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.
Manoharrao Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-17-2016
Oral Judgment : 1. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 20.06.2006 delivered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Biloli in SCC No.588/2005 by which process was issued against the Petitioners under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. While issuing notice on 19.07.2006, this Court had granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C) to the Petitioners, which reads as under: (C) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the order dated 20.06.2006 of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Biloli in SCC No.588 of 2005 on his file, to the extent of the Petitioners, be stayed. 3. This Court after hearing the Petitioners and the Respondents had passed an order on 28.11.2006 and interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C) was confirmed. The observations of this Court in it s order dated 28.11.2006 read as under: 1. By way of present petition, the petitioners challenge the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Biloli, in S....
KSB Aktiengesellschaft and Another Vs. Anil Agarwal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2016
Oral Judgment: This order disposes of the Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion. Thought the application is for reliefs in both infringement and passing off, Ms. Kshirsagar for the Plaintiffs restricts her reliefs to those in passing off. 2. I passed an ad-interim order on 22nd September 2014, noting a statement made on behalf of the Defendant that the Defendant would not, until 1st October 2014, use the offending mark "KSB" in relation to any goods. This order was continued on 1st October 2014 until further orders. The Defendant has since filed an Affidavit in Reply; there is also an Affidavit in Rejoinder. The Defendant has, however, been absent on every occasion after 12th June 2015, when he was last represented in Court. The order sheets and roznamas of 24th July 2015 (S.J. Kathawalla, J.), 13th August 2015 (S.J. Kathawalla, J.) and 16th June 2016 all indicate that the Defendant has not, on any of these three occasions, appeared in Court. 3. I have heard Ms. Kshirsagar. She has taken me thr...
Ulhas Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-17-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Osmanabad by which the learned Magistrate has directed a denovo trial in Summary Criminal Case No.597/2008. 3. The Petitioner submits that by lodging of Crime No.117/2008 under Sections 143, 294, 341, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, the Petitioner is being tried in SCC No.597/2008. Though the case was to be tried as a summary case, the learned Magistrate Shri S.K.Karande had recorded the examination-in-chief of the first witness on behalf of the prosecution and the said witness was cross-examined at length by the Petitioner. Similarly, the prosecution had produced three witnesses, who were examined followed by cross-examination by the Petitioner. The recording of oral evidence was concluded on 15.11.2011. 4. Shri Deshmukh, the ...
Sukhchand Shambhuji Bhalavi Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-17-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. Being aggrieved by judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-6, Nagpur in Session Trial No.220 of 2009, by which the learned Judge of the Court below convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and directed him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, the appellant is before this Court. 2. The facts, in nutshell, which give rise to the present appeal are as under: Deceased Kalpana was married with the appellant. Her marriage with the appellant was her second marriage, as well, the appellant's marriage with Kalpana was also second marriage. His first wife expired due to burn injuries. Kalpana was having one daughter from her first marriage whereas, from the appellant she was having one son. The appellant used to work in Saw Mill. Marriage between Kalpana and appe...
Fatima and Others Vs. Municipal Commissioner of Greater Bombay and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2016
A.S. Oka, J. (As Bhadang, J. is not available at Mumbai, signed Judgment is pronounced by A.S. Oka,J as per Rule 296 (iii) of the Bombay High Court Original Side Rules). The petitioners who are claiming to be the owners of a plot of land in Mumbai which is more particularly described in Exhibit-A to the petition are seeking a writ of mandamus on the basis of a notice under section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,1966 (for short 'the MRTP Act'). A writ of mandamus is prayed for declaring that the reservation on the plot subject matter of this petition (for short 'the said plot') provided in the sanctioned development plan has lapsed. 2. The development plan for the city of Mumbai was sanctioned under section 31 of the MRTP Act on 7th July 1967. The said plot was shown reserved for play ground and development plan road in the said sanctioned development plan. On 15th March 1979, a declaration dated 20th January 1979 was published by the State Government under the pr...
Sonal Govardhan Tiple and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra through its ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-17-2016
Oral Judgment:(B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard Shri Anand Parchure, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Ms. P. Rane, Ms. A.R. Kulkarni and Shri S.B. Bissa, learned A.G.Ps. for respondents. 2. Petitioners are from Yavatmal District and employees of various private management. They have been given employment as Shikshan Sevaks up to June, 2014. Petitioners in Writ Petition No.6612 of 2015 did file a Pursis St. No.6425 of 2016 to withdraw the petition but later on has chosen to press their challenge. 3. Petitioners question the orders dated 18.11.2015, 20.11.2015 and 26.11.2015 passed by respondent no.3-Eduction Officer canceling the approval given to their appointments earlier. 4. Shri Parchure, learned Counsel invites our attention to the impugned orders to show that the reason for cancellation is (1) gap of less than 15 days between the date of publication of advertisement and date of interview and (2) non absorption of surplus teachers. He contends that petitioners cannot be bla...
Ravindra Vs. State of Maharashtra through Anti Corruption Bureau, Latu ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-17-2016
1. The appellant - original accused (hereafter referred as accused) has been convicted by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Latur in Special Case No.4/1997 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (Act in brief). Being aggrieved by the conviction as well as sentence passed, the present appeal has been filed. 2. The case of prosecution in brief is as follows : (a) P.W.2 Angad Vishwanath Jadhav - complainant (hereafter referred as complainant) approached Anti Corruption Bureau at Latur on 22.4.1997. He filed complaint (Exh.65), interalia mentioning that from agricultural field Gat No.148, part of the field standing on the name of his father had been acquired in Manjra Project and he wanted certificate of being project affected. Accordingly, he had gone to the office of Manjra Administration, Irrigation Department, Sub-Division, Latur, where the accused was working. Complainant filed application and time to time went to ...
Chandrashekar Sing Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-17-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. I have heard the strenuous submissions of Mr. Bajaj, learned Advocate for the petitioner who has criticized the impugned judgment of the learned Magistrate dated 22.03.2006 and the judgment of the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad dated 16.05.2006. Mr. Bajaj submits that both the orders are perverse, erroneous and unsustainable. The Magistrate could not have handed over the possession of the truck bearing No. MH-34-M-2411 to the respondent Mr. Anilkumar Ramnagina Jaiswal and Mr. Avinash Ramnagina Jaiswal. He further submits that the suprutnama bond of Rs. 11,00,000/- (Rs. eleven lac) is a meagre amount and hence the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. 2. I have considered the submissions of Mr Mantri, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. None appeared for respondent No. 4. Both the learned Advocates on the basis of the Rozanama (daily status) from the District Court Website pertaining to the pending cases, s...
Sayyed Mansoor Husaini Vs. Sayyadabibi Amina and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-17-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order delivered by the learned Sessions Judge dated 28.04.2006 in Criminal Revision Application No.5/2006 by which the maintenance granted by the learned Magistrate under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was enhanced. 2. Shri Shaikh, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, has strenuously criticized the impugned order. He submits that primarily the jurisdiction of the Revisional Court is limited and unless the impugned order appears to be perverse, erroneous and likely to cause grave injustice, the same cannot be interfered with only because a second view is possible. 3. He submits that the Respondents had moved an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from the Petitioner. The oral and documentary evidence was adduced by the Respondents though the Petitioner did not step into the witness box. By the judgment dated 23.12.2005, the Petitioner was directed to pay m...
Prithviraj S. Singh Vs. Secretary, School Education Department and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2016
1. By these two writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari, for quashing the two separate orders passed by the School Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal No.1 of 2005 and Appeal No.2 of 2005 filed by the petitioners respectively and praying for an order and directions against the respondents to reinstate the petitioners with all full back wages and consequential benefits. Since the facts in both the matters are identical, by consent of parties both the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. Since the learned counsel for the petitioners has summarized the facts in Writ Petition No.2507 of 2006, I shall deal with the facts in the said writ petition in the later part of this judgment. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding aforesaid two petitions are as under:- 2. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the officers appointed under the provisions of the of Maharashtra Emplo...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »