Mumbai Court August 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.
State of Maharashtra Vs. Ambadas and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-12-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The respondents-accused were tried for an offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, in Sessions Case No.85 of 2003. 2. The present respondents moved an application under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking discharge from the said crime, which came to be allowed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, vide order dated 25th September, 2003. As such, present revision by the State. 3. It is required to be noted that, at the relevant time, respondent no.1 was working as Deputy Engineer, whereas respondent no.2 was working as Junior Engineer in the then Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Aurangabad. It is not in dispute that both the respondents are public servants. Complainant Narhari Shelke has also faced a prosecution in C.R. No.104 of 2002, for offences punishable under sections 353, 323, 504 read wi...
Dahiben Vs. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-12-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. In view of notice for final disposal, the learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length by issuing Rule and making the same returnable forthwith. The facts in brief are that one Smt. Jankibai, the predecessor of the respondent Nos.3A to 3D had moved an application on 16/03/2004 under provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). In the said proceedings, it was prayed that the sale deed dated 29/04/1965 executed by her husband in favour of the petitioner be declared void as the same was executed by a Tribal in favour of a non-Tribal. The Tahsildar on 26/12/2013 allowed the application and directed restoration of the land in question in favour of the Tribal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 6 of the said Act before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The notice issued to Smt. Jankibai was returned with an endorsement that said respondent had expired. On m...
Chandrabhaga Machindra Dudhade, Since deceased through legal heir Mach ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-12-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Mahatma Phule Agriculture University, Rahuri, District Ahmednagar has preferred one group of Writ Petitions and the identically placed Respondents/Daily Wage Employees in the said petitions have also filed the second group of Writ Petitions wherein the Agriculture University is the Respondent. For the sake of brevity, the Agriculture University in these matters shall be referred to as the University and the Daily Wage Employees, who are Respondents in the petitions filed by the University and are Petitioners in their own group of petitions, shall be referred to as the Workers . 3. While issuing notice, this Court by it s order dated 22.04.2016 had directed that the amount deposited by the Mahatma Phule Agriculture University, Rahuri with the Appellate Authority (PGA) shall not be disbursed until further orders. 4. The University is aggrieved by the common judgment dated 20.10....
Dharmasheela Vs. Mahendra Education Society, through its Secretary and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-12-2016
Oral Judgment : 1. Heard Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner-employee, Shri S.Y. Deopujari, Advocate for the respondent No.1-Society, Shri V.A. Dhabe, Advocate for the respondent No.2-School and Shri K.R. Lule, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No.3. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. It is undisputed that the petitioner had been working in the respondent No.2-School administered by the respondent No.1-Society since 1995 as an Assistant Teacher. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Education Officer. The petitioner acquired the status of confirmed employee. Some memos/show cause notices were issued to the petitioner since October 2007 and then on 05-07-2010 the services of the petitioner were terminated without conducting any enquiry. The petitioner filed appeal before the School Tribunal. In the appeal, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed an application (Exhibit No.17) seeking permission to prove misconduct of the petitioner before th...
Asaram Dhansing Umre Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
1. Appellant original accused (hereafter referred as "accused") has been convicted in Special Case No.5 of 1998 under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("the Act" in brief) on 22nd November 2002 by Special Judge, Aurangabad. 2. The case of prosecution, in short, is as follows: A) Complainant (PW-1) Ganesh Baburao Shirsat was running a shop at Lasur Station, Taluka-Gangapur, DistAurangabad. He along with other shop keepers at the concerned shop had been served with notices by the Gram Panchayat Lasur Station to vacate the site as their occupation was by way of encroachment. The accused was, at that time, Village Development Officer Savangi and he was to carry out the removal of encroachment. On 6th August 1997 the complainant approached Police Inspector Ambadas Savai (PW-4) who was working in Anti Corruption Bureau, Aurangabad and filed complaint Exhibit 9. Complainant had gone to the Anti Corruption Bureau along with one of the other sho...
M/s. Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. Vs. M/s. Lifeline Industries Ltd. (In L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. By this Official Liquidator s Report ( OLR ), the following directions are sought:- (i) to direct the Ex-Director of the Company (in liqn.) (Mr Nikunj Kanakia) to deposit the advertisement charges of Rs.25,749/- with the Official Liquidator and permit the Official Liquidator to pay the same to the advertising agency; and (ii) to direct Indian Overseas Bank ( IOB ) to take physical possession of the factory premises situated at B-10, MIDC Industrial Area, Akkalkot Road, Solapur ( factory premises ), and to appoint Security Guards in relation thereto. In the alternative, it is prayed that the Official Liquidator be allowed to take physical possession of the factory premises. 2. Mr Shetye, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Ex-Directors, at the outset submitted that no reliefs in this OLR can be granted in view of the fact that the Company (in Liqn.) [M/s Lifeline Industries Ltd.] has filed a reference before the BIFR and which is pending. He submitted that there...
Balasaheb Sahebrao Bodkhe and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Thr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
K.K. Sonawane, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. Both these petitions raise identical controversy as well as relate to similar facts and circumstances. Therefore, both these petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the matter in issue are as under:- The Government of Maharashtra on 26-06-2012 published a draft notification under section 4 sub-section (4) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 inviting objections and suggestions in regard to area of particular tahsil to constitute sub-division and its revenue headquarter. Accordingly, in the draft notification, it was proposed that area of tahsil Gavrai and Shirur Kasar District Beed will constitute subdivision, namely, Gevrai having its headquarter at Gevrai, District Beed. Similarly, it was proposed that area of Ashti and Patoda Tahsils of the District Beed will constitute sub-di...
Mahendra Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gondia, dated 11th of March, 2013, in Sessions Trial No.76 of 2012, by which the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 2. The prosecution case in nutshell is as under: Chambharu Mohan Raut (PW 1) is the father of deceased Maheshwari. Her marriage was solemnized with the appellant in the month of May, 2011. Chambharu lodged his oral report (Exh.9) on 10th of June, 1992 with the Police Station Duggipar of district Gondia. The said report was disclosing a commission of a cognizable offence, hence a Crime was registered vide Crime No.57 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the India...
Sayad Ismile and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
V.L. Achliya, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dt.23.11.2012 passed in Sessions Case No.25/2011 by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, Dist. Beed thereby convicting the appellants No.1 and 2 under Sections 302 read with 34 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appellant No.2 is also held guilty of offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.200/-. In default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. 2. In brief, the facts leading to filing of the present appeal are summarized as under:- The appellants were charge-sheeted and prosecuted to face charge u/s 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") and appellant No.2 was also prosecuted for committing offence punishabl...
Bhavna Agro Products and Services Private Limited (Gat No. 47) Vs. The ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard Shri Firdos Mirza, Advocate for the appellant, Shri S.B. Bissa, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Shri R.L. Khapre, Advocate for respondent No. 3, Shri S.R. Deshpande, Advocate for intervenor No. 1 and Shri M.V. Samarth, Advocate for intervenor No. 2. 2. With consent, the Letters Patent Appeal is admitted and heard finally. Appellant is a Private Limited Company, which desires to set up a Sugar Mill and for that purpose needs Aerial Distance Certificate as contemplated by Clause 6A of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as Sugarcane Order). The effort made by it failed as the authority has found that the Aerial Distance between two chimneys of factories was not taken into account. The chimneys of proposed Sugar Plant/ Factory of the petitioner has to be at the distance of 25 kms. from the chimney of existing sugar factory in the area. 3. This was questioned by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 858 of 2012 and th...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »