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.
Ajit Sonbhau Gawade Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2016
P.C. 1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP. 2. Admit. 3. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing. 4. This application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by applicant, who is original accused in Crime No.70 of 2016, registered with police Station, Shivaji -Nagar, Pune, for offence punishable under Section 376, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, challenging the order dated 12.5.2016, in Criminal Misc. Application No.113 of 2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, thereby cancelling the bail granted to the present applicant in above crime on 23.03.2016. 5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for applicant /accused. By taking me through the chronology of the events after registration of F.I.R., the learned Senior Counsel submitted that initially after registration of Crime No.70 of 2016, on 11.3.2016, at Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Pune, despite filing of Anticipatory Bail Application on ...
Govansh Raksha Abhiyaan-Goa and Others Vs. State of Goa, Through Depar ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
F.M. Reis, J. 1. The above Writ Petition, inter alia, prays for a writ to appoint a Court Commissioner to inspect and examine the records of the Goa Meat Complex to look into its affairs and submit a report within a time bound framed. It further seeks a direction to the Respondents to stop forthwith slaughtering all animals present within the premises of the Goa Meat Complex and further to stop forthwith any cow and bull slaughter in the Goa Meat Complex. It also seeks a direction to the Goa Meat Complex to handover the animals, cows, bulls and calves presently within the premises of the Goa Meat Complex to the Petitioners. It further prays to direct the police and the said authorities to initiate proceedings against the offenders including against the Respondent nos. 6 and 7. It further seeks a direction to ensure strict compliance and any implementation of the Goa Daman and Diu Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and The Goa Animal Preservation Act, 1995. 2. By an Order dated 22.04.2013,...
Kunda Santosh Kerkar @ Kunda Narayan Kerkar Vs. The Hon'ble Speaker, G ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 4. 2. The above Petition, inter alia, prays for setting aside the Order passed by the Goa Legislative Secretariat dated 19.07.2011 promoting the Respondent no. 3 to the post of Assistant and further quashing and setting aside the demotion of the Petitioner from the post of Assistant by Order dated 19.07.2011. 3. Briefly, the case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner offered her candidature for the post of Junior Assistant specifically reserved for Scheduled Caste only which was published in the local news paper. Thereafter, the Petitioner was appointed to the post on 28.08.2000 as Junior Assistant along with several other Officers. The Petitioner was subsequently confirmed to the post of Junior Assistant on 22.08.2003 and subsequentl...
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Vimal Yashwant Kamble and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The above First Appeal has been shown under the caption of 'Orders' as the Civil Application filed by the claimants for withdrawal of amount is listed for hearing. However, this Court was of the view that instead of considering the Civil Application, it would be appropriate if the above First Appeal itself is taken up for hearing. The learned Counsel for parties readily agreed to the same; that is how the above First Appeal is being heard. 2. The above First Appeal takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 29/04/1999 passed by the learned District Judge / Member, M.A.C.T., Kolhapur, by which the Claim Petition filed by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 came to be partly allowed to the extent of granting the claimants an amount of Rs.1,38,000/- as compensation with proportionate costs along with Rs.25,000/- already paid under the no fault liability. The M.A.C.T. made the Opponent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. the respondent nos.1 and 2 herein, as jointly and severally liable to pay ...
Marico Industries Ltd. and Another Vs. Goa State Agricultural Marketin ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. The above petition inter-alia seeks a declaration that the Explanation to Rule 32(1) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1969 is ultra vires the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 as extended and applicable in the State of Goa and is ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India. It is further prayed that it be declared that the Copra is not a notified Agricultural Produce within the meaning of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (herein after referred to as "the Act of 1963"). It is also prayed that it be declared that the first petitioner is neither a trader nor a processor and is not required to obtain a licence under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (...
Vivek Vittal Mahamuni Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
P.C. 1. Earlier order passed by this Court as well as the Circular today placed on record which is marked "X" for identification record that the State Government has created a Special Cell in each police station in the State for effecting service of Summons and Warrants. Last order dated 30th June 2016 records an expectation that the State will conduct a special drive for service of the pending summons and warrants in the complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. We direct the State Government to conduct a special drive for completing the service of summons and warrants in the complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act throughout the State. The special drive shall be conducted during the last two weeks of September commencing from 19th September 2016. The State Government shall in October or November conduct such special drive for effecting service of pending summons and warrants in other categories of criminal cases. During the ...
Mangala Vs. President, Manav Samaj Unnati Mandal and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.11.1996 passed by the School Tribunal, Nashik by which Appeal No.32/1996 filed by her was dismissed. 2. This petition was admitted on 17.02.1997. 3. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at length on 19.07.2016, 20.07.2016, 21.07.2016 and today. 4. The submissions of Shri Mantri, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, can be summarized as follows: (a) The Petitioner had passed her SSC when she was appointed on 01.06.1987 as an Assistant Teacher. (b) For three years, she had not completed her postal Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) which was to be completed by correspondence course. (c) Her first application for being admitted to the postal D.Ed. course is dated 21.01.1991 which was rejected by Respondent No.5/ Deputy Director of Education. (d) The Petitioner challenged the order of the Deputy Director by filing R.C.S. No.202/1992. (e) By judgment dated 29.04.1995, the said Civil Suit was di...
HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. R.J. Prabhu
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 22.03.2016 passed by the leaned Senior Civil Judge at Panaji in Bank Matter No.81/2007/A. By the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner for excluding certain part of the affidavit in lieu of chief examination and raising objection as to the admissibility of a portion, thereof has been rejected, as being premature. The learned trial Court has kept the substantive contentions open, to be raised at the time of final arguments. 3. The brief facts are that the respondent has filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioner for recovery of money, by way of refund and compensation. On behalf of the petitioner, a preliminary objection was raised regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge at Panaji, to entertain the suit. This is basically on the groun...
Gajanan Chindhuji Atram Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Warora in Sessions Case No.5 of 2012, on 22nd of August, 2014. By the said, the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. On account of his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant was directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. As well, for his conviction under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. PROSECUTION CASE :- 2. From the record of the sessions case, the prosecution case can be narrated as under :- (A) Dec...
The Municipal Council and Another Vs. Tulsidas Baliram Bindhade and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The Hon'ble The Chief Justice has in view of the following orders dated 22.01.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 5191/2004, 5199 to 5205/2004, 5207 and 5520 of 2004, referred to this Division Bench the following question: 1. An unfortunate situation has arisen in the present matters. Writ Petition No.1209 of 2002 along with connected matters in respect of Class-IV employees of Municipal Council, Tumsar, were allowed by a common judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court (Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.) on 20-8-2011, and the common order passed by the Industrial Court directing regularization on the basis of Clause 4C of the Model Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act read with Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, has been quashed and set aside and the complaints have been dismissed. Same is the view tak...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »