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.
Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Goa (through) The Superintendent of Centra ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
Nutan D. Sardessai, J. 1. Heard Shri A.V.Pavithran, learned Advocate for the petitioner appointed under the Free Legal Aid at his instance who relied in Asiya Sayed Khwaja Ayub V/s. State of Maharashtra and others [MANU/MH/0818/2012] and Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad District, Dharwad and Others v/s. Shivakka(2)and Others [(2011) 12 SCC 419], Shri Ryan Menezes, appointed Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and Shri S.R.Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and the authorities. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Shri S.R. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of the State. 3. This Criminal Writ Petition is at the instance of the prisoner alleging that he was subjected to physical and mental torture apart from harassment and assault by the Prison Authority on duty and seeking the intervention of this Court by way of the remedy of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate wri...
Vikas Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
1. The Appellant-accused (hereafter referred as "accused") was tried along with his parents and brother, in Sessions Case No.25 of 2002 before IVth Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge at Beed and on 21st March 2003, he has been convicted for offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" in brief) and Section 306 of IPC. The other accused were acquitted. Thus, this Appeal. 2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is as under: A). On 12th November 2011 complainant Subhash Bhujbal (PW-1) filed F.I.R. (Exhibit 21) with Ashti Police Station in District Beed. In the F.I.R., he gave particulars regarding his family and that victim Sarita @ Savita was his daughter who was married to the accused Vikas 8-9 years before the incident, at Madalmohi, Tq-Georai. He informed that she was treated well for about one year and thereafter when the daughter was coming to his place, she was informing that her husband was asking for Rupees Twenty Thousand for putting up a cloth shop and that sh...
Kashinath Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. The appellant is before this Court since he has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.06.2014 in Sessions Trial No.28/2012 by which he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. He was also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for 15 days. He was also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The prosecution case, as it is unfurled d...
Dr. Selwyn Colaco, Presently Employed as Regional Medical Head Fortis ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
Nutan D. Sardessai, J. 1. Heard Shri Arun De Sa, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri M. Amonkar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard by consent forthwith. 3. Mr. M. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of the respondents. 4. A complaint was lodged by the complainant dated 21/12/2011 to the Officer incharge of the Panaji Town Police Station against Fortis Hospitals Limited, Dr. Vivek Jawali, Shri Abhinandan N. Dastenavar and the petitioner herein in which she alleged that on or about 30/8/2010, she was suffering from a heart ailment and a heart surgery was imperative. She consulted Dr. Jawali at the clinic of Dr. Francisco Colaco at Margao who on going through her medical reports opined that an open heart surgery was urgently required followed by AVR (Mosaic Valve) and that she would have to report to the Fortis Hospitals, Bangalore two days prior to the surgery date for necessary ...
Arti Sitaram Naik @ Sunita Sudarshan Shenoy and Others Vs. Sociadade V ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
1. The petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 9/06/2009 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa in Eviction Appeal No.236/2000. By the impugned judgment the Administrative Tribunal, has set aside the order dated 28/09/2000 passed by the additional Rent Controller, Margao and the petitioners are directed to hand over vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the respondent. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus: That the respondent filed eviction proceedings against now deceased Sitaram Naik for eviction from the suit shop, on the ground of non-payment of rent for the period from June 1979 till the filing of the application i.e. 10/07/1980. 3. It appears that within thirty days of the service of the summons, the petitioners deposited the entire arrears of the rent on 10/07/1980. The petitioners also filed a written statement on 31/07/1980 contesting the application. 4. On the basis of the rival contentions the learned Rent Controll...
Our Lady of Vailankanni and Perpetual Succour Co-operative Housing Soc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The above Appeal from Order takes exception to the order dated 04.05.2016 passed by the Learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai, by which order, Notice of Motion No.957 of 2011 filed by the Appellant/original Plaintiff came to be dismissed. 2. The Plaintiff is a Cooperative Housing Society and has filed the suit in question being SC Suit No.875 of 2011 for a mandatory injunction and for execution of Deed of Conveyance against the Defendant No.1 which is a public charitable trust and which is the owner of the land in question on which the buildings of the Plaintiff are situated. The reliefs by the Plaintiff in the said suit are therefore revolving around the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 (For short the MOFA ). In the said suit, the Plaintiff had filed the instant Notice of Motion being No.957 of 2011 claiming the relief of restraining the Defendant No.3 who is a developer from carrying out any activity on the suit p...
Annapaa Avdhut Haladvdru and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
Prakash D. Naik, J.: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. Learned APP waives service for Respondent State. 3. The petitioners in both these petitions have invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The issues involved in both these petitions are interconnected with each other and hence, the petitions are disposed of by common judgment and order. In both these petitions, the petitioners and the respective complainants have submitted that the parties involved therein have resolved their disputes and have approached this Court for quashing by consent, the respective criminal proceedings. 4. Criminal writ petition no.4995 of 2015 is preferred by the petitioners who are original accused in C.R. No.45 of 2015, registered with Umadi Police Station, District Sangli. The said FIR was registered at the instance of second respondent for the offenc...
Narcinva Damodar Naik and Others Vs. Rukma Abhijit Sadekar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. Ms. Prachi Sawant, learned Advocate waives service of notice on behalf the respondent no.1, Ms. Tanvi Ghanekar, learned Advocate waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent 4 A.O. no.44 and 45 of 2016 nos.3 and 4 and Shri P. Lotlikar, learned Advocate waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent nos.6 and 7 in A.O. No. 44 of 2016. Shri A. Gomes Pereira, learned Advocate waives service of notice on behalf of the Caveator in A.O. No.45 of 2016. 4. Shri S. G. Dessai, learned Senior Advocate came to be heard on behalf of the appellants who submitted that in terms of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code ('C.P.C.' for short) no ex-parte reliefs could have been granted as a matter of course. He adverted to the reliefs claimed in the plaint filed at the instance of the respondent no.1 and submitted that the properties referred to therein which were a part of the Annexure-II belonged to the parents who were living. The partnership and the company in...
Ajay Kumar M. Singh Vs. Basant Bhoruka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
1. The above Suit was originally filed by one Mr. J.P. Karwa against the Defendant -- Basant Bhoruka for the following reliefs: "(a) That the Defendant be ordered and decreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,41,55,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fortyone Lacs Fifty five Thousand only) as per particulars of claim at Exhibit Y along with further interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 96,00,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till realisation in full. (a1) that it be declared that, payment of the amounts mentioned in prayer (a) above duly secured by a valid and subsisting charge of the immovable property described in Exhibit W1 hereto and the Plaintiff is entitled to enforce the said security towards the realisation of the said dues." 2. The original Plaintiff -- J.P. Karwa (who later assigned his rights in favour of the present Plaintiff -- Ajay Kumar M. Singh) has in the Plaint stated/submitted as follows: 2.1 That the Plaintiff was a freelance liaison consultan...
M/s. D.P. Jain and Company Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. On the above writ petition, we had granted Rule on 22nd February, 2016 and directed that it be heard along with Central Excise Appeal No. 21 of 2015. 2. Rule on interim relief in the writ petition was made returnable on 21st March, 2016 and after both sides consented, we indicted to them that the writ petition itself will be disposed of finally at the stage of interim relief. Hence, by consent of both sides, we heard the matters and are disposing them of finally by this judgment. 3. The writ petition is directed against the order-in-original dated 28th November, 2014 passed by respondent no. 2. 4. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having registered office at the address mentioned in the cause title. The first respondent is Union of India and the second respondent is the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Nagpur. The petitioner is holding Service Tax Registration No. AACCD1376KST001 under the ca...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »