Mumbai Court August 2011 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.
Madhu Dharamji Ovhal Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A.M.THIPSAY,J) 1. The appellant was the accused in Sessions Case No.591 of 2005 in the Court of Sessions at Pune. The allegation against him was that he had committed murder of his father. The learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Pune after holding a trial held that the charge against the appellant was proved and convicted him of an offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC. The appellant was sentenced to suffer Imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer RI for one month. The appellant being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence has approached this court in appeal. 2. We have heard Mr.Khamkar, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.Jhaveri, learned APP for the State. We have gone through the entire evidence adduced before the trial court. We have gone through the impugned judgment. The case of the prosecution before the trial court was as follows: Dharamji (deceased) had two wives, one Jaibai and one Ashabai. Ja...
Dinesh S/O Amratlal Thakkar Vs. Premchand S/O Bhagwandas Wakharia
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-23-2011
1. This Civil Revision Application is filed challenging the judgment and order of eviction dated 30th June, 2001 passed by Rent Controller Nanded, in proceeding No RCA (15)-10/96 and the judgment and order dated 3rd January, 2003 in HRCA No. 16 of 2001. The applicant-tenant herein is original defendant and respondent is landlord. 2. Respondent initiated proceedings against the applicant herein before the Rent Controller under section 15 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 (For short "said Act"), on three grounds i.e.(i) willful default in payment of rent by tenant for period from January 1993 to February 1996, (ii) Alternate accommodation secured by tenant, (iii) Bonafide requirement of landlord and that the tenant has locked the suit premises and kept it out of use. 3. The applicant herein appeared before the Rent Controller and filed written statement contending therein that he is tenant of the suit premises from last ten years having tenancy over fiv...
Yawalkar Pesticides Pvt .Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Municipal Corporation and anr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-23-2011
1. The prayer in the present writ petition is for to quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 10th October, 1995 issued by the second respondent and for issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to refund the entire amount of the octroi duty collected from the Petitioner during the period from 18.04.1985 to 15.4.1995 on raw materials imported by the Petitioner from outside the city limits, but, immediately taken for being consumed in their factory situated outside the Octroi limits of the respondent/Municipal Corporation. In the alternative, it is prayed that direction be issued to the respondent to decide the application of the Petitioner for refund dated 25.7.1995 afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner to substantiate its claim by documentary and available evidence within a stipulated period of two months from the date of decision of the Writ Petition. 2. Heard the submissions advanced before us. Perused copies of the documents ann...
Mahendra at Baggad Pajiraj Yadav. Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT :- (PER A.M.THIPSAY) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th March 2003 passed by the Addl.Sessions Judge for Greater Mumbai convicting the appellant who was an accused in Sessions Case No.1094 of 1987 for an offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer Imprisonment for Life. The learned Sessions Judge also imposed a sentence of fine in the sum of Rs.30,000/- upon the appellant and provided for a default sentence of 10 months. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, appellant has approached this court in appeal. 2. The prosecution case before the trial court was that the first informant Harishankar Yadav (PW 1) was at the material time residing in the room of one Musayee Yadav (PW 2) which was situated in Ramchandra Chawl, Room No.8, Inamdar Estate, Malad (West), Mumbai 400064. Musayee's son Bhanuprakash (deceased) was also residing in the said room with his wife Sitadevi Bhanuprakash Yadav...
The Manager, the Bajaj Allianze Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Anil Radheshyam ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2011
Per Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, Honble President 1. Heard Mr.S.S.Deshmukh-Advocate for the applicant/appellant and Mr.N.H.Lahoti-Advocate for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed as against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nasikin consumer complaint no.10/2010 on 25/11/2010. Complaint has been allowed and as against the said order appeal has been preferred. Complaint was decided on 25/11/2010 and on the same day copies were given to the appellant. However, appellant did not prefer appeal within time and there is delay of 60 days in filing the appeal. 3. Ground stated in the delay condonation application is that papers were handed over to the advocate who was on record. However, said advocate returned the papers on 05/02/2011 and, thereafter, the company had taken a decision to file an appeal and the papers were handed over to the present advocate on 17/02/2011 and thereafter appeal has been filed. Surprisingly, in support of this application, affidavi...
indira Sra Co-operative Housing Society Vs. Shivkripa Builders and Dev ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2011
1. Respondent no.1-Shivkripa Builders & Developers, a partnership firm in both the above appeals is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2371 of 2009. The appellants in Appeal Nos. 286 of 2011 and 300 of 2011 are respondent no.4 and respondent no.8 respectively in the aforesaid writ petition. The appellants in the both the appeals are challenging a common order dated 15th April, 2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2371 of 2009 whereby the writ petition was allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), thereby setting aside the order impugned in the writ petition. For the sake of brevity and convenience hereinafter the parties are referred to by their respective nomenclature in Writ Petition No.2371 of 2009. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are as follows: Plot nos. 88 to 104 at Worli Scheme 58, admeasuring approximately about 42,955.22 sq. mtrs. is owned by MCGM and is occupied by slum dwellers. The slum dwellers since they had no b...
Indian Inhabitant Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2011
Top of Form 1. The Appeal is preferred by the original accused challenging the judgment and order dated 13th July,2006 in Sessions Case No.32 of 2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,Mumbai whereby the Accused/Appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366, 376 (2) (a) and under section 323 of Indian penal code and was sentenced as under : (i) Under section 363 of Indian penal code R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- in default further sentence of 15 days. (ii) Under section 366 of Indian penal code R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default further sentence of 30 days. (iii) Under section 376 (2) (a) of Indian penal code R.I. for 15 years and fine of Rs.50,000/- in default further sentence of 1 years. (iv) Under section 323 of Indian penal code R.I for 1 month and fine of Rs. 200/- in default further sentence of 8 days. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the prosecutrix PW 7, who is the victim of this offence, was a girl of aged ab...
Mrs. Vimi Vinod Chopra Vs. Vinod Gulshan Chopra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2011
1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. 2. This Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner-wife challenging the order of Family Court No.4, Mumbai dated 13.10.2010 allowing the husband's application for striking off her defence. This application came to be made upon the breach of the order of granting access passed by the Family Court. The parties have had numerous disputes and litigations since the husband sued for divorce, an order of injunction in respect of residence of the parties and custody of the children in the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai on 3rd March, 2008. 3. The parties have three children now aged 16, 15 & 9 years. The husband applied for access to his children initially on 08.10.2009. The wife resisted that application essentially on the ground that the husband was not attached to the children, was harassing them by spoiling their reputation with their friends with the reason that the children were left alone with no one to play with. The wife contended that the children suffer...
Chandrakant Vithal Pawar Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The Appeal is preferred by the original accused challenging the judgment and order dated 13th July,2006 in Sessions Case No.32 of 2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,Mumbai whereby the Accused/Appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366, 376 (2) (a) and under section 323 of Indian penal code and was sentenced as under : (i) Under section 363 of Indian penal code R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- in default further sentence of 15 days. (ii) Under section 366 of Indian penal code R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default further sentence of 30 days. (iii) Under section 376 (2) (a) of Indian penal code R.I. for 15 years and fine of Rs.50,000/- in default further sentence of 1 years. (iv) Under section 323 of Indian penal code R.I for 1 month and fine of Rs. 200/- in default further sentence of 8 days. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the prosecutrix PW 7, who is the victim of this offence, was a girl of aged ...
international Asset Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2011
1. Criminal Writ Petition No.184 of 2011 was filed by International Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited, who is the petitioner in the instant petition, praying that learned District Magistrates, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa be directed to pass appropriate orders under Section 14(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, "the SARFAESI Act") for taking possession of the secured assets and for handing over the same to the petitioners. It was noticed by the Division Bench of this court presided over by A.M. Khanwilkar, J. that the subject matter of the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act had been disposed of. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that a number of such applications are pending before the courts across the State and since public money is involved, appropriate directions need to be issued to the concerned Magistrates asking them to dispose of the said ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »