Mumbai Court September 2016 Judgments
Suresh and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra Through P.S. City Chowk an ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Both the Criminal Applications take exception to the chargesheet bearing Regular Criminal Case No.35/2016, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad, arising out of FIR bearing Crime M-Case No.I-212/2015 dated 29th July, 2015, registered at City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 408, 467, 471 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66A and 67 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act (for short MPT Act ), therefore, the same are heard together and being disposed of by common judgment and order. 2. According to the applicants, it is alleged in the FIR that the applicants in collusion purchased the land at village Satara in Gat No.243, admeasuring 11 Hector for a consideration of Rs.30,000/-. The amount was collected by them by way of membership contribution of Rs.5,000/- each from the members of Vasantrao Naik Institute for Tribal Development. The land purchased is in the name of Rural ...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Home Depar ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard, finally. 2. By way of this criminal application, the applicant is challenging the order passed below Exh.1 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 83 of 2012 passed by learned J.M.F.C. Kopargaon which is now registered as R.T.C. No. 121 of 2012 thereby issuing process against the applicant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of I.P.C. and the judgment and order dated 14.05.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon in Criminal Revision Application No. 22 of 2013, by which the order of issue process passed by the Magistrate, is confirmed. 3. Brief facts, giving rise to the present criminal application are as follows:- a) The applicant is working as police constable posted at police station Kopargaon since 2011. Respondent No.2 came to be arrested in connection with Crime No. 65 of 2012 and after his arrest, he was produced before the J.M.F.C. Kopargaon. Respondent No.2 has filed complaint before...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Sai Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
V.L. Achliya, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By the consent, heard finally at the admission stage. 2. Petitioner herein has preferred this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of RCS NO. 265/2015 pending on the file of CJM, Nanded, on the grounds set out in detail in the petition. 3. Petitioner herein claims to be Doctor by profession and practices at Nanded. She possesses the educational qualification as MBBS and DGO. Petitioner started her practice at Nanded since August 2013. She has installed Sonography machine in her Hospital known as Suyog Hospital at Nanded. She claims that, the Sonography centre established by her is duly registered with the Health Department and the certificate of registration is valid for the period 11.11.2013 to 10.11.2018. 4. On 26.2.2015, the members of the Regional Vigilance Squad, Aurangabad, inspected the Ultrasonography Centre of the petitioner and r...
Tag this Judgment!Kushnoba Babani Parab Vs. Pundalik Yeshwant Nhavi and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. The learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner/original plaintiff is challenging the order dated 8/08/2016 below application Exhibit 68 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Pernem in Regular Civil Suit No.30/2006. By the impugned order, application for amendment of plaint filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner has filed the aforesaid suit against the respondents for a declaration that the petitioner is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property excluding the house existing therein as shown in the plan and for a further declaration that one Apa Bapu Parab or the defendants 3,4 and 5 have no right, title or interest whatsoever in the suit property and that they have never been in possession or enjoyment of the same. The petitioner is also seeking declaration that the entry in Form no.I and XIV pertaining to the suit prop...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Jakson James Vs. The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties finally at the stage of admission itself. Learned counsels for the respondents waive service of notice. 3. By this Appeal, the appellant-original plaintiff is challenging the order dated 1st July 2016 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Mumbai in Draft Notice of Motion in L.C. Suit No.1427 of 2016. By the impugned order, Trial Court has refused the ad-interim relief and directed the appellant to implead both caveators as co-defendants in the Suit and serve the writ of summons upon them. 4. As per the appellant, he is in possession of the suit premises as tenant and his tenancy is already confirmed. The caveators, namely, Manjit Singh Jodh Singh Abrol and Mukesh Ramesh Bajaj, respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein, have purchased the said property. The notice under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, (for short, the MMC Act ), dated 1st April 2016 came to be issued and served on the caveator...
Tag this Judgment!Babasaheb Eknath Wakchaure and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, th ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
Wadane, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioners have challenged the award dated 10.3.1977 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer respondent no.3 by which the land of the petitioners bearing Survey No.112/3 (Gut No.463) admeasuring 5 Acres 4 Gunthas has been acquired for the purpose of rehabilitation of project affected persons. The petitioners have challenged the award mainly on the two grounds that the physical possession of the land has not been taken from the petitioners and no compensation of the acquired land has been paid to them. 3. Initially the above mentioned properties were recorded in the name of grandfather of the petitioners and after his death, the properties are succeeded by the petitioners and name of one Haribhau, eldest cousin brother of the petitioners, has been recorded as per the mu...
Tag this Judgment!Balkrishna Vs. Azmat Khan and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, heard finally. 2. The petitioner, who is original defendant No. 1 in Special Civil Suit No. 21 of 2011, has impugned the order dated 2nd December, 2011, passed below application (Exh-34) by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division (Corporation Court), Aurangabad, allowing the said application and appointing the City Survey Officer, Aurangabad as Court Commissioner for taking measurement of the disputed property and submitting the report. 3. Admittedly, plot No. 13 C.T.S. No. 18152 in Friends Cooperative Housing Society, Kokanwadi, Aurangabad, is owned by respondent No. 1 while plot No. 12 C.T.S. No. 18151, situate in the same Society to the East of plot No. 13 is owned by the petitioner. The above numbered suit has been filed by respondent No. 1 seeking possession of 97.99 square meters of land alleged to have been encroached upon by the petitioner from plot No. 13. 4. Respondent No. 1 f...
Tag this Judgment!Balkrishna Vs. Azmat Khan
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
1. Original defendant No. 1 in Special Civil Suit No. 21 of 2011 has taken exception to the common order dated 5th March, 2012, passed below applications Exh-51 and Exh-55 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division (Corporation Court), Aurangabad, whereby he rejected the said applications. 2. The applicant is the owner of plot No. 12, C.T.S. No. 18151, situate in Friends Cooperative Society, Kokanwadi, Aurangabad, which has been purchased by him from one Narayan T. Jape. To the west of that plot, there is plot No. 13, C.T.S. No. 18152 in the same Cooperative Housing Society, which is owned by respondent No. 1 (the original plaintiff). Plot No.13 has been purchased by respondent No. 1 from one Vimalbai Kulkarni. 3. The case of the applicant, as disclosed from the application (Exh.51), is that Vimalbai Kulkarni had filed Dispute No. 367 of 2000 before the Co-operative Court, Aurangabad against the Friends Cooperative Society and Narayan T. Jape, claiming possession of 110 square meters ...
Tag this Judgment!Solapur District Central Co-operative Bank Employees Union, Solapur Vs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
1. Rule. With the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 19.07.2016 passed by the Learned Member of the Industrial Court, Solapur, by which order, the Appeal filed by the Petitioner being Appeal (ICTU) No.01 of 2012 came to be dismissed and resultantly, the order dated 23.10.2012 passed by the Respondent No.1 herein i.e. the Additional Registrar, Trade Union/Additional Labour Commissioner came to be confirmed. 3. The facts giving rise to the above Petition can in brief be stated thus: The Respondent No.2 herein and the Petitioner are Unions operating in the Solapur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Solapur. The Respondent No.2 filed an application on 04.08.2010 before the Registrar Trade Unions, by the said application, the cancellation of the registration of the Petitioner Union was sought on the ground of various irregularities committed by it. It was the case...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. EDC Ltd. formerly known as Economic Developmen ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent no.1 waives service. Notice of rule on the other respondents is dispensed with. Heard finally by consent. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to delete respondent no.2 (b) from the record. Leave to delete is granted at the risk of the petitioner. Necessary correction to be carried out forthwith. 3. All these petitions involve a common and connected question and they can be disposed off by this common order. 4. The petitioner, which is a nationalized bank had advanced a loan to M/s. Zuari Barge Constructions of which the proprietor is Mr. Balkrishna G. Kamat (respondent no.2(a) herein). It appears that the petitioner had filed original application dated 20/11/2002 for recovery of Rs.21 lakhs and odd before the Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT for short). The DRT by judgment and order dated 14/10/2003 had allowed the application filed by the petitioner in the following ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »