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.
Abhimanyu Vs. The Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition takes exception to the impugned judgment and order dated 23rd July, 2001 passed by the Commanding Officer 3 Adm and Dvrs Trg. Regt. Artillery Center, Hyderabad in Summary Court Martial No. 15145400A and the order No.C/07488/DV3 passed by the Chief of the Army Staff on 31st May, 2002 in Petition under Section 164 of the Army Act. The petitioner further seeks direction that the punishment awarded to the present petitioner by the respondent nos.2 and 3 is excessive and therefore the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service with full back-wages, and consequential benefits with 18% interest. The Relevant facts in brief, for the purpose of deciding the present Petition are as under: 2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 29th September, 2000, he was enrolled as Gunner Soldier through regular recruitment process in Army at B.R.O. Aurangabad and sent for training. He had successfully and without any break completed the training and served with th...
Indrasen Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 27th August, 2014 rendered in Sessions Case No.79 of 2012 by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, thereby convicting the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one month. The appellant has been prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that in the evening of 05/4/2012, between 3.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m., in the courtyard of his hut, the appellant picked up a quarrel with the deceased Rambharose, his father-in-law, residing in a separate but adjoining hut and by beating him by means of stones and stick on his head, the appellant killed him. It was alleged that on the previous day as well, there was quarrel between the appellant and the deceased in which the app...
Urvashi Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. This writ petition challenges the order dated 28.1.2016 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in S.T. No.392 of 2013, thereby rejecting the objection taken on behalf of the petitioner/accused in respect of some of the questions put to him under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only those questions can be put to an accused under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code which relate to the circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against the accused. If there are incriminating circumstances appearing in the cross-examination taken on behalf of the accused, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submits, those circumstances would be merely in the nature of admissions and, therefore, could not be covered by the scope and ambit of Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. For this submission, he plac...
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited through Chief General Manager, B.S.N.L., ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court, the Appellant/original Respondent No.2 (BSNL) a third party to the arbitration agreement, has filed this Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The impugned judgment and order dated 28 October 2014 is passed in Arbitration Petition No. 1006 of 2013 whereby Respondent No.1's/Original Petitioner (Siemens) section 9 Application has been disposed of by passing the following order: i) That before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the Arbitral Award but before it is enforced, Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No.2 are jointly and severally ordered and directed by this Court to forthwith handover possession of the said equipment mentioned at Exhibit E to the Petition, to the Petitioner and/or its servants, agents and/or assigns from the premises at BSNL CACT Complex, Doorwani Nagar, Opp ITI, KR Puram, Bangalore 560 016, where the said e...
Kisan Ramchandra Kokane (Deceased) through his LRs. Vs. Anjani
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
1. The appeal is filed to challenge the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No.119/1967 which was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar and also against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.2/1983 which was pending in District Court Ahmednagar. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts of the institution of present case can be stated as follows :- 3. Anjanibai Kapase, original plaintiff, had filed suit for recovery of possession of agricultural land bearing Survey No.267 (Gat No.304) situated at village Takalibhan, Tahsil Shrirampur. The land admeasures 12 acres 8 Gunthas. Relief of mesne profit was also claimed. 4. The suit property was originally owned by Laxman Dalvi, father of plaintiff. Laxman had two wives viz. Dhondabai and Laxmibai. Dhondabai died during lifetime of Laxman leaving behind the plaintiff Anjanibai as the only issue. Laxman died in or about the year 1931. Thus at the time of death of Lax...
Mohd. Firdoz Ahmed Vs. The Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs, Aurangaba ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
Oral Judgment: (Vasanti A. Naik, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the tenure of the respondent No.3 as a member of the respondent No.1Wakf Board was co-terminus with his tenure as a Member of the State Legislative Council and he ceases to be the member of the Wakf Board on the expiry of his tenure as a Member of the Legislative Council. 3. The controversy involved in this writ petition is short and revolves around the provisions of Section 14 of the Wakf Act, 1995. The relevant provisions of section 14 of the Wakf Act read thus 14. Composition of Board. (1) The board for a State and the [the National Capital Territory of Delhi] shall consist of (a) a Chairperson; (b) one and not more than two members, as the State Government may think fit, to be elected from each of the electoral colleges c...
Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs. Allahabad Bank and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. The present Appeal is filed by the Appellant-Original Plaintiff challenging an ad-interim order of the learned Single Judge, in the matter of invocation of performance bank guarantee and against the direction to deposit the proceeds in the account of third party and not of the beneficiary. 2. On 9 March 2016, in view of urgency expressed and as the regular Bench could not take this matter, it was heard substantially and kept on 23 March 2016. The parties have no objection for hearing of this Appeal finally at admission stage itself. It was heard from time to time, accordingly. 3. The Appellant/Plaintiff (Sub-contractor), Larsen and Toubro Limited (for short, L and T ), a company engaged in business of construction of large infrastructural projects, has filed this Appeal and challenged Judgment and order dated 29 February 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge, pending the Notice of Motion in the Suit. The Appellant's Application for an ad-interim relief restraini...
Ashok Vs. Kantilal Sakharam Parekh and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Adv. Mr. Rohit Deo waives service for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Respondent Nos.4 to 10, and learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, Mr. K.L. Dharmadhikari, for respondent no.11. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. By consent of rival parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner, who is the original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.29 of 2011, is aggrieved by the order dated 6th August, 2015, passed by the trial Court below Exh.89, thereby rejecting the application moved by the petitioner in which it was prayed that the compromise recorded between the petitioner and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 was not binding on the petitioner. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner had filed Special Civil Suit No.29 of 2011 seeking a declaration that the defendant Nos.1 to 3 were intending to defeat the rightful claim of the plaintiff that was based on an agreement of sale dated 27th February, ...
Maharashtra Electrosmelt Kamgar Union Vs. Deputy Director (IR), Minist ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Adv. Pillai for petitioner has pointed out that respondent no.6 has not filed any reply. 3. The petition has been filed questioning a note dated 12/5/2015 issued by Deputy Director for conduct of secret ballot election in the establishment of respondent no.6 at Chandrapur. Further communication dated 20/5/2015 for said purpose has also been questioned. 4. Adv. Pillai for petitioner submits that as in State of Maharashtra, there is a statute, which regulates recognition of Unions, the Code of Discipline under which that exercise has been undertaken is not applicable. He is relying upon an exception provided in Appendix III of the said Code of Discipline to substantiate his contention. He further submits that the petitioner has not given consent to such election by secret ballot and as per note appearing in first edition of November 1961, such exercise ca...
The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector Vs. Vinod Jagannath ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-17-2016
Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. (Oral) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner/State is aggrieved by the order dated 19.03.1015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad below application Exhibit 4 in Special Case No. 53 of 2014. 3. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the petitioner has strenuously criticized the impugned order primarily on two grounds. Firstly, that the application Exhibit 4 sets out vague and ambiguous pleadings and secondly, the impugned order is a cryptic order and that no reasons are assigned while passing the said order. 4. The learned APP submits that merely because the accused filed an application seeking a direction to the cellular services provider to preserve the record with regard to the cellular phones, the trial Court has passed the order and particularly when the two cellular phones have no concern with the proceedings. Such an order should be passed for justifiable reasons. 5....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »