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.
Gunga Natha Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-original accused against the judgment and order dated 28.12.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No.92 of 2007. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 506 of IPC. For the offence under Section 302 of IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to R.I. for life and fine of Rs.500/- i/d R.I. for one month and for the offence under Section 506(2) of IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to R.I. for six months. 2.The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under: (i) The appellant is the brother of PW 2 Ananda. Deceased Kamal was the wife of Ananda. Ananda had five brothers i.e. Shankar, Shivaji, Tukaram, Bhagwan and the appellant. Shivaji and Tukaram were residing at Mumbai on account of their service. Ananda was residing with his wife, brother Shankar and his wife and the appellant in the same house but ...
Ganesh Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Urban Deve ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Writ Petition takes exception to the impugned letter / order dated 02.03.2016 issued by respondent no.2 Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order, the Divisional Commissioner has directed to transfer the petitioner to other Municipal Council in Beed District. The said order is passed on the basis of complaint filed by one Mr. Anil Mate, President of Maharashtra Rajya Nagar Parishad Karmachari Sanghatana and others, against the petitioner and under the influence of Mr. Vinayak Mete, the Member of Legislative Council, Maharashtra State. It is submitted that the petitioner has worked in the various capacities in the Municipal Council, Beed, since 01.05.2001. His service record is unblemished. The State of Maharashtra, vide its Resolution dated 02.08.2011, changed the cadre of the petitioner from the Municipal Council as the State level Cadre of the Municipal Council and the services o...
Sangram and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
Sangitrao S. Patil, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally. 2. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, they are being decided by this common judgment. 3. The petitioners who are possessing degrees in Civil Engineering, have been excluded from the eligibility for the posts of Junior Engineers (Civil) (Group-B Non-Gazetted), since the candidates possessing Diploma in Civil Engineering for a duration of three years only have been held eligible for the said posts. The petitioners have challenged Rule 3 (b) (ii) of The Junior Engineer (Civil) (Group-B Non-Gazetted) in the Public Works Department and the Irrigation Department (Recruitment) Rules, 1998 , dated 1st January, 1998 (for shot, the impugned Rule ) prescribing the requisite qualification for the said post as three years Diploma in Civil Engineering, recognised by the Government or any other qualification, recognised as e...
Dr. Afaque Ahmed Vs. The Union of India, Through its Principal Secreta ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition is filed with the following prayers: A. To quash the order dated 19.07.2014 issued by the respondent No.6 (Exh-Q) by issuing writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ. C. To hold and declare that the medical practitioners belonging to Ayush more particularly BUMS are eligible to be appointed as Medical Officers in the recruitment process of Medical Officers (National Child Health Team). D. To direct the respondent to call medical practitioners belonging to Unani medical system for participating in the recruitment process for the post of Medical Officers (National Child health Team) to be held pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.07.2014. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he completed his Bachelor of Unani Medicine and Surgery Degree from the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik in the year 2011. He is a Medical Practitioner, duly registered with the Maharashtra Council of Indian Medicine, Mumbai. According to him, it is well...
Annarao Vs. Amit and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-18-2016
1. Respondent No.1, the returned candidate has filed application for rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.C.' for short). Both the sides are heard. 2. The election to Constituency of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly bearing No.235 (Latur) of respondent No.1 in the General Election of 2014 is challenged in the Election Petition. Declaration is claimed that the election of respondent No.1 is void as he indulged in corrupt practices. The petitioner had also contested the election as a candidate of one registered political party. Respondent No.1 was candidate of Congress I party and he received 1,19,656 votes out of 2,03,453 polled votes. Respondent No.6, a candidate of other national level political party secured second number of votes viz. 70,191. The petitioner secured 403 votes in the election. 3. The petitioner is an advocate and he also claims to be a social activist. It is the case of petitioner that respondent No.1 is...
Pradeep Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-16-2016
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Case No.487/2011 dated 24.04.2014 whereby the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC for committing murder of Mayabai and is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC for committing murder of Nandabai and is directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellant is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven days. He is also convicted for an offence punishabl...
Rahul Bajaj and Another Vs. Mangal Keshav Securities Limited and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. The present Appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act ), against impugned Judgment and order dated 2 February 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and thereby, maintained the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal of National Stock Exchange dated 13 December 2002, arising out of Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the National Stock Exchange (for short, "NSC Rules ). 2. The matter was listed at the instance of Appellant for withdrawal of the Appeal itself, on 25 February 2016. Respondent No.1, however, resisted/opposed even the withdrawal and therefore, sought time to file affidavit to show how the withdrawal would cause hardship and injustice to them. Respondent No.1 thereby, had taken out Notice of Motion No. 1028 of 2016. However, during the course of argument, on instructions, Respondent No.1 did not press the Motion, but opposed the withdrawal of Appeal ...
Bharat K. Vakil Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This Writ Petition challenges order dated 27 June 2016 passed by Respondent No.1 dismissing the Petitioner from the services of Respondent No.1 which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority by an order dated 12 April 2016. The Petitioner has also sought direction against Respondent No.1 to reinstate the Petitioner in service. 3. The Petitioner was working as a Senior Manager (Maintenance) with Respondent No.1. In or about September,2014 on a complaint of one Mr.Tushar Wakade who was awarded a contract by Respondent No.1, the Petitioner was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). A FIR was registered by CBI under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1998 on the ground that the Petitioner had demanded illegal gratification. On 15 September 2014 the Petitioner came to be suspended. On 13 September 2014 the Petitioner was enlarged on bail. Thereafter before the learned Special Court, a closure repor...
Rajaram Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Ed ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned AGP appearing for the respondent State and the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3. 2. This Petition takes exception to the order dated 17th July, 2015 by which the petitioner is placed under suspension, thereby suspending the services of the petitioner as Headmaster of respondent no. 3 school. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has rendered services in respondent no.3 society as Headmaster for the period of 13 years. Respondent management issued a show cause notice alleging various charges against the petitioner. The Enquiry Committee was constituted and after enquiry the services of the petitioner came to be terminated by an order dated 07.07.2012, which shall take effect w.e.f. 07.01.2012. It is submitted that the petitioner assailed the said order of termination before the School Tribunal and the School Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the pe...
Ajay Jayawant Bhosale Vs. The Commissioner of Police and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
Naresh H. Patil, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner challenges order of revocation of his arms licence passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune on 8th February, 2011 under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as Arms Act for short). 3. The petitioner contends that during the relevant period he was elected as Municipal Councilor and was working as Upshahar Pramukh of Shiv Sena party in Pune district of the State. He had applied for licence under Section 13 of Chapter III of the Arms Act for possessing a Fire Arm (Revolver) for self protection. The Commissioner of Police, Pune being a licensing authority had granted licence to the petitioner in the year 2003 bearing licence No. 47/2003. The petitioner purchased one 0.32 crystal pistol bearing no. 194 on 5th August, 2003. It is contended that the Licensing Authority renewed the licence in the year 2005, 2007 and 2009. On 31st December, 2010 petitione...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »