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.
Vipul Agarwal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
1. The applicant herein, who was the superintendent of Police at Banaskantha, District Gujarat, has been arrayed as accused No.24 in Sessions Case No.177/2013 @ 178/2013 @ 577/2013 @ 312/2014 for offences under sections 120B r/w. 302 and 201 of the IPC. The applicant had filed an application at Exh.509 for dropping the proceedings for want of sanction under section 197 of the Cr.P.C. By another application at Exh.549 the applicant had prayed for discharge on the ground that there was no prima facie material to show his involvement in the crime. The learned Sessions Judge having examined the matter did not find any merit in any of the contentions raised by the applicant and consequently dismissed both these applications by a common order dated 7.4.2015. The applicant has not challenged the dismissal of his discharge application, but by this application he has challenged the order of dismissal of application at Exh. 509. 2. Learned Counsel Shri Thorat for the applicant has submitted that...
Shridhar and Others Vs. Bajirao and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.186/1983 which was pending in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Ambajogai, District Beed. The appeal was filed by original defendant No.2, purchaser against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No.139/1977 which was pending in the court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ambajogai. The suit filed for relief of partition by the present appellant against the coparcener and the purchaser was decreed in their favour by the trial Court and this decision is set aside by the District Court and the transaction is protected. Both the sides are heard. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the proceeding can be stated as follows :- 2. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 were minor on the date of the suit and they are sons of defendant.1 Bajirao. Plaintiff No.3 is the mother of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and the wife of defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 Shivaji is purchaser of one suit property fro...
Sudhir Chandrabhan Sahare Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. The present petition challenges the order dated 15th of December, 2015 passed by respondent no.2 - The District Magistrate, Wardha, together with the order dated 29th of January, 2016 passed by the respondent - State. 2. By the order dated 15th of December, 2015, the District Magistrate Wardha, by exercising the powers conferred by sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drugs Offenders and Dangerous Person Act, 1981 (Amendment 2009) ordered the detention of the petitioner in the District Jail, Wardha. After the approval of the aforesaid order by the State Government vide order dated 22nd of December, 2015, ultimately, the State Government by exercising the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 12 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drugs Offenders and Dangerous Person Act, 1981 (Amendment 2009), by order dated 29th of Januar...
Bhavesh Vinodrai Doshi Vs. Smt. Hansaben Vinodrai Doshi and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
1. The Plaintiff ("Bhavesh") propounds a testamentary writing that he claims says was the Last Will and Testament of his father Vinodrai Bachubhai Doshi ("Vinodrai") (Paperbook, p. 6). The Will is said to be dated 7th January 1993. Vinodrai died on 23rd January 1993. Bhavesh says his father made the Will at home, 905, Chandanbala Apartments, 4, Ratilal Thakker Marg, Malabar Hill, Mumbai 400 006. The Petition is for Letters of Administration with Will Annexed. 2. Vinodrai's only heirs were his son, the Plaintiff ("Bhavesh"); his widow, the 1st Defendant, Smt. Hansaben Vinodrai Doshi ("Hansaben"); and their married daughter, Mrs. Rita Amit Shah, the 2nd Defendant ("Rita"). After her marriage, Rita lives not far from the Chandanbala Apartments flat at Walkeshwar Road. 3. The Petition was initially opposed by both Hansaben and Rita. It seems that Hansaben later attempted to withdraw her Caveat (Paperbook, pp. 37 and 40). Rita opposed the Petition to the very end. 4. The Will in question, m...
Eufemia de Souza Vs. Indrabahadur Vishwakarma and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-21-2016
1. This is an appeal by the original claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 11/12/2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Margao ( the Tribunal for the short) by which the learned Presiding Officer secured her partly with the compensation and without appreciating her case in its proper context. The respondents are the original respondents before the tribunal and all of whom would be referred to in their original status for the brevity's sake hereinafter. It needs reckoning that no separate appeal or cross appeal was filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 in particular challenging the award and therefore the limited scope of challenge in this appeal is restricted to the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Presiding Officer. 2. Shri S.S. Kakodkar, learned Advocate came to be heard on behalf of the appellant who adverted to the impugned judgment and award and submitted that the learned Tribunal had not given due weightage to the fact that the claim...
Bhagwan Kisan Wagh and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Se ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-21-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Since common issues arise in all these writ petitions they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Rule. Rule in each writ petition is made returnable forthwith and the learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length. For the sake of convenience the facts in Writ Petition No. 6466 of 2015 are being referred to. 3. The petitioner claims to be in possession of E Class landGairan land since the year 1990. According to the petitioner, the respondent no.1 has issued Government Resolution dated 28.11.1991 in the matter of regularisation of encroachments of such lands. In the said Government Resolution a policy decision has been taken to regularise encroachments made between 01.04.1978 and 14.04.1990. According to the petitioner in terms of aforesaid Government Resolution steps were taken by the revenue authorities for regularising the encroachments. No objection was obtained from the Grampanchayat and recommendation for regularis...
Chandru Krishna Raut (Deceased through legal heirs) and Others Vs. Vam ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-21-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The challenge in this petition, at the instance of the Legal Representatives of the original defendant no.1, is to two orders both dated 26/07/2010 below Exh.77 and Exh. 79, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bicholim in RCS No.153/2000. 2. The brief facts are that the respondent nos.1(a) to 1(g) and respondent no.2 have filed the aforesaid suit, in which the defendant nos.4, 5, 6, 7 and 12 were proceeded ex-parte. The defendant no.5 is the widow of defendant no.4- Deu Raut. Defendant no.4 died during the pendency of the suit on 18/05/2008. It appears that the respondents/plaintiffs initially filed an application under Order XXII, Rule 4(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC, for short), seeking exemption from bringing the legal representatives of deceased defendant no.4 on record, on the ground that the said defendant was already proceeded ex-parte. This application was dismissed by the Trial Court on 04/02/2009. 3. The learned Counsel for the respo...
Rajendra Tikaram Bagmare Vs. District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative S ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-21-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri K.R. Lule, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, Shri T.S. Kene, Advocate for the respondent No.3, Shri A.M. Ghare, Advocate alongwith Shri S.K. Tambde, Advocate for the respondent Nos.4 to 50 and Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for the intervenor. 2. The District Deputy Registrar issued the order dated 01-03-2016 directing the preparation of voters' list for the election of committee of respondent No.3-Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee. In this communication, it was stated that the names of the persons who were eligible to vote on 23-01-2015 should be included in the voters' list. The names of the respondent Nos.4 to 50 are included in the voters' list and being aggrieved by it, the petitioner has filed this petition. 3. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the District Deputy Registrar fixed 23-01-2015 as the cut-off date and only names of those persons whose names app...
Sharda Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary Depar ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-21-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition takes exception to the impugned order dated 4th May 2009 issued by Respondent No.3. There is further prayer to issue directions to the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the service and grant continuity of service, back wages, and other ancillary benefits. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by Respondent No.3 on 4th May, 2009, thereby terminating the services of the petitioner is without adherence to the provisions of Rule 78(6) of the Maharashtra Police Rules (Manual), 1999. The said Rule clearly provides that one month's notice before removal of service is mandatory or before removal of service departmental enquiry should be conducted against the government servant. But in the instant case before issuing order dated 4th May, 2009, no procedure laid down in the above rule and sub-rule is followed by the Respondents. In fact the petitioner completed near about continuous more than 10 years ...
Premlal Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramtek and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-20-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner, by the present petition, has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent no.1 thereby externing him from the area of Nagpur (Rural) and Nagpur (City) for a period of two years from the date of order. 3. The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in the month of August, 2015 calling upon him as to why he should not be externed. In pursuance to this notice, the petitioner remained present on 29.10.2015 and submitted his reply. 4. Perusal of the reply would reveal that though the action was proposed on the basis of the 14 offences, the petitioner out of those offence, he was already acquitted in 8 offences. Perusal of the record reveals that he has also placed on record the judgment of the Court acquitting him. 5. However, perusal of the impugned order shows that the impugned order states that the petitioner has been acquitted ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »