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.
Rangnath and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
1. The appellants -original accused (hereafter referred as "accused") have been convicted in Sessions Case No.161 of 2002 by IVth Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed on 5th August 2003 for offence punishable under Section 307 and Section 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" in brief). 2. The case of prosecution, in short, is as follows:- A). On 23rd February 2002 PW-2 Jakuram Dahale (hereafter referred as "complainant") was admitted at Civil Hospital, Beed. PW-11 Sukhdeo Landge, A.S.I. attached to the police out-post, Civil Hospital, Beed received M.L.C. letter from the doctor and he went and recorded statement in the nature of dying declaration (Exhibit 31) of the complainant. The statement was forwarded to the police station, Georai, Dist-Beed and Crime No.35 of 2002 came to be registered on 24th February 2002 at 8.30 p.m. The complainant gave statement claiming that he was resident of Kumbharwadi, Tq. Georai and was working as a truck driver. He gave details abo...
The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Hinganghat through its Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioner takes exception to the order dated 10-12-2008 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies Nagpur in the appeal preferred by the respondent no.1 under provisions of Rule 104 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967 (for short, the said Rules). 2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondent no.1 was serving as Secretary at the petitioner Market Committee. According to the petitioner, he was paid transport allowance @ Rs.1000/- per month to which, according to the petitioner, he was not entitled. On 10-4-2007, the Market Committee passed resolution no.4(a) thereby resolving to recover the amount of transport allowance that was received in excess by the respondent no.1. Another resolution bearing No.4(b) was passed on the same day for recovering advance amount paid to the respondent no.1 from his provident fund account. In view of aforesaid resolutions, the Market Committe...
Balaji Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through : Secretary Rural Developm ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally. 2. By way of filing this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks direction to the Respondent Authorities to cancel the appointment of Respondent No.4 and appoint himself to the post of Arogya Sevak from handicapped (Deaf) category in the Health Department, Zilla Parishad, Beed. 3. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that pursuant to the advertisement issued by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on 2nd November, 2015 to fill up the various posts, Online applications were invited from the qualified candidates. He invites our attention to the copy of the said advertisement and submits that three posts are meant for handicapped category and out of the three posts, one is for deaf category. It is submitted that the petitioner filled in Online application and appeared for the written test and scored 90 marks out of 200 marks. He secured mi...
Thomas Aloysious Ranjit Sales Pontes @ Ranjit Sales Pontes Vs. Isidoro ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent nos.1,3 and 4 waives service. In this case, notice for final hearing was issued. None appears for the rest of the respondents. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner is the original defendant no.3 in Special Civil Suit No.138/2006/A pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Margao. That is a suit filed by the respondent nos.1 to 6 against the respondent nos.7 and 8 and the petitioner. The respondents/plaintiffs are seeking declaration and restoration of possession in which the petitioner has raised a counter claim seeking specific performance of an Agreement of Sale dated 6/01/1999. It appears that the petitioner moved an application for amendment (Exhibit D-54) for amending the written statement/counter claim by correcting the date of the agreement as 6/02/1999 in the place of 6/01/1999. The learned Trial Court by order dated 20/12/2012 has rejected the app...
Logic Eastern India Private Limited Vs. KEC International Limited(Cabl ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
1. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Arbitration Act ), the petitioner seeks to impugn the arbitral award dated 7th December 2012 passed by the learned arbitrator allowing the claims made by the respondent herein and directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.13,31,40,938.56 with interest @14% p.a. w.e.f. 27th February 2012 till realization and to pay costs to the respondent quantified at Rs.7,50,000/-. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. At the threshold, Mr.Sakhare, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent has raised an objection about maintainability of this petition on the ground of limitation in filing this arbitration petition. Since the respondent has raised a plea of limitation in filing this arbitration petition, I have heard learned senior counsel for the respondent first on the issue of limitation. 3. Learned senior counsel for the respondent subm...
Nirmala Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Amravati in Sessions Trial No.22 of 2013, dated 15th of April, 2014. By the impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine she was directed to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months. 2. Following is the prosecution case: (a) Jagdish Khanve (PW 5) was attached to Morshi Police Station as a Head Constable. On 18th of October, 2012, an information was received from Morshi Sub-District Hospital in respect of sustaining burn injuries of one Pranita Moreshwar Sonare and that she was referred to Amravati Hospital. The said information was reduced as Sana Entry No.37 of 2012. (b) Vijay Patil (PW 10), Police Inspector of Morshi Police Sta...
Vasantrao Digambarrao Nalkande Vs. Raghunath Deolal Nalkande
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
Oral Judgment 1. The substantial question of law involved in the matter is as under; Whether the lower appellate Court could have remanded the matter back to the trial Court for carrying out measurement by the Court Commissioner after removing the defects pointed out by the lower appellate Court? Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The accurate map showing correct measurements so as to decide the ultimate question of alleged encroachment was required to be prepared by the Cadastral Surveyor. The lower appellate Court has pointed out some defects in the procedure of preparing such map, deposed by the Cadastral Surveyor himself. The relevant observations of the lower appellate Court are contained in Paragraph No.18, which is reproduced below. "18] It is important to point that the witness in his cross examination has given candid admission by saying that the Tipan extract was prepared by him. The said Tipan extract is produced at Exh.86. ...
Vijaya and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.2633/2016 viz. Vijaya Jadhav earlier had filed Writ Petition No.5891/2015 before this Court. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by the Division Bench on 20.11.2015 and a direction was given to the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, to hear the parties, allow them to place on record the documents and take a decision about the issue of appointment of a fulltime Head Mistress/Headmaster on regular basis in the respondent school, keeping in view the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short the Rules of 1981). In pursuance of the said directions, respondent no.2 Education Officer (Secondary) heard the parties so as to take decision about who is entitled for the appointment as full time Headmistress. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it appears that...
Vivek Gajanan Palandurkar and Others Vs. Vidarbha Premier Co-operative ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The challenge in this Revision is to the order dated 13.01.2016, passed in Misc. Civil Application No.19 of 2016, by the lower appellate Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 26-A of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, condoning the delay caused in filing an appeal. 3. Undisputedly, the appeal under Section 26-A of the said Act is not maintainable against the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the objection filed to the application under Section 12-A of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulations of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, management and Transfer) Act, 1963. Once it is found that the appeal is not maintainable and the Court has no jurisdiction, the question of condoning the delay caused therein does not at all arise. The point is no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Pundalik Haribhau Chandekar vrs. Jagdish Da...
Ramavtar B. Jajodia and Another Vs. Hon'ble Shyam Lilani Ld. Sole Arbi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
1. By this petition filed under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Arbitration Act ), the petitioners have prayed for termination of mandate of the learned sole arbitrator, the respondent no.1 herein on account of his alleged failure to act without undue delay in the arbitral proceedings commenced on 2nd July 2012 between the petitioners and the respondent nos.2 to 6. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are having approximately 12.5% shareholdings of Aakash Lavlesh Leisure Private Limited (for short the said company ). The petitioners are co-shareholders of the said company with the respondent nos.2 to 5. The respondent no.6 is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and holds 50% shares of the said company. 3. On 22nd November 2006, an agreement was executed between the petitioners and the respondent nos.2 to 6...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »