Mumbai Court May 2008 Judgments
Shivadas Dasharath Jadhav Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR1842; 2008CriLJ3234
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgement rendered by learned Special Judge, Jalna in Special Case No. 8 of 1994 whereby appellant came to be convicted for offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two (2) months on first count and rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one (1) month on the second count. 2. The appellant was working as an Assistant Police Prosecutor in the Courts at Jalna. There is no dispute about the fact that he was working as Public Servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Complainant Amrutlal Bhurewal was involved as an accused in a Criminal Case (S.T.C. No. 2973/1990), which was pending in the Court No. 4 of Jud...
Tag this Judgment!Shammi Nagpal Vs. Sudhir Nagpal, Director of Hotel Taj-president,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR149; (2008)110BOMLR1797
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the plaintiff seeking directions to the defendants to forthwith hand over and restore to the plaintiff the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises being flat no. 209, Olympus Apartments, Altamound Road, Mumbai (for short, 'the suit premises') and, in the alternative, for the appointment of the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay as Receiver for the suit premises and put the plaintiff in possession thereof as an agent without royalty or compensation. The plaintiff is further seeking a direction to the defendants to restore to the plaintiff all movable furniture/articles taken from the suit premises. The plaintiff has also prayed for the appointment of a Commissioner to inspect and take an inventory of the suit premises and for an injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner dealing with, disposing of, alienating, encumbering or creating third party rights of any nature whatsoever in respect of the suit premises. ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Balasaheb Dhondiram Jagdale and Shri Jaysingh mahadeo Chavan Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR108; 2008(5)BomCR163; (2008)110BOMLR1617; 2008(5)MhLj300
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. In all the above Petitions, the issue involved is with regard to the special responsibility cast on the Governor of the State of Maharashtra, with regard to development of Vidharbha area. The present area of Vidharbha was earlier included in the erstwhile state of Madhya Pradesh. The demand for the separate state of Vidharbha was duly endorsed by the then Madhya Pradesh Legislature.This was seen as a conflict with the demand made by the Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement in the erstwhile area of Bombay for the creation of a Marathi speaking state.2. In furtherance of the proposal of a Linguistic Marathi speaking province,the then leaders of Vidharbha and Western Maharashtra entered into an agreement known as the Akola act for formation of a federal state. Vidharbha still remained part of the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh After India gained Independence, a State Re-organization Commission was formed under Mr. Justice Fazal Ali. The leaders of the Sanyukta Maharashtra moveme...
Tag this Judgment!Angath Arts Private Limited Vs. Century Communications Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR197(Bom); 2008(4)BomCR838; (2008)110BOMLR1691; 2008(4)MhLj926; LC2008(2)431
ORDERD.G. Karnik, J.1. By consent, heard finally at the stage of admission itself.2. By this petition, petitioner seeks injunction restraining the respondents from transferring, licensing or sub-licensing any rights in the copyright of the film 'Victoria No. 203' to any third party. 3. Reliefs claimed under prayers (b) and (c) are declined as not pressed. 4. The facts giving rise to the controversy between the parties are that the petitioner is the producer and first owner of copyright in the film 'Victoria No. 203'. By an agreement dated 26th July 2007, the petitioner assigned to the respondent along with him joint ownership in the ratio of 50:50 the rights in the negative of the film. There is some dispute between the parties as to whether copyright in the film or only in the negatives of the film are assigned. That would be decided by the arbitral tribunal. At this stage suffice it to refer to Clause No. 8(d) of the agreement which provides that the respondents shall be entitled to ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Aldino Santos Braganza Vs. Smt. Marle Dos Santos Braganza
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR113; 2008(4)BomCR603; II(2008)DMC709
N.A. Britto, J.1. In this Plaintiff's Letters Patent Appeal, the short question for our consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled for divorce under Article 4(4) of the Law of Divorce in force in the State of Goa which when translated reads as follows:The contested divorce may be obtained only on the following grounds:1. ...2. ... 3. ... 4. Ill-treatment or serious injury. 2. The Plaintiff married the Defendant on 19-4-1987. The Plaintiff is from Assagao whilst the Defendant is from Verla, Parra. The Plaintiff is a mechanical engineer working abroad and periodically comes to Goa whilst the Defendant is a lecturer in a higher secondary school. Theirs was an arranged marriage and the Plaintiff was elder to the Defendant by about 9 years. Armando, their only child was born to them on 16-3-1988. Their relations were rather strained at least from 3-11-1990 if not earlier, as a result of which the Defendant was residing at her mother's house at Verla, Parra during the absence of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Damodhar Laxmanrao Kumbodh by Lrs. Pramod S/O Damodarrao Kumbodh and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR589; 2008(5)MhLj123
R.C. Chavan, J.1. The petitioners seek to have proceedings for acquisition of their lands bearing Survey Nos. 25, 28/1 and 28/2 at village Bhaipur, Tahsil Arvi, District Wardha quashed on the following grounds:(i) Petitioners had developed the said lands for being put to non-agricultural use and have entered into registered/unregistered agreements of sale of plots to prospective buyers.(ii) Public Notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was not published as required and record was manipulated to show that it was so published.(iii) There was no urgency to dispense with enquiry under Section 5A of the Act by exercising powers under Section 17(4) of the Act and consequently, notification under Section 4 itself was vitiated.(iv) Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made beyond the period of one year from the last date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act.(v) The need for which petitioners' lands were sought to be acquired was fully satisfied and theref...
Tag this Judgment!Mangala R. Awad Vs. Shashikala Kisan Awad and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR273; 2009(1)BomCR377; 2008(5)MhLj112
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard.2. In terms of the order dated 18th November, 2005, the appeal has been heard only in relation to the point of dismissal of Revocation Petition (lodging) No. 162 of 2003.3. The facts in brief, relevant for the decision in the matter, are that one Kisan Awad employed with Central Railway, Mumbai, expired on 29th December, 1999. The respondent No. 1 herein, the widow of Kisan Awad, applied for Succession Certificate on 3rd July, 2000 which came to be granted by Order dated 29th June, 2001. The appellant herein took out the Revocation Petition (Lodging) No. 162 of 2003 on 4th March, 2003. Consequent to the grant of Succession Certificate, the respondent No. 1 herein also took out Notice of Motion No. 2178 of 2003 seeking direction that the respondent No. 2 should accept the said Succession Certificate and consequently pay the dues of the deceased husband to her as his widow.4. The Miscellaneous Petition (Lodging) No. 162 of 2003 taken out by the appellant h...
Tag this Judgment!Mrigendra S/O Mahadeo Jalan and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ104; 2008(5)MhLj169
A.P. Lavande, J.1. Heard Mr. Bhide, learned Counsel for the applicants and Mr. Saboo, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2(a) and 2(b). None for respondent No. 1.2. All these three applications filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short) are being disposed of by common judgment since issues involved in the applications are identical and the parties are the same. The applicants challenge the judgments and orders dated 22-6-2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, dismissing Criminal Revision Application Nos. 79/04, 73/04, 71/05, 80/04, 78/04 and 72/04.3. The applicant Nos. 2 to 4 are the Directors of the Maikal Fibres Ltd., and applicant Nos. 5 to 6 are employees of the said Company. Respondent No. 2 in the above applications filed Summary Criminal Case Nos. 581/2003, 501/2003, 470/2003 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shegaon against the present applicants for dishonour of three cheques dated 20-2-2003, 26-2-2003...
Tag this Judgment!Shriniwas S/O Bacchulalji Padiya Vs. Akola Janata Commercial Co-op. Ba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ110; 2008(5)MhLj161
A.P. Lavande, J.1. Heard Mr. Lohiya, learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr. R.L. Khapre, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mrs. Wandile, learned A.P.P. for respondent No. 2 in all the applications.2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith.3. All these applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are being disposed of by common judgment since the facts as well as question of law involved are identical.4. Respondent No. 1 in all these applications filed Summary Criminal Case Nos. 6650/2003, 2548/2003, 4418/2003, 6651/2003, 9052/2003, 3105/2003, 4419/2003, 6652/2003, 3426/2003, 6649/2003, 2549/2003, 4417/2003, and 9051/2003 against the present applicant alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') since the cheques issued by the applicant were dishonoured. After issuance of process, the applicant filed separate applications in each of Criminal Case purporting to be under Section 259 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Adhikrao Mahadeo Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)BomCR795; 2008(6)MhLj505
Nazki Bilal, J.1. On 22nd December, 1965 the petitioner was appointed as clerk. His date of birth was recorded as per school record presented by him as 1st June, 1940. For the first time the petitioner applied for correction of his date of birth in his service record on 29th August, 1989, i.e. after 24 years of entering into service. In 1994 the Government issued a Circular laying down guidelines for correction in the date of birth in the service record. The petitioner made another representation after the said Circular on 5th January, 1995 seeking correction of his death of birth. This was rejected. Therefore, he has filed this writ petition seeking correction of his date of birth in his service record. He wants his date of birth to be declared as 11th June, 1942 and evidence according to him was some birth extract issued by mamlatdar, Patan on 6th October, 1965. It may be noted here that the petitioner joined service on 22nd December, 1965 and on his own showing he was in possession ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »