Mumbai Court October 2012 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.
Sparebanken Sogn Og Fjordane Vs. M.V. Bos Angler and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
By the above Notice of Motion, the Plaintiff seeks the following reliefs: (a) For an order and direction that the order of priority of claims against the sale proceeds shall be determined after the expiration of ninety days or of such other period as the Court may specify from 4th January 2012; (b) For an order and direction that the Sheriff shall send for publication in such newspapers as the Court may direct, a notice complying with the provisions of Sub-rule 951 (3) of the Bombay High Court Rules stating, inter alia, that the order of priority of claims against the said proceeds shall be determined after the period mentioned is determined by this Hon'ble Court with respect to prayer (a) and that any person having a claim against the property or the proceeds of sale thereof should file his claim before the Hon'ble Court before the expiration of the said period. 2. The relevant facts are briefly set out hereunder: 3. The above Admiralty Suit was originally filed by the Plaintiff again...
Dr. Rajendra S/O. Narayanrao Dhakne Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Adv. Mr. R.G. Hange for the applicant, and learned APP Mr. B.J. Sonwane for the respondent. 2. At the request of learned Counsel for the applicant, leave granted to delete the provision of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, from the present Application. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 4. This is an application preferred by the applicant (original accused) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying that the order 17-7-2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Beed, in Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012, be quashed and set aside, and the applicant be allowed to withdraw the said Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012, pending before the said court. 5. The respondent herein, through Dr. Gauri Raghunath Rathod, Civil Surgeon, District Hospital, Beed, i.e. original complainant, had filed criminal case being R.C.C. No. 898/2011 agai...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Madhukar Raghunath Kambari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. By the aforesaid appeal, the Appellant-State has assailed the part of the Judgment and Order dated 7th May, 1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag acquitting the respondent no.1 from the charge of commission of offence under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent no.1 at the said trial was tried for commission of such offences in furtherance of common intention of himself, his father, original accused no.2, his mother, original accused no.3 and his sister, original accused no.4. 2. The said prosecution emerged out of the charge sheet submitted by the Neral Police Station as a investigation of crime no. 12/94 registered with the said police station upon complaint (Exhibit-14) lodged by PW.1 Janu Thamke, the father of victim Vandana i.e. wife of respondent against respondent and his father, mother and sister. 3. According to the prosecution daughter of PW.1 viz. Vandana had married respondent on 10th May, 1995 and since ...
Raju @ Viswas S/O. Bharatrao Shitole and Others Vs. State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 3. This is an application preferred by the applicants (original accused) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashment of the charge sheet bearing R.T.C. No.93/2010, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Shevgaon (District : Ahmednagar), for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 326 of Indian Penal Code, and under Section 4/25 of Arms Act, and also under Section 37(1)(3)/135 of Bombay Police Act. 4. It is alleged by the respondent no.2 i.e. original complainant, that the Sub-Divisional Officer has seized storage of sand in September 2009, and Panchanama to that effect was also prepared. At that time, the complainant Amol, and his friends, namely, Mahesh Ramnath Gore, Anil Kundlik Ghortale, Chandrakant Vishnu Wable and Wasim Ansar Shaikh h...
Conceicao Fernandes, Son of Late Joao Jose Fernandes and Others Vs. As ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri A. F. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri E. Afonso, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of the learned counsels. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. 4. The above petition challenges the judgment dated 20.12.2007 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Land Acquisition Case No. 34/2002 whereby an application filed by the petitioners under Section 16(3) read with Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 came to be dismissed. 5. Briefly, the facts of the case are that a Special Civil Suit No. 252/2000 was filed by the petitioners in the Court of the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Margao, in view of an attempt by the respondents for laying of 33 KV line across the property belonging to the petitioners surveyed under nos. 77/1 and 84/1 of village Velim Goa. Along wi...
Gaddu Zaraunkar Vs. Village Panchayat of Velim Through the Sarpanch/Se ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.2. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.2, waives service. 3. The short point which comes for consideration in the above Writ Petitioners is as to whether the Revisional Court whilst exercising its jurisdiction under Section 201-B of the Panchayat Raj Act, is bound to scrutinize every material on record while deciding a revision preferred in terms of the provisions of the said Act. 4. Shri Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has raised a serious grievance to the effect that the dispute before the Revisional Court was whether the disputed structures has been recently constructed or whether such constructions was existing at a much prior date and whether they were duly sanctioned by the Village Panchayat. It is the contention of Shri Usga...
The Additional Deputy Collector Vs. Mrs. Patricia Annie Mendonca
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Ms. S. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellant. None appears on behalf of the respondent, though served. 2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and award dated 6.6.2005 passed by the Ist Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Panaji in the Land Acquisition Case No. 84/2003 by which the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) has been partly allowed. 3. Vide notification dated 24.9.1991 issued under Section 4 of the Act, which was published in the official gazette dated 28.5.1992, the Government of Goa notified its intention to acquire the land admeasuring 1040 square metres of survey no.88/9 of Parra village belonging to the respondent for extension of the Government Primary School building at Parra. The respondent claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 150/- per square metre. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.30/-...
SachIn Nagnath Satpute and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
V.M. Kanade, J. 1. Heard, Mr. D.G. Khamkar, Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. J.P. Yagnik, Learned APP for the State. 2. The Appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment and Order passed by the Session Court who was pleased to convict the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the accused got married to Vaishali on 15th July, 2002 and one daughter was born out of the said marriage. The prosecution case is that the accused started demanding Rs. 50,000/- from his wife for installing water pipeline in the land. It is alleged that the appellant used to quarrel with the wife on account of non-payment of the said amount and used to assault her. The prosecution case is that on 10th February, 2005, Vaishali committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her person and setting herself on fire. Initially case of accidental death was registered vide A.D. no. 11 of 2005. Thereafter the mother of the deceased-Vaishali lo...
Messers Laljee Godhoo and Co. and Others Vs. Veena NalIn Merchant and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
Oral Judgment: This Notice of Motion has been taken out by the Petitioners for seeking injunction restraining the Respondents from in any manner enforcing or acting or acting in furtherance of the impugned interim award, including for the purpose of valuation by the valuers appointed by the arbitral tribunal by an order dated 18th April, 2012 pursuant to impugned award dated 17th April, 2012. It is not in dispute that by interim award declared by the arbitral tribunal dated 17th April, 2012, it is declared that the petitioners and respondents are entitled to 50% shares in the goodwill, trademarks, tradenames and labels. It is also common ground that the petitioners as well as respondents have filed two separate arbitration proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 impugning part of the said interim award. Both these petitions were filed within time prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation, Act, 1996. Both these petitions are ad...
Raunak Corporation and Others Vs. Sanjay Manohar Kastur and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
N.M. Jamdar, J. These Letters Patent Appeals arise from Writ petitions which were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment and order by the learned Single Judge on 29 March 2012. 2. The subject matter of the dispute is the property of a public trust. On an application made by the trustees under section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, the Charity Commissioner granted sanction for development-cum-sale of the trust property to a developer. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order found that the sanction was not properly granted, and as there was no advertisement issued the matter needs to be remanded to the Charity Commissioner and an advertisement needs to be issued. The developer and trustees have filed these appeals challenging the judgment and order of the Single Judge. 3. The trust is called 'Late Rao Bahadur Anant Shivaji Desai Topiwala Charity'. It is in existence since the year 1926. The Trust was registered as a public Trust on 20 March 1956, after the Bombay ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »