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.
Seema Hiralal Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Principa ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2016
Sangitrao S. Patil, J.: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally. 2. The petitioner has taken exception to the order dated 7th October, 2015, passed by respondent No. 2 whereby her claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. 3. The father of the petitioner, namely, Hiralal Malanbai Pawar was serving as an Assistant Teacher at Bazar Savangi, Taluka Khultabad, District Aurangabad in the Primary School, run by respondent No. 2. He died in harness on 24th June, 1998. The petitioner is the daughter of deceased Hiralal. She submitted an application before respondent No. 2 for her appointment on compassionate ground on 13th July, 2015. The said application came to be rejected by respondent No. 2 as per the impugned order on the ground that the said application has not been filed within a period of one year from the date of death of her father i.e. deceased Hiralal. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner sub...
Joaquim Teles Vs. Luis Caetano Guilerme Welington Fernandes e D'Mello ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-08-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. A. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. R. G. Ramani, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Admit on the following substantial question of law: Whether the learned Judge was justified to decree the suit filed by the respondents relying upon the judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1985 Bombay 202 in the case of Smt. Purificacao Fernandes v/s Dr. Hugo Vicente de Perpetuo Socorro Andrade Menezes and Ors.? 3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 4. Mr. R. Ramani, learned counsel waives service on behalf of the respondents. 5. Mr. A. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned Lower Appellate Court has misconstrued the evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the appellants were not living with the deceased during her lifetime. The learned counsel further pointed out that the learned Trial Judge at para 26 had clearly arrived ...
Saderaj Baba Nagraj Baba Kapate @ Anupam Padmakar Bodade Vs. State of ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-08-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. The appellant faced a Charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for homicidal death of Sau.Nirmala. After a full fledged Trial in Sessions Trial No.35 of 2013, the learned Additional Sessions Judge 4, Amravati found him guilty. Consequently, by the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 13th of March, 2014, the appellant was directed to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Hence, this appeal. 2. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as under : Deceased Nirmala used to reside with the present appellant. Though they were not married, they were in live-in-relationship. 3. The incident is dated 10th of November, 2012 at about 6.00 p.m. at village Riddhapur. The place of the incident is a house of the appellant situated at Riddhapur. Incident of burning ...
Shirish Popatlal Shah Vs. Arun Popatlal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2016
1. The Plaintiff seeks Letters of Administration with Will Annexed to a Will dated 21st November 1992 (Paperbook, p. 275) that he says was the last Will of his father, Popatlal Bhogilal Shah ( Popatlal ), who died in Mumbai on 2nd January 1993. Popatlal had a daughter and three sons with Lilavatibai Popatlal Shah ( Lilavati ). They are: Vinodini Mody ( Vinodini ), the Plaintiff, the Defendant and Sushil Shah ( Sushil ). 2. The Defendant filed a Caveat dated 14th February 2005 (Paperbook, p. 30)and an Affidavit in Support dated 21st February 2005 (Paperbook, p. 33a).The Petition was then renumbered as Testamentary Suit No. 20 of 2005. 3. Before I go further, I should note that this is the second of two testamentary contests between the same parties. Shirish Shah, the present Plaintiff earlier filed Testamentary Petition No. 754 of 2004, for Probate to Will he said had been made by the parties mother, Lilavati. The present Defendant, Arun Shah, opposed the Petition. He entered a Caveat a...
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through its Divisional Manager Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. Considering the challenge raised heard forthwith. 2. The above First Appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 18.04.2015 passed by the Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune (For short MACT ), by which order, M.A.C.P. No.217 of 2006 came to be allowed and the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein were awarded total compensation in the sum of Rs.11,38,000/. 3. The facts giving rise to the filing of the above First Appeal can in brief be stated thus : The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the original Applicants in the said M.A.C.P. No.217 of 2006. They are the wife and children of the deceased one Sanjay Gujar who died in the accident which took place on 28.12.2004. The said Sanjay Gujar was riding a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No. MH-12-M-4974 on 28.12.2004 at about 12.40 p.m. when he reached the Mumbai Pune road opposite to Nigdi Jakat Naka within the limits of Dehuroad Police Station, Taluka Haveli, District Pune, one Minidor Auto Rikshaw beari...
Juhu Beach Life Guard Association Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2016
P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned senior counsel appearing for the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. This Petition was heard for some time, day before yesterday. The case made out by the Petitioner in this Petition is that the Petitioner (Juhu Beach Life Guard Association) is a non-Governmental Organization which is duly registered. The Petitioners have stated that it started "Water Safety Patrol Unit" with 30 members in the year 1994 and its main aim is to save people from drowning at coastal areas, lakes, floods etc. The Petitioners are relying upon a letter of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation which is Exhibit-G to the Petition which records no objection of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation for the Petitioner erecting removable bamboo watch towers for keeping vigilance on swimmers, to use patrol vans for keeping vigilance on swimmers, to partk ambulance, to keep non-metalic portable cabins for keeping life saving equipments. Reliance is also placed...
Dinesh Bhondulal Baisware Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-07-2016
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the respondent/State. The allegation made against the present applicant is that he along with four other accused persons, being a member of an organized crime syndicate, was a part of the group, which took active part in carrying out a dangerous assault upon the complainant Amol Mehar on 29.5.2015 in which assault, Amol Mehar, however, managed to escape, though he suffered grievous injuries to his person. On the basis of complaint, offences punishable under Sections 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 294 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and also Sections 3,4,25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act were initially registered. Later on, as the investigation progressed, the Investigating Officer also found that this applicant and four other persons formed an organized crime syndicate which indulged in various activities prohibited under the law. It was also found that this crime syndicate was headed by accused No.1 Gijrya ...
Deepak Vasanta Ughade and Others Vs. Sitabai and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-07-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. As the notice for final disposal has been served on the respondents, the writ petition is heard finally by issuing Rule and making the same returnable forthwith. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 11/12/2013 in Succession Case No.74 of 2012 whereby a succession certificate has been directed to be issued in favour of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 had filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short, the said Act) for grant of succession certificate. It was her case that one Ramesh Laxman Ughade was employed as General Mazdoor with the respondent No.2. He expired on 02/05/1992. His widow, Jijabai was thereafter given compassionate appointment in place of her husband. Said Jijabai expired on 21/09/2011. According to the respondent No.1, Jijabai had a son Ganesh and a daughter Kalpana but both had expired. The respondent No.1 as mother of Jijabai claimed to be the only legal heir of said Jijabai and hence filed ...
Harshid Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-07-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Session Case No.84 of 2012 on 20th of January, 2014 and sentencing him for life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, the appellant is before this Court. 2. The prosecution case, as it is unfurled during the course of trial, is as under - When Bapuji Sayam (PW 10), Head Constable, attached to Police Station Chamorshi was discharging his station diary duty on 22nd of May, 2012, the appellant came in the Police Station and gave oral report. The said oral report was reduced into writing and it is at Exh.44. Shri Sayam registered an accidental death vide A.D.No.25 of 2012. The gist of the said oral report of appellant is that his second wife deceased Mamta committed ...
Jitendra Vs. Mohanlal
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-07-2016
Oral Judgment : 1. Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner who is a tenant in the premises owned by the respondent is aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate Court dated 27/01/2015 in R.C.A. No.41 of 2011 whereby the said appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging the decree for eviction has been dismissed. 2. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner is a tenant of the house property owned by him paying rent of Rs.37.88 ps per month. According to the respondent as the petitioner was in arrears of rent, he had issued a notice under provisions of Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, the said Act) dated 11/02/2008. This notice was received by the petitioner on 19/02/2008, but the arrears of rent were not paid. On 01/03/2008 suit for eviction on the ground of the tenant being in arrears of rent as well as on the ground of the landlord's bonafide need came to be filed. Written statement was filed b...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »