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.
Deepa Jaiprakash Hirepatta Vs. Jaiprakash Shivkumar Hirepatta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2016
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) 1. The parties were put to notice that the Appeal will be taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 2. By this Appeal, the Appellant-wife has taken an exception to the Judgment and Decree dated 26 November 2013 passed by the learned Principal Judge of the Family Court at Solapur. 3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 24 May 2010. The Respondent-husband filed a Petition seeking a decree of divorce on 11 December 2012 under clauses (i-a) and (i-b) of sub-section 1 of section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the said Act"). Though the notice of the Petition was served to the Appellant-wife, the Petition was not contested. By the impugned decree, the learned Principal Judge of the Family Court proceeded to dissolve the marriage by passing a decree of divorce on both grounds of cruelty and desertion. 4. Various contentions have been raised by the Appellant. Firstly, it is contended that on the returnable date, her minor s...
Francisco Agnelo Soares and Others Vs. Fabrica de Igreja de St. Cruz T ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-04-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Both these petitions arise out of the order dated 26/11/2015 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Panaji in SCS No.14/11/B. 3. The petitioners in W.P.No.20/2016 are the original plaintiffs while Writ Petition No.631/2016 is filed by the original defendant no.2 in the said suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, in their original capacities, as plaintiffs and defendants. 4. The plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit for declaration, that the plaintiffs and original defendant nos.3 to 6 are the owners and are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, more particularly described in para 2 of the plaint. The plaintiffs are seeking a direction to the Survey Authorities to delete the names of the defendant nos.1 and 2 from the occupant's column in respect of the suit property (Survey No.28/1) by substit...
Agriculture Produce Market Committee, through its Chairman Vs. The Hon ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-04-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. The question that arises in this writ petition is whether the order of suspension inflicted upon an employee pending enquiry proceedings could be treated to be an order of punishment by itself so as to disentitle the employer from imposing any punishment after conclusion of the enquiry proceedings? 3. The facts relevant for adjudication of the writ petition are that the respondent no.3 was appointed as a Clerk with the petitioner-Market Committee in the year 1986. Subsequently he was promoted to the post of Accountant. During the course of employment on noticing certain irregularities the respondent no. 3 was placed under suspension by an order dated 15.10.2011. Thereafter enquiry proceedings were held and on that basis the punishment of removal from service came to be imposed by order dated 02.06.2012. The respondent no.3 filed an appeal under provisions of Rule 104 of the Maharashtra Agricultura...
Mansing Nana Shinde Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellant-original accused has questioned the correctness of the Judgment and Order dated 22nd January 1998 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.27 of 1991 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The facts which are necessary and relevant to decide the present appeal can be enumerated from the record as under: (i) The date of alleged incident is 21.6.1990. The prosecutrix Smt. Malan Ashok Sawant was a married woman. She was residing with her husband, brother-in-law, father-in-law and mother-in-law at village Ranand Taluka-Man, District-Satara. That on the date of incident, her father-in-law and her husband and brother-in-law Popat went to village Pimpri for settling the marriage of Popat. The pr...
Pramod Navneet Shirsat Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-04-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Sessions Judge, Akola, dated 30th of December, 2013, in Session Trial No.91 of 2011, by which the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, the appellant is before this Court. 2. A Charge was framed against the present appellant and his parents in Sessions Trial No.91 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the Charge, on 6th of March, 2011 at about 10 p.m. at Takali (Khojbal), Tq.Balapur, Distt.Akola, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, caused death of Smt.Pratibha. Though the parents of the appellant are acquitted by the learned Court below, no appeal question...
Vishankumari Udaysingh Varma Thr. her Daughter and Constituted Attorne ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
Oral Judgment: (G.S. Kulkarni, J.) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28th December 2015 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane whereby Special Civil Suit No.432 of 2015 (for short 'the suit') has been dismissed as not maintainable in view of the bar as prescribed under Order XXIII Rule 3 A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. The contesting respondent in this appeal is defendant no.24 who filed an application in the suit, raising an objection to the maintainability of the suit in view of the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as the appellants/plaintiffs was inter alia seeking a declaration that the compromise decree dated 22 July 2004 in Special Civil Suit No.230 of 1987 be set aside. This application was contested by the appellants/plaintiffs inter alia contending that the suit was maintainable inasmuch as though it was prayed that the compromise decree in Special Civil Suit No.230 of 1987 ...
Nilesh @ Nitin Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge 6, Nagpur, dated 31st of December, 2013, in Session Trial No.135 of 2013, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. Such of the facts which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are stated as under: Sau. Seeta Charpe is the first informant. Deceased is her husband. His name was Deepak. Appellant is the real brother of first informant Seeta. 3. The law was set into motion by Seeta Charpe by lodging her oral report with Police Station Jalalkheda. Her oral report is at Exh.12. In her report she states that she works as a Nurse at Lata Mangeshkar Hospital, MIDC, Hingna. She is having two brothers; one appellant and other ...
M/s. Selvel Industries and Another Vs. M/s. Om Plast (India)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Leave to amend the Notice of Motion in terms of the draft amendment tendered, taken on record and marked X for identification. Amendment to be carried out forthwith, without need of re-verification. Mr. Khandekar waives service of the amended Notice of Motion. 2. I have before me on my desk two plastic containers. One is manufactured by the Plaintiffs. The other is manufactured by the Defendants. There is a difference in colour: the one in lighter pink is manufactured by the Plaintiffs. The one in a darker hue, closer to purple, is manufactured by the Defendants. 3. The question in this Notice of Motion for interim relief in an action in infringement and passing off under the Designs Act, 2000, is whether the Defendant s product infringes the Plaintiffs registered design. 4. I must state straight away that, though this is perhaps oversimplified, to the threshold question of whether these products have any appeal, one that is to be judged solely by the eye, the answer ...
Chishti Farhanuddin Qaiseruddin Chishti Vs. The State of Maharashtra, ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. This Petition is filed with the following prayer: A) To quash the decision of the Board debarring the petitioner up to July, 2016 and further cancellation of result of the petitioner of XII standard examination held in February, 2016, to the extent of petitioner (Exhibit C ), by issuing writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or directions as the case may be. 4. The background facts leading for filing this Writ Petition as disclosed in the memo of the Petition are as under: The petitioner appeared for 12th standard examination conducted by respondent nos. 2 and 3, held at respondent no. 4 College in February, 2016. The petitioner was appearing for last examination paper in Biology subject. The examination hall was searched by the Flying Squad of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board. The Squad found a paper (hereinafter called as chit ) nea...
Ashok Ramchandra Naik Vs. Sunil Padurang Kesarkar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
1. Heard learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties. 2. Admit. 3. Shri G. Agni, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondents. 4. The original applicant before the learned Principal District Judge, North Goa Panaji has filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Judge under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 ( the Act for short hereinafter) pursuant to which he declined to secure the appellant with the interim measures of relief under Section 9 of the Act which is akin to an order under Order XXXIX CPC. 5. Shri J. Ramaiya, learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant came to be heard who first contended that the learned Principal District Judge had exceeded his jurisdiction in holding that the Deed of Partnership was a camouflage. Such an examination of the Deed was open to an arbitrator, if any, appointed in the proceedings but it was not available to the District Judge to examine the nuances of the Deed of Partnership. He ad...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »