Geek Upd8 - Online Law Reporter

Latest Post

Bombay High Court Judgments

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Before :- Mridula Bhatkar, J.
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 541 of 2014. D/d. 08.05.2014.

Shrenik Jayantilal Jain - Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent

For the Appellants :- A.H.H. Ponda a/w Sujay Kantawala i/b Devesh Diwakar Tripathi, Advocates.
For the Respondent/State :- Y.S. Shinde, APP.

JUDGMENT
Mridula Bhatkar, J. - The learned Sessions Judge of Greater Mumbai, pending hearing of Anticipatory Bail Application before it, refused to grant interim protection by its order dated 19th April, 2014. Hence, this application is preferred seeking interim bail, till the final decision on the Anticipatory Bail Application 754 of 2014, which is pending before the learned Sessions Judge.

Bombay High Court Judgments

BOMBAY HIGH COURT (DB) (Aurangabad Bench)

Before:- S.S. Shinde and Sangitrao S. Patil, JJ.
Writ Petition No. 5093 of 2016. D/d. 8.9.2016.

Kailas Sambhaji Lohakre, Age 22 years, Occu. Student, R/o. Kanjala, Tq. Loha, District Nanded - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 - Respondent
And
The Superintendent of Police, Nanded, Tq. & District Nanded - Respondent
And
The Union of India, Through its Ministry of Defence, New Delhi - Respondent
And
Coe Dir Rtg Sena Bharti Karyalaya, Army Recruiting Office T-39, Assey Lines, Aurangabad Maharashtra Pin 431002 - Respondent

For the Petitioner :- Mr. S.G. Jadhavar, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 1 :- Mr. A.V. Deshmukh, AGP.
For the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 :- Mr. D.G. Nagode, ASGI.

JUDGMENT
Sangitrao S. Patil, J. - Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2. A short but important question that is involved in this Writ Petition is whether the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board holding a juvenile in conflict with law guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code would be a disqualification for him to join the services in Army.

Gujarat High Court, Ahmedabad Judgments

GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Before:- Mr. M.R. Shah, J.
First Appeal No. 2029 of 2008. D/d. 25.02.2016.

Minor Shaktisinh Zala - Appellants
Versus
Zala Ranvirsinh Ranubha & 4 - Defendants

For the Appellants No. 1 :- Mr. Yogendra Thakore, Advocate.
For the Defendants No. 1 and 5 :- Rule Served.

JUDGMENT
Mr. M.R. Shah, J. (Oral) - Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Mehsana (hereinafter referred to as “the tribunal”) in MACP No.795/2005

Bombay High Court Judgments

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Before :- Prakash D. Naik, J.
Criminal Appeal No. 392 of 1999. D/d. 15.2.2017.

State of Maharashtra - Appellant
Versus
Suresh Vitthal Mule, R/o. Kasheli, Tal. Rajapur, Dist. Ratnagiri - Respondent

For the Appellant-State :- P.H. Gaikwad, Assistant Public Prosecutor.
For the Respondent :- S.B. Shetye, Advocate.

JUDGMENT
Prakash D. Naik, J. - Heard learned APP for Appellant-State and learned counsel for the Respondent. This appeal has been preferred by invoking Section 378(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') against judgment and order dated 16 April 1999 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajapur in Summary Criminal Case No.224 of 1996.

How to get through Law School successfully
Getting into law school can be quite the challenge. Essentially, you have to devote your entire young life to academic success. Not only do you have to obtain great grades while you're an undergraduate, but you have to do well on the LSAT exam. However, your work isn't over once you're admitted to law school. In fact, many would say it's only begun. You need to be successful in law school if you want to not only be an attorney, but one who can compete for top job positions.

Bombay High Court Judgments

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Before :- R.D. Dhanuka, J.
Second Appeal No. 634 of 2013. D/d. 23.12.2015.

Shri Mangesh Balkrushna Bhoir Age 37 yrs., Occupation : Business R/at Dhansar, Tal. Palghar, ) Dist. Thane - Appellant
Versus
Sau. Leena Mangesh Bhoir Age 35 yrs., Occupation R/at Through Bhaskar Laxman Patil Tembhi, Post Navapur, Tal. Palghar Dist. Thane - Respondent

For the Appellant :- Seema Sarnaik i/b Raj Khude, Advocates.
For the Respondent :- Y.R. Bhate with Kirankumar Phakade, Advocates.

JUDGMENT
R.D. Dhanuka, J. - By this second appeal, the appellant has impugned the order passed by the Lower Appellate Bench granting reliefs in favour of the respondent in the civil appeal filed by the respondent. The appellant was the original petitioner in Marriage Petition and the respondent herein was the original respondent in the Marriage Petition.

Puneet Batish Advocate

{facebook#http://g8.geekupd8.com/Adv.Batish} {twitter#http://g8.geekupd8.com/Twitter} {google-plus#http://g8.geekupd8.com/+pb} {pinterest#http://g8.geekupd8.com/Pinterest} {youtube#http://g8.geekupd8.com/YouTube}

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Powered by Blogger.
Javascript DisablePlease Enable Javascript To See All Widget