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.
Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited (HDFC Ltd.) Vs. Distri ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard Shri Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rao, learned AGP for respondent No.1 and Shri Panpalia, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, for sometime. 2. The question is, whether the impugned order dated 13.02.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Washim, in Case No.3 of 2014 is in accordance with the Scheme of Section 14 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act). 3. We have perused that order. Respondent No.1 -District Magistrate has found that secured creditor did not produce before it document creating security interest in its favour. Thereafter, on account of confusion about identity of property, he has attempted to obtain report of the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar has mentioned that Plot No.62 is not in existence. However, Respondent No.1 has taken note of the fact that copy of sale deed is made available by...
Someshwar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Bhandara, dated 30th of August, 2014 in Special Criminal (Atrocity) Case No.13 of 2011, the appellant is before this Court. 2. The appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and for that he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and for that he was directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.4000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months. 3. When this matter was placed before us for final hearing, the learned counsel ...
Farida Aslam Khan and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
Prakash D. Naik, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service for State. Mr.Shailendra Mishra and Mr.A.R.Maurya waive service for private Respondents respectively in these petitions. 2. Both the petitions involve connected issues and the same are disposed of by common judgment and order. The Petitioners have invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Petitioners have challenged the first information reports (FIRs) on the ground that there has been settlement between both the parties, who had agreed to quash the criminal proceedings by consent of each other. 3. Criminal Writ Petition No.1936 of 2016 assails FIR bearing CR No.28 of 2016 registered with Dindoshi Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 392, 448, 341, 323, 506, 427, 452 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The Petitioners are impleaded as accuse...
The State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Deepak Parshuram Patil and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
Anuja Prabhudessai, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 10th May, 2013 in Sessions Case No.59 of 2010 whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1, Raigad, District Alibag, acquitted the aforesaid Respondents /accused for offences punishiable under sections 307 r/w. 149, 323 r/w 149, 143, 144, 147, 148 and 504 of the IPC and under section 37(1), 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that on 5.7.2009 PW2-Sujit Patil and some other boys were playing cricket on the school ground of village Patnoli. PW1Vilas Patil, PW3-Sandeep Patil and PW4-Kashinath Patil were sitting by the road and watching the cricket match. It is alleged that the accused No.1 Deepak Patil and his brother Anil got down from Safari vehicle and came to the school ground and started abusing PW2-Sujit Patil and others. Thereafter the accused left the place of the incident and returned with other accused, who were armed with weapons such as hockey sticks, s...
Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Higher and Tech ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Petitioner challenges judgment dated 28.03.2002 delivered by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dismissing T.A. No.784 of 1992. This transfer application was initially presented to this Court as Writ Petition No.666 of 1986. Challenge in said matter before this Court and thereafter before the MAT was to an order of termination dated 31.03.1986 issued by respondent no.2. As per that order, his services were sought to be terminated w.e.f. 04.04.1986 after holding that his performance was found most unsatisfactory. In Writ Petition No.666/1986, this Court stayed the order of termination on 03.04.1986, and hence, petitioner continued in service. After constitution of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, said Writ Petition was transferred to its Nagpur Bench where it came to be registered as Transfer Application No.784/1992. While dismissing that Transfer Application on 28.03.2002, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has found order o...
Mohan Ganpati Sathe and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
Anuja Prabhudessai, J. 1. These appeals arise from judgment dated 29.12.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.53 of 1998. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.59 of 2007 was the accused No.1 whereas the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.110 of 2007 were the accused Nos.3 to 8 in Sessions Case No.53 of 1998 and shall be hereinafter referred to as accused-as arrayed before the trial court. 2. The aforesaid accused along with one Shivprasad Sathe (accused No.2) were tried for offences punishable under sections 147, 148 and 326 r/w. 149 of the IPC. The accused No.1 was also charged for offence punishable under sections 302 and 307 of the IPC and section 30 of the Indian Arms Act. 3. By the impugned judgment the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused as under: (i) accused No.1 guilty of offence under sections 302 and 307 of the IPC and section 30 of the Indian Arms Act. The accused No.1 has been sentenced to undergo...
Balasaheb Ganpati Jadhav and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellants are convicted under Section 498A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.100/- each and under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for 15 days on each count by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No.206 of 1993 by its Judgment and Order dated 18th November 1996. 2. The record discloses that as none appeared for the appellants at the time of final hearing on many occasions, this Court therefore requested Advocate Shri S.R. Phanse to appear in the present matter as an amicus curiae. Shri Phanse the learned counsel has gracefully accepted the said request. The said fact is recorded in Order dated 22nd June 2016. 3. The facts which are relevant to decide the present appeal and enumerated from the re...
Sujit Haribhau Patil and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
Anuja Prabhudessai, J. 1. These appeals arise from the judgment and order dated 10.5.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1, Raigad, District Alibag, in Sessions Case No.134 of 2009. The accused were tried for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 326, 325, 324, 504, 143, 144, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC and under section 37(1), 135 of the Bombay Police Act and under sections 4 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act. 2. By the impugned judgment and order the learned trial Judge has held the accused nos.1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 guilty of offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. They have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months in respect of offence under Section 143 IPC, imprisonment for one year each in respect of offence under Section 144, 147 and 148 of IPC and life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- , i.d. one year imprisonment for offence under Section 302 r/w. 149 of IPC. The accused no.7 is also held guilty of offence under...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahendra Shivaji Gadekar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
Anuja Prabhudessai, J. 1. This appeal arises from judgment dated 29.12.2006 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, acquitted the respondents (hereinafter referred to as accused) in Sessions Case No.66 of 2002 of offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506 r/w. 149 of the IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution in short is as under: The complainant-Mohan Sathe and the other injured persons are the residents of Durgalwadi. The accused no. 1 is alleged to have made some indecent comments on seeing the sister of PW5 Rajendra. The accused no. 1 had also called her to the house of one Vijay. PW5 had told the mother of the accused no.1 to persuade him not to interfere with his sister. Irked by this, on 18.11.1997 at about 8 to 8.15 p.m. the accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted PW-5 Rajendra Chavan and Sambhaji Sathe. Again on 19.11.1997 at about 9 to 9.30 p.m. while PW-5 Rajendra and Sambhaji Sathe were having a wash in the paddy field, the accused Nos.1 ...
Hrishikesh Vasantrao Kumbhar Vs. Zilla Parishad, Sangli and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
Oral Judgment: (G.S. Kulkarni, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 14 December 2015, by which the Respondents have suspended the Petitioner from its services. The ground as set out in the suspension order is that the Petitioner had agreed to marry the complainant, one Ms. Yasmin Hazarat Makandar and that the Petitioner did not marry her and got married with some other girl. The other reasons as they appeared in the complaint are also set out in the suspension order. 3. When we heard the matter on the last occasion, we had expressed to the learned counsel for the Respondents that the reasons which are set out in the suspension order, prima facie appeared to be not sustainable, inasmuch as the nature of the complaint was nothing to do with the discharge of the duties by the Petitioner in the employment. The grievance of the compl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »