Mumbai Court October 2012 Judgments
Mrs. Rita Lena D'Souza, W/o Menino Abel D'Souza Vs. State, through C.B ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Rule. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties heard forthwith. 2. Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 3. The petitioner who is the accused no.2 in Special Case No.5/2005 pending before the learned Special Judge, North Goa, Panaji, has challenged the order dated 6/4/2011 by which charge has been ordered to be framed against the petitioner under Section 109 of I.P.C r/w 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. The respondent has filed charged sheet against the petitioner and her husband Menino Abel D'Souza for the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. By the impugned order, the learned Special Judge has ordered framing of charge against both the accused. The order has become final against accused no.1 who has chosen not to challenge the same. 5. Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that volu...
Tag this Judgment!Ctr Manufacturing Industries Limited Vs. Sergi Transformer Explosion P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
This Civil Application is filed in a disposed of Appeal against order for action under S. 340 Cr.P.C. That appeal from order arose out of Special Civil Suit No.1/2010 and has been disposed of by this Court on 11th January 2011. This Court set aside the order dated 28th December 2010 passed by learned District Judge, Thane and allowed the application of appellant therein (respondent in this civil application) and permitted it to submit drawings to Delhi Transco Limited (DTL). It directed that the said appellant should not take any further steps for execution of contract except submission of drawings till the decision of application filed by the appellant/ respondent No.1 herein below Exh.5 under order 39 rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) (Said application below Exh.5 in special civil suit was filed by present applicant/plaintiff who was respondent in that appeal from order). It is not in dispute that later on temporary injunction as prayed for came to be denied and...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Sunita Wd/O Satyagrah ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
Oral Judgment: This appeal arises from the judgment and award dated 7.6.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yavatmal in Claim Petition No.229/2000 whereby the claimants were awarded compensation of Rs.20,40,000/- on account of death of Satyagrah Patil which occurred on 25.12.1994 in a motor vehicular accident involving motor cycle MH-29E-7168 and the truck bearing no MO- 23D/9241. 2] On the fateful day the deceased was riding pillion on the motorcycle which was being driven by one Ghanshyam. When the motorcycle reached near M.I.D.C. Lohara on Yavatmal - Darvha Road, a truck coming from opposite direction dashed against it. Driver – Ghanshyam survived, but the deceased Satyagrah came under the wheels of the truck and died. At the time of death the deceased was serving as a welder with the Western Coalfields Limited. Having regard to his age and the salary drawn by him, the learned Tribunal considered the loss of dependency at Rs.120,000/- p.a. and by applying multip...
Tag this Judgment!Swayambhu Construction Pvt. Ltd. Konark Apartments Vs. Dhrupada W/O Pa ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard both sides. 2] Admit. With the consent of both the parties, this appeal is heard finally. 3] The only question that has cropped up in this appeal is, the appellant not getting opportunity of being heard while the Claim Petition No .43/2007, was decided. It is submitted that, there was death of mother of the appellant and because of which he could not attend the proceedings. Further contention is that vehicle was insured with the respondent no.4. However, the Tribunal after holding that there was breach of terms of insurance policy saddled the entire liability on him. 4] Considering the cause for non appearance of the appellant before the Tribunal and also the fact that appellant was deprived of an opportunity of leading evidence, particularly to rebut the defence raised by the respondent no.3, in the interest of justice, the award exonerating respondent no.4 and saddling the entire liability on the appellant, will have to be set aside. 5] It is clarified that issue...
Tag this Judgment!Prabodh Jamnadas Kothari Vs. Vikram Jamnadas Kothari and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
The Plaintiff has sued for declaration of the estate of his deceased father and for his 1/2 share, right, title and interest therein in respect of the properties set out in Exhibit-C to the plaint. 2. Properties at item Nos.1 and 2 are the main properties with which the parties are at dispute. Item No.1 relates to 49010 shares of KNK Trading Pvt. Ltd., stated to have been owned by the Plaintiff's father. 3. The Plaintiff's father has executed a Will in 2003 bequeathing the shares equally to his two sons the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1. The defendants claim that the shares are transferred to Defendant No.2, the wife of Defendant No.1 in 1999 itself. The Plaintiff has challenged the transfer as fraudulent. The Plaintiff has shown the annual returns of Defendant No.5 company which shows the transfer effected in the first year of the incorporation of the company itself. The very first annual returns filed under Section 169 of the Companies Act shows the transfer executed in the name of De...
Tag this Judgment!Ctr Manufacturing Industries Limited Vs. Sergi Transformer Explosion P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
This Civil Application is filed in a disposed of Appeal against order for action under S. 340 Cr.P.C. That appeal from order arose out of Special Civil Suit No.1/2010 and has been disposed of by this Court on 11th January 2011. This Court set aside the order dated 28th December 2010 passed by learned District Judge, Thane and allowed the application of appellant therein (respondent in this civil application) and permitted it to submit drawings to Delhi Transco Limited (DTL). It directed that the said appellant should not take any further steps for execution of contract except submission of drawings till the decision of application filed by the appellant/ respondent No.1 herein below Exh.5 under order 39 rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) (Said application below Exh.5 in special civil suit was filed by present applicant/plaintiff who was respondent in that appeal from order). It is not in dispute that later on temporary injunction as prayed for came to be denied and...
Tag this Judgment!Swayambhu Construction Pvt. Ltd. Konark Apartments Vs. Dhrupada W/O Pa ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard both sides. 2] Admit. With the consent of both the parties, this appeal is heard finally. 3] The only question that has cropped up in this appeal is, the appellant not getting opportunity of being heard while the Claim Petition No .43/2007, was decided. It is submitted that, there was death of mother of the appellant and because of which he could not attend the proceedings. Further contention is that vehicle was insured with the respondent no.4. However, the Tribunal after holding that there was breach of terms of insurance policy saddled the entire liability on him. 4] Considering the cause for non appearance of the appellant before the Tribunal and also the fact that appellant was deprived of an opportunity of leading evidence, particularly to rebut the defence raised by the respondent no.3, in the interest of justice, the award exonerating respondent no.4 and saddling the entire liability on the appellant, will have to be set aside. 5] It is clarified that issue...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Nair @ Kakkara Sukumaran Nair Vs. Mrs. Savitha S. Nair D/O P.K. M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
A.S. Oka, J. Rule. Learned APP waives service for 2nd respondent. Learned Counsel for 1st respondent waives service. Taken up for final hearing. 2. The prayer in this petition is for quashing the offences registered under Sections 498A, 406, 506(II) read with Section 34 of IPC. The 1st respondent was the wife of the petitioner. After registration of the offence, before the Marriage Counselor in the Family Court, the parties arrived at a settlement and agreed to take divorce by mutual consent. In the consent terms, the 1st respondent agreed not to prosecute the criminal proceedings. Subsequently, it is pointed out that on 17th September 2012, on the basis of consent terms, a pending Matrimonial Petition filed by the petitioner has been converted into a Petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, on instructions of the 1st respondent, stat...
Tag this Judgment!Sharifabi W/O. Sabirshah Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Bhangale, J.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 14th October, 2011 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No.31 of 2011 whereby the appellant/accused herein was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under : That, on 14.8.2012, at about 2.00 p.m. there was a quarrel between deceased Shayedabi and the appellant/accused. Upon such quarrel, the appellant went inside the house and brought a Can containing kerosene. She then poured kerosene on the person of deceased Shayedabi and set her ablaze. After the deceased raising shouts, her husband came there and extinguished the fire. Crime No.162 of 2010 was registered initially under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code at ...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Agencies Private Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
Oral Judgment: This Civil Revision Application challenges interim order dated 13th October, 2011, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Maharashtra Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad, granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent in Suit No.32 of 2011. 2. Admitted facts leading to this litigation are as under :- 3. The land in question is a large plot of land abutting Jalna Road in Aurangabad city. This plot belongs to a Wakf. In 1964, the then Mutawalli of the Wakf executed lease of 99 years in favour of the applicant. In 1995, respondent No.1 Board intervened and got the lease agreement modified. This time they increased the premium as well as rent. Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued notice under section 54 of the Wakf Act, 1995 alleging that the applicant is in wrongful possession of the suit property and should be evicted. The applicant thereafter made an application under section 83(2) of the Wakf Act, challenging such direction issued by respondent No.1's Chief Officer. In ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »