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.
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited Vs. M/s. Alpha and Omega ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
Oral Judgment: (V. M. Kanade, J.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. The Petitioner in this petition is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (for short the DRAT ) dated 16th December, 2015 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 24 of 2012 alongwith Misc. Appeal Nos. 578/2015 and 930/2013. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The Petitioner is a public financial institution, as defined under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The Oriental Bank of Commerce had advanced various amounts to Respondent No. 1, who had guaranteed the repayment of the said amount and had mortgaged their properties with the Bank. Since the Respondents were unable to repay the said amount, which was due and payable to the Bank, the Bank filed...
Wamanrao Vyankatrao Kawane and Another Vs. Vyankatrao Karkaji Kawane a ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Regular Civil Suit No. 553 of 1995 was filed by Narayan Vyankat Kawane against his father Vyankatrao for possession based on title on the basis of partition effected on 11.04.1976. The suit was dismissed on 20.02.2001. Regular Civil Appeal No. 72 of 2001 filed by Narayan was also dismissed on 31.07.2002. Hence, the Second Appeal No.491 of 2002 by Narayan, the original plaintiff. 2. Regular Civil Suit No.9 of 1996 was filed by Wamanrao against his father Vyankatrao and two brothers Atmaram and Narayan, for declaration of title and it was dismissed on 06.03.1998. Regular Civil Appeal No.82 of 1999 preferred by Wamanrao was dismissed by the lower appellate Court by its common judgment and order dated 31.07.2002. Hence the Second Appeal No. 483 of 2002 is preferred by Wamanrao the original plaintiff. 3. The dispute in both these matters is between the father Vyankatrao and the sons Wamanrao, Atmaram and Narayan. The Courts below have held that the partition deed dated 11....
Guru Buddhiswami Mahavidyalaya, Purna (Jn.) Tq.Purna, Dist.Parbhani, T ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner/Management is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 06/12/2013 delivered by the School Tribunal, Latur by which Appeal No.1/2013 filed by respondent No.1 herein has been partly allowed and the acceptance of his voluntary retirement application dated 07/07/2005 by the petitioner/Management has been held to be illegal and therefore set aside. 3. For the sake of brevity, the petitioner employer is referred to as the Management, respondent No.1 original appellant is referred to as the employee and respondent No.4 who is the newly appointed person is referred to as respondent No.4 in this judgment. 4. Respondent No.1 / employee has been granted reinstatement with continuity of service without back wages. A further direction is given by the Tribunal that if its judgment is not complied with, non salary grants of the Management would be withheld by respondent Nos. 2 an...
Bhupendra @ Golu Vs. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Ajni
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The allegation is that the present applicant along with other accused persons, being a member of an organized crime syndicate, jointly made assault upon the complainant-Amol Mehar on 29/05/2015, in which assault, the complainant suffered some injuries but managed to survive those injuries. On the basis of complaint lodged by Amol Mehar, initially offences punishable under Sections 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 294 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3, 4, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act were registered. Later on, the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short 'the MCOC Act') were also invoked. Accordingly, the offence punishable under Section 3(4) of the MCOC Act came to be additionally registered against this applicant and other members of the crime syndicate. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has invited my attention to the...
Central Bank of India Vs. W.S. Deshmukh, Receiver and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Insolvency Case No.3 of 1971 decided on 31.01.1984 by the trial Court, the appellant is held entitled to recover an amount of Rs.5,39,509.92 as a secured creditor as against its total claim of Rs.22,64,402.95 outstanding on 28.01.1980 against the insolvent. The Misc. Civil Appeal No.21 of 1984 preferred under Section 75 of the Insolvency Act was dismissed on 08.12.1995. Hence, this appeal under Section 75(1) of the Insolvency Act. This appeal is to be treated as in the nature of second appeal as contemplated under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, it was admitted by this Court on 04.04.2001 framing the substantial questions of law as under: (1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant Bank could have been held disentitled to recover its secured dues because of any act of negligence in not properly securing the goods which were allegedly lost because of the theft at the factory premises and at the shipyard ? (2) Whether the re...
Pranjali Bhalchandra Shirsat Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, directing respondent no. 2 to consider her as belonging to Other Backward Category (OBC) in the second round of admission for MBBS degree course for academic year 2016-17. 2. Very few facts are required to be referred to for the purpose of appreciating the submissions of the petitioner's senior counsel. 3. As already referred above, the admissions are to the MBBS degree course. The academic year is 2016-17. The petitioner is citizen of India residing in Mumbai, whereas, all the respondents are the authorities as per the rules and regulations for these admissions, particularly to MBBS degree course. 4. The petitioner states that the second round of allocation of seats is expected to commence from 17th August, 2016. The petitioner has been a bright and intelligent studen...
The Amravati Zilla Parishad Shikshan Sahakari Bank Ltd. through its Ge ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the adjudication of the claim for damages in lieu of reinstatement awarded to the respondent in the dispute filed by the respondent under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the said Act ]. 3. The respondent was appointed on the post of clerk at the petitioner Bank which is duly registered under the provisions of the said Act. The respondent was thereafter promoted to the post of Branch Manager. During his course of service, a departmental enquiry was conducted against him on charges of financial misappropriation. After issuing a show cause notice on 27-3-2000 and pursuant to the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the Bank terminated the services of the respondent on 28-4-2000. The respondent being aggrieved filed a dispute under Section 91 of the said Act before the Cooperative Court seeking a declaration that the re...
Lala Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
1. This Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 28th June, 2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar in Sessions Case No.32/2001, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is as under: The informant viz: Rameshchandra Rana, runs a hotel on Dhule-Surat-Highway viz., "Hotel Garden". He himself and his son Raju used to look after the said hotel business. On 3rd May, 2001 at about 12.45 to 13.00 hours, the informant was present in his hotel. At that time, his servant Shaikh Musa informed him that at some distance from the said hotel, one person was beating somebody by means of stone and due to which, the said another person was seriously injured. Thereupon, the informant, Shaikh Musa, another servant Sanju rushed towards western side of the said Hotel. At that time, they saw that one person was beating ano...
Humayun Suleman Merchant Vs. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mum ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
Oral Judgment: (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') challenges the order dated 17th May, 2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'). The impugned order relates to Assessment Year 1996-97. 2. This appeal was admitted on 25th August, 2004 on the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in applying the provisions of Section 54(F) (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Assessing Officer has rightly computed the deduction u/s. 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, restricting the investment in the new asset at Rs.35,00,000/- and thus restricting the exemption u/s. 54F of the Act proportionately to the amount invested? 3. The undisputed facts leading to this appeal are as under:- (...
Nitesh Pundlikrao Kathe Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. By this appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant / convict challenges judgment and order dated 31.07.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No. 149/2013 holding him guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life as also imposing fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof, rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. He is also found guilty of offence under Section 315 of Indian Penal Code, but, no separate sentence is awarded because of the larger sentence, punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, already imposed. 2. We have heard Shri Mirza, learned Counsel for the appellant / convict and Shri Thakre, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. 3. Shri Mirza, learned Counsel submitted that the circumstances from A to J looked into by the trial Court as constituting chain do not form a chain of implicating ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »