judge that the appellant has committed an offence punishable under Section 4 read Section 3 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (for short the Prize Chits Act) and also under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code is illegal. 3. Learned APP supports the impugned judgment and order and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 4. On going through the impugned judgment and order and record and proceedings, I find that the learned APP is right when she submits that there is a ample evidence on record which clearly establishes beyond reasonable doubt the intention of the appellant, which was to run a scheme in violation of the prohibition of Section 3 of the Prize Chits Act. The scheme that was floated was to the effect th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »