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.
Shankar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-23-2016
Oral Judgment: (A.V. Nirgude, J.) 1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 30.1.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No.271 of 2013 thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. and to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- with default clause. The appellant was acquitted of the offence publishable under section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. 2. The appellant and co-accused Sharad were tried in the said sessions Case for the offences punishable under section 307 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. 3. It was alleged that on 2.5.2013, the accused took Ramdas to his agricultural field, where both of them assaulted him. The accused No.1 then took out a revolver and fir...
Sham Bholaram Bhatia Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2016
P.C. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. 3. Petitioner herein is accused in C.C. No.966/PW/2015 pending before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, questions the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate in the course of framing of charge on 10/06/2016. It is a matter of record that initially case was registered as Special Case No.88 of 2001 and was pending before CBI Court. At one stage proceedings were stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 4. On 10/06/2016, learned Magistrate has observed as follows: "Learned Advocate for Accused No.2 stated that accused No.2 is patient of kidney transplant and hip transplant and hence today, he could not appear before this Court. As the matter is 'Time Bound' by the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it is vital to proceed with the matter expeditiously. However, through the view of expedite trial of the case Ld. Advocate for the accd No.2 is directed orally to obtai...
Sangeeta Raju Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code by the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.1997 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.76 of 1995, and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The said Judgment and Order dated 29.11.1997 is impugned in the present appeal. 2. The facts which can be enumerated from the record and are necessary for deciding the present appeal can briefly be stated as under: (i) The date of incident is 24.10.1994. The appellant was suspecting that her husband namely Raju Shinde was having illicit relations with the first informant, Smt. Khurshid Y. Shaikh and on that count the appellant used to abuse the victim in filthy language. In the morning of the said day, the appellant had a quarrel with the victim on the ground that the victim was having illicit rela...
Mehboobiya Education Society, Buldana, No.F7184, through its President ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-23-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri P.B. Patil, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Abhay Sambre, learned Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4, Shri Tushar Darda, learned Advocate for respondent No.5 and Shri H.R. Dhumale, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. The petitioner is administering a primary school in a rented premises. The petitioner-society applied for grant of lease in respect of land out of Survey No.74 and the Municipal Council by Resolution No.15 passed on 08/11/2012 and Resolution No.9 passed on 22/03/2013 decided to allot 1748 sq. mtrs. of land out of Survey No.74 to the petitioner-society on lease for three years. These resolutions came to be challenged before the Collector, Buldana and the learned Collector exercising powers under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1965') suspended the operation of above referred resolutions passed ...
Yogesh Chunilal Maniyar and Others Vs. Bakul Chandulal Mehta and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. These two Chamber Summonses are filed by one Jyotsna Rasiklal Maniar ( Jyotsna ). She claims to be the daughter of one Prabhudas Chaganlal Mehta ( Prabhudas ), the predeceased brother of the Testator, Shantilal Chaganlal Mehta ( Shantilal ). There are two Testamentary Suits: Testamentary Suit No. 22 of 1990 and Testamentary Suit No. 136 of 2015. I may note, in passing, that the latter, Testamentary Suit No. 136 of 2015, has come to be numbered in the quite peculiar circumstances that are set out in my order dated 27th July 2015. 2. As previously noted, two Wills are propounded, both said to have been made by Shantilal. Yogesh Chunilal Maniar, the Plaintiff in Testamentary Suit No. 22 of 1990, propounds a Will dated 27th May 1983; Dr. Bakul Chandulal Mehta, a neighbour of Shantilal Mehta, propounds a Will dated 19th July 1987 in Testamentary Suit No. 136 of 2015. I have previously directed that the Suit relating to the later Will will, i.e., where Dr Bakul Mehta is the...
Ignatius S. Jadhav Vs. Asha Dattatraya Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2016
P.C. 1. Heard Mr. P.D. Dalvi, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Jayant Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the respondent, at length. 2. By this application under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.'), the applicant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 4.5.2012 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Kalyan in Civil Appeal No.96/2004. By that order, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff', and quashed and set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.9.2004 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalyan in Regular Civil Suit No.477/2000. The learned District Judge decreed the suit and directed the defendant to deliver vacant possession of block No.1 on the 3rd floor of Ganesh Shopping Centre, Kalyan (for short, 'suit premises') to the plaintiff within six months from the date of decree. The defendant is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.12,650/- to ...
Sk. Bashir Sk. Shabhir and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-23-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The complainants and the accused, who have been convicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 435 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code, have placed on record a joint compromise document dated 14.6.2016 for compounding of the offence, along with the affidavits of the concerned persons. 2. It is jointly submitted by the learned Advocates for the appellants and the complainants that though the offence held to have been committed is not a compoundable offence, this Court could exercise it's inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and pass appropriate orders keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Pepsi Foods Limited and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others [AIR 1998 SC 128] and the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court (3 Judges Bench) in the matter of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. 3. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has opposed ...
Harsh Chandru Punjabee Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
Prakash D. Naik, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Learned APP waives service for the respondent -State. 3. The petitioners in both the petitions have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners have challenged the First Information Report ("FIR", for short) registered with the concerned police station on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their dispute. 4. Petitioner in criminal Writ Petition No.1459 of 2016 has challenged the FIR registered with Juhu Police Station vide CR No.286 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Section 406, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC", for short) and under Section 66(c) (d) of the Information Technology Act ("IT Act", for short). The said FIR has been registered at the instance of the second respondent on 28th July, 2015. Second respondent is wife of the petitioner. 5. In the a...
Montana Developers Private Limited Vs. Aditya Developers and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. By this petition filed under section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Arbitration Act ) the petitioner seeks an order and direction for issuance of witness summons against various persons / entities with a direction to produce various documents set out in prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the petition before the learned arbitrator on 11th July, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 2. The petitioner is the claimant in the arbitration proceedings, whereas the respondents are the original respondents. 3. On 17th September, 2013 and 1st October, 2013, by consent of parties, a former Chief Justice of India was appointed as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences between the parties. The petitioner filed a statement of claim on 30th November, 2013. The statement of claim was resisted by the respondents by filing statement of defence. The parties led oral evi...
Dilip Vs. Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corp ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
Sangitrao S. Patil, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally. 2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the vires of the order dated 18th/19th June, 2015, whereby respondent No.1 - the Divisional Controller of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (for short, "M.S.R.T.C."), Divisional Office, Aurangabad has demoted the petitioner from the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector to his original post of driver. 3. The petitioner belongs to Vimukta-Jati - A (for short, "VJ-A") category. He joined the service with respondent No.1 as a driver on 16th November, 1988. He rendered his services as a driver to the great satisfaction of his superiors. Respondent No.1 issued a circular on 9th June, 2014, calling for the applications from the eligible traffic controllers/drivers for filling up five posts of Assistant Traffic Inspectors by promotion. Out of the sai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »