Mumbai Court July 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 Dabhade and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2016
(Pronounced by A.S.Oka,J as per Rule 1(i) of Chapter XI of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules,1960 in absence of Bhadang, J who is sitting at Bench at Goa) A.S. Oka, J. 1. Notice for final disposal was issued on 2nd February 2016. These two petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common Judgment. The challenge in both the petitions is to the notification dated 27th May 2013 published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette dated 14/20th November 2013. By the said notification, the State Government exercised power under sub-section (1) of section 31 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short MRTP Act ) by which a draft development plan (second revision) of Talegaon Dabhade Municipal Council with the modifications as specified in the schedule of the modification (Schedule A) was sanctioned. The said sanctioned draft development plan (second revision) is hereinafter referred as the sanctioned revised development plan. Writ Petition No.5955 of 2014 conc...
Navalkishor Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-13-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. It is seen from the order dated 2.9.2015, passed by the Revisional Court that the criminal revision application has been dismissed in default. In fact, when a revision application is filed, it is required to be decided on its own merits and this could be done even in the absence of revision applicant. Therefore, learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have proceeded to decide the application on its own merits and should not have dismissed the application in default. The order is illegal and therefore it must go. 3. In the circumstances, this criminal writ petition is allowed. 4. The impugned order dated 2nd September, 2015 is hereby quashed and set aside. 5. The matter is remanded back to the Revisional Court for deciding the revision application being Criminal Revision Application No.197/2014 afresh in accordance with law. 6. Sufficient opportunity of being heard shall be granted to both sid...
Purushottam Devidas Yogi and Others Vs. The Sub Divisional Officer and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-13-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur in Revision Application preferred by respondent nos. 4 to 7 in proceedings under Section 111 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958 (for short the Tenancy Act ). 3. Facts relevant for adjudicating the present Writ Petition are that according to the petitioners, they are owners of field survey no. 35, admeasuring 4 Hectors 63 Ares. It is their case that one Tatya Motiram Kamble was permitted to look after the said land by carrying out agricultural operations. Said Tatya, expired on 14.02.1988. However, after his death, his name was mutated in the revenue records as occupier the said land with tenancy rights. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid mutation entry by initiating proceedings under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short the Code ). On 22.01.2007, the Tahsilda...
Yamunabai and Others Vs. Kamlabai (deleted) and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-13-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The trial Court dismissed the Special Civil Suit No. 750 of 1987 for partition and separate possession on 01.01.2001. The lower appellate Court has dismissed Regular Civil Appeal No. 117 of 2001 by judgment and order dated 07.01.2002. The original plaintiff is before this Court against the concurrent findings of fact. 2. This Court on 07.12.2005 passed an order as under, framing the substantial question of law. "Heard. Admit the appeal to consider the following question. Was the learned trial Judge in error in failing to deal with the question of production of an important piece of secondary evidence, namely, an alleged admission of respondents' predecessor Shri Jageshwar in his deposition in the suit filed by Shri Martandrao Jog against him and Manohar. Office to ensure that the record is properly preserved." 3. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff has admitted that the sale deed in respect of the suit property stands in the name of Jageshwarrao....
M/s. Maya Developers Vs. Neelam R. Thakkar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2016
1. The Plaintiffs ( Maya Developers ) are a firm of developers. They are the applicants in Notice of Motion (L) No. 834 of 2015. In this Notice of Motion, they seek interim reliefs in relation to the re-development of a building known as Azad Bhavan , owned by the 21st Defendant, the Azad Co-operative Housing Society Ltd ( the Society ). This building is at 831, Netaji Subhash Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai 400 080. It stands on Plot No. 831, S.No. 1,000, CTS Nos. 876, 876/1-13 of Village Mulund (W), Taluka Kurla. The plot is about 1237.10 sq.mts. Azad Bhavan is a ground plus two floor structure. It has a total of 36 rooms. Of these, 33 are of 220 sq.ft. carpet area; three have a carpet area of 320 sq.ft. A list of the members of the Society is annexed to the Plaint. 2. Defendant No.10 is the Applicant in the companion Notice of Motion No. 971 of 2015. That principally raises a jurisdictional issue under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( CPC ), in addition to other reliefs. I...
Tulshidas Apa Swar Vs. Assistant Director of Transport and Member Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-13-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Additional Government Advocate waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner is challenging the order, by which the Assistant Director of Transport and Member Secretary, (RTA), Bicholim, Goa (herein after referred to as the Competent Authority), has cancelled the stage carriage permit of the petitioner to ply the vehicle bearing registration no. GA-01-U-7088, on Hivrem to Panaji route. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner is holding a stage carriage permit to operate the said vehicle. It so happened that on 28.07.2014 at 7 a.m., the said vehicle met with an accident at Valpoi in respect of which, an offence at Crime No. 53/2014 was registered under Sections 279, 336, 377 and 338 of IPC and Sections 3, 134(1)(b), 180 and 188 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the M.V. Act, for short) with P.S. Valpoi. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that at the time of accident, the b...
Tukaram Namdeo Yede and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellants have questioned the correctness of the Judgment and Order dated 10th December 1996, passed in Sessions Case No.1 of 1992, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, thereby convicting and sentencing them as under:- i) All the appellants are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 147 of Indian Penal Code and sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.100/- each, in default of payment of fine to further under go rigorous imprisonment for one month. ii) All the appellants are also convicted for the offence punishable under section 148 of Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for nine months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- each, in default of payment of fine shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two months. iii) All the appellants are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code and each of them is sentenced to suffer rigorous impri...
Akhtar Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-12-2016
1. The Appellant (hereafter referred as "Accused") was charged with offence under Section 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" in brief) in Sessions Case No.14 of 2003 before Ist Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. Accused came to be convicted for lesser offence of Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rupees One Thousand and in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. He was acquitted, by the Judgment dated 29th July 2003, for offence punishable under Section 376 and 506 of IPC. Thus, this Appeal. 2. The case of prosecution, in short, is as follows: (A). On 6th October 2002 the prosecutrix (PW-6) (hereafter referred as "Victim"), (I am not putting her name on record. I will not put the name of mother (PW-1) and her father (PW-7) also on record to conceal their identity.) filed F.I.R. at Phulambri Police Station, Dist-Aurangabad which was received by PW-8 A.P.I. Shriram Ghuge. The F.I....
Garware Polyester Limited Vs. 3M Company and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-2016
1. This is a suit in trade mark infringement and passing off in relation to I shall use as neutral a description as I am able window films for sun protection. Garware ( Garware ) claims that the Defendants ( 3M Co and 3M India , respectively; collectively, 3M ) use of the expression SUNCONTROL or SUN CONTROL in their mark in relation to polyester or plastic films used for this purpose infringes its device marks SUN CONTROL, SUN CONTROL CLASSIC, SUNCONTROL, and GARWARE SUNCONTROL, all registered in Class 17, and SUN CONTROL CLASSIC, registered in Class 16. 2. Garware manufactures and sells a range of polyester and plastic films, including reflective, non-reflective, safety, privacy, specialty and decorative films. It manufactures dyed polyester films using a process for which it has a patent in 15 countries. Its first plant was established in Aurangabad in 1976. Garware has won many awards and received recognition for excellence in innovation. In 1982, Garware adopted the marks SUN CONT...
Narendra Ramdas Meshram and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-12-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Bhandara, dated 23rd of May, 2014, in Session Trial No.46 of 2009, convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each of them and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. During the pendency of the trial itself, original accused no.3 Sitabai Ramdas Meshram has expired. A Charge was framed against the appellants and deceased accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Ind...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »