Mumbai Court November 2012 Judgments
Barku Tulshiram More Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
Oral Judgment: (SMT. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) The Appellant/original Appellant has directed this Appeal against the Judgment and order dated 14th March, 2005, passed by the learned First Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge Nashik, in Sessions Case No.138 of 2004. By the said Judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.200/- in default R.I. for one month. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under : This is a case of double murder. Laxmibai (deceased) was married to the Appellant. Father of Laxmibai was Karbhari (deceased No.2). At the time of the incident, the Appellant was residing along with his wife deceased Laxmbai and son at Bhilati village Dahiwad. At the time of Makar Sankrant of the year 2004, the accused had been to village Barshi i.e. the village of his father-in-law, for settling the date of hair cutting ceremony of his son. The accused cal...
Tag this Judgment!Nakoda Tours and Travels and Others Vs. Kalpataru Tours and Travels Pv ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard learned counsel for parties. By consent the petition is heard finally at the admission stage. 2. This petition questions the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, rejecting the petitioners' revision against the order, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, directing framing of charge against petitioners, for offence punishable under Sections 417 and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Facts which are material for deciding this petition are as under:- The petitioner Nos 1, 2 and 3 entered into an agreement to purchase three buses belonging to the complainant M/s Kalpataru Tours and Travels. These buses had been purchased under hire purchase agreement from M/s Alpic Finance. The agreement, however, recorded that from 21.6.1996 the buses would belong to the petitioners and the petitioners were to pay the dues of M/s Alpic Finance. The petitioners seem to have paid a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- pursuant to the agreement. Th...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. N. Senjilaxmi Wd/O Late K. Natra ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
Oral Judgment: Both these appeals arise from the judgment and award dated 18.07.1995, passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Wardha in M.A.C. Case No.35/1992 decided with M.A.C. Case No.31/1990. 2. On 25.12.1989, on National Highway No.7, near village Kondhali in District Nagpur, there was collision of two vehicles i.e. truck No.MWY 6588 and TLB-2511. Truck No.MWY 6588 was driven by one Ramsagar and the other vehicle was driven by K. Natrajan. Both died on the spot. The Claim Application No.31/1900 was filed by the heirs of Ramsagar, with which we are not concerned. The widow and two minor children left behind by deceased K. Natrajan, filed Claim Application No. 35/1992 for award of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The original non-applicant no.1 - M/s. Industrial and Commercial Corporation, Nagpur and original non-applicant no.2 - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. are the owner and insurer respectively of Truck No.MWY 6588, which was driven by Ramsagar. The original non-app...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Premavati Basu Naik and Others Vs. Confraria De Santiassimo Sacra ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Shirin Naik, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.1. None for the other respondents, though served. 2. By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment and order dated 03/07/2004 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Regular Civil Appeal No.48/2000 by which the appeal preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 09/03/2000 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.15/1974 by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vasco-da-Gama, has been dismissed. 3. The appellants and respondents no.2 and 3 are the legal representatives of Basu Dipu Naik against whom respondent no.1 filed the above suit seeking declaration that lease deed executed by the plaintiffs with said Basu Dipu Naik on 06/11/1966 had expired. The plaintiffs also claimed damages and mesne-profits. The suit was contested by said Basu Dipu Naik, who died during pendency of the suit. Thereafter, the legal ...
Tag this Judgment!iqbal Munnaf Sayyed Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Police, Wanavadi Divisio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
Oral Judgment: (S.S. Shinde, J.) This Writ Petition takes an exception to the order of externment dated 27th September, 2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-IV, Pune in Externment Case No.19 of 2011, which is confirmed by the Principal Secretary (Special), Home Department, Government of Maharashtra vide its order dated 10th April, 2012 passed in Appeal No.EXT-2012/14/Spl.3-(A). 2. The Respondent No.1 herein was pleased to issue notice under Bombay Police Act, 1951 to the Petitioner on 13th August, 2012. The Petitioner appeared before the Respondent No.1 and gave his reply. On 27th September, 2011, the Respondent No.2 herein was pleased to issue the impugned order of externment under the provisions of Bombay Police Act, 1951 against the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of externment, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Authority, which came to be dismissed on 10th April, 2012. Hence, this Writ Petition. 3. Though the number of grounds a...
Tag this Judgment!Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
The Petitioner, original-Claimant, being aggrieved by award dated 25th June 2009 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator has invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Arbitration Act"). 2. The basic events as per the Petitioner are as under :- On 4.8.2003, the Petitioner obtained from the Respondent's, a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy bearing No.250501/11/03/3100145 (the Policy) covering stocks of all kinds of yarn stored in the godown located at plot No.9 at Saroli, Gujarat. The period of Policy as stated across the face of the Policy document was 4.8.2003 to midnight of 3.8.2004. The sum insured was Rs.3 Crores. 3. On 22.9.2003, first endorsement as and by way of Duplicate Schedule bearing No.67308 was carried out to the Policy whereby an additional godown as specified was added to the Policy and the sum insured was also increased by Rs.3 Crores. The sum insured under the Policy stood increased to Rs.6 Crores. With this endorsement the s...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeshree PravIn Sonawane Vs. Arvind Kumar Fatehchand Manghiramalani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2012
P.C. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. By the impugned order the Trial Court allowed the respondent's application filed at Exh.No..No.18 in Spl. Civil Suit No.556 Of 2010 for rejection / exclusion of the counter claim made by the petitioner. 2. The respondent is the original plaintiff who has filed Spl.Civil Suit No.556 Of 2010 in the Court of the Civil Judge,(Sr.Division), Thane, Dist. Thane under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 for recovery of the possession of flat in question. In this suit, the present petitioner has filed Written-Statement containing the counter-claim. As stated above, the respondent objected the counter-claim by filing an application which came to be allowed and the petitioner was directed to amend his pleadings. 3. Scope of the suit filed U/Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 is very limited. The court is not required to go into the ownership or title of the suit property. The court is obliged to see only whether the plaintiff was forcibl...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansari and Others Vs. the State of Maharash ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
Oral Judgment: 1 The appellants are the accused in MCOC Special Case No.21 of 2006, pending before the Judge of the Special Court constituted under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'MCOC Act' for the sake of brevity). They are aggrieved by the order dated 1 August 2012 passed by the learned Trial Judge refusing to permit them to examine four witnesses in their defence. They have, therefore, approached this Court by filing an appeal as contemplated under section 12 of the MCOC Act, praying that the said order refusing to issue summonses to the said witnesses, be set aside and the appellants be allowed to lead defence evidence, as proposed by them. 2 The appellants are also aggrieved by two other orders passed by the learned Judge of the Special Court, and have filed separate appeals challenging the said orders also (Appeal No.973 of 2012 and 992 of 2012). Though the appeals were heard together, the questions needing determination in the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Sunita Sanjay Bhor and Another Vs. Mrs. Kalyani Abhijit Bobade an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
S.J. Vazifdar, J. The petitioners are partners. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) and its Director of Marketing and Senior Regional Manager respectively. The petitioners have sought an order to set aside the decision of HPCL to scrap a merit list dated 20th January, 2010, and to hold a fresh interview. The petitioners have also sought an order to set aside the statement of award of marks dated 7th December, 2010, by the selection committee of HPCL. 2. HPCL, by an advertisement dated 17th August, 2009, invited applications for the allotment of retail outlet dealership in the Satara District. Six applicants, including the petitioners and respondent No.1, filed applications for the same. The petitioners were invited for an interview. 3. The selection committee declared a provisional mark list on 20th January, 2010. As per the said mark list, the petitioners were selected as they received the maximum marks of 251.40 out of 300. Respondent No.1...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.Harshal Developers Pvt.Ltd. and Another Vs. Manohar Gopal Bavdekar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
1 Plaintiffs are shop purchasers. Defendant is property developers. Suit RCS No.1279 of 1992 was filed by the plaintiffs on the basis of an unregistered agreement for sale in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, seeking relief of specific performance and possession so also give direction to the respondent to perform all theWP10670 obligations under MOFA Act 1963 and direct the respondent to admit agreement of sale in the office of Registrar. Suit was decreed on 14.11.2006. Civil Appeal No.159 of 2009 filed by the respondent was dismissed on 15.11.2005. 2 The appellant is a defendant no.1 Promotor and developer who entered into an agreement of sale with respondents/plaintiffs on 31.8.1991 for sale of the shops in the building for total consideration of Rs.2,94,000/-. Out of which Rs.2,50,000/- was paid on the date of the execution. The agreement was entered into as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act 1963 (Hereinafter called as the said Act). The impugned agr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »