Mumbai Court December 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.
Rajendra Kumar S/O. Shrem Kumar Vs. the State of Goa
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
By this appeal, the appellant (hereinafter, referred to as the accused) takes exception to the judgment and order dated 22nd December, 2008, passed by the Special Judge, at Mapusa in Special Criminal Case No. 1/2008, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the Act for short) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and in default, to undergo further imprisonment for one year. The accused has been granted set off in respect of the period of detention in terms of Section 428 Cr.P.C. 2. The appellant was accused No.2 in Special Criminal Case No. 1/2008 filed against two accused pursuant to a raid conducted by PW.7 Punaji Gawas, attached to the ANC Police Station, Panaji on the basis of a specific and reliable information received on 23.10.2007 that one lady and one man would be coming near Dipti's Bar and Restau...
Kailash S/O. Dhanraj Batra Vs. Amol Alias Jolly S/O. Shrichand Kungwan ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-07-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard. 2. ADMIT. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. The applicant is complainant in Criminal Case No.12844 of 2009 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class. Applicant's grievance is that his application for issuance of summons to certain witnesses was rejected by impugned order dated 12th July, 2011. It is submitted by Mr. Dani that the evidence of Postman and Bank Officer is vital to the case of the complainant. It is further submitted that Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives wide powers to the trial Court to examine the witness present in the Court as well as to call or recall the witness. It is further submitted by Mr. Dani that once the Court comes to conclusion that the evidence of a particular witness is necessary for just and proper decision of the case, it is obligatory on the part of the Court to call such a witness. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Mehta has appeared on behalf of respondent/ original accused. Mr. Mehta, on the other hand, has submitted...
Mrs. Prajakta Mahesh Joshi and Another Vs. Mrs. Rekha Uday Prabhu and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard finally by consent. 2 The Petitioners have invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act) and thereby challenged an exparte award. The operative part of Award dated 14 August 2010 is as under: (i) I hereby direct and award that the Opponent Nos. 1, 2 be held responsible and accountable for specific breach of their terms of contract along with Op. No.3/RMNA Hills CHS Ltd for its contributory role herein above, hence, are jointly and severally liable and accountable to arrange and to execute a SALE DEED and convey the contracted Flat consisting of 2BHK-admeasuring 1050 SQFT at RNA Hills CHS Ltd., Opp. Satya Darshan, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 069, if possible Flat no. A-102 or its substitute, main road, facing corner flat on the 1st floor within its complex, on collection of sum of Rs. 38,00,000 (Thirty eight lakhs) from the Disputants, within 30 days hereof. [It is to be expressly noted by all concerned that the corres...
Suresh Bira Kolekar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
A.R. Joshi, J. 1. Heard rival submissions on this Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant/orig.accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 15th October, 2003 passed by the Ist Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad Alibag in Sessions Case No.210 of 2002. By the said judgment and order, the appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/, in default to suffer RI for one year. 2. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as under : The marriage between the deceased Sonali and appellant/accused Suresh Kumar was performed on or about 2nd December, 1999. Whereas the incident of burning the victim Sonali occurred on 6.8.2002. Sonali died of 99% burn injuries while taking treatment at Government Hospital on 10.8.2002. According to the case of prosecution, at the time of marriage appellant/accused had no job and it was decided that parents of th...
Raju @ Rajan Kartaiya Harijan Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
A.R. Joshi, J. 1. Heard rival submissions on this Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant/orig.accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 21st October, 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No.432 of 2002. By the impugned judgment and order the appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/, in default to suffer SI for six months. Appellant/accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 37 read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as under: Victim Muttayya was residing in Dharavi area along with his family members including his eldest daughter by name Chandrika, his son then aged about 13 years one Prabhu Muttayya (PW1) and another daughter Lalita and his wife. Appellant/accused Raju @ Rajan Harijan was residing in the same locality of Dharav...
Babuji Chandrarao Yedla Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
A.R. Joshi, J. 1. Heard rival arguments on this Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant/orig. accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 16.12.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.460 of 2002. 2. The appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to suffer RI for three months. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500, in default to suffer further RI for three months. 3. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as under: Complainant Deepak Patil was a contractor who had taken the contract of cutting grass in various units of Aarey Colony area of Mumbai. He had employed ten labourers for cutting of grass. It was Government awarded contract. The labourers wer...
Manish Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
R.Y. Ganoo, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel on both sides. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, by consent. 3. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.U. Kamdar waives service on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. E.P. Bharucha, learned Senior Counsel waives service on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5. By consent, petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 4. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging following orders:- (a) Order dated 6th October, 2010 passed by Deputy Chief Engineer (Building and Proposal) City Department vide EB/4570/GS/A. (b) Order passed by respondent no.1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (For short said Corporation) bearing No. AC/Estate/26537/Makta-3/25 dated 25th March, 2011. (c) Resolution No.29, dated 4th May, 2011 passed by Improvement Committee, which Resolution has been confirmed by the Corporation by Resolution No.113 dated 30th May, 2001. (d) NOC granted by respondent no.3 in favour of respondent nos.4 and 5 by letter bearing No.AC/7...
Dai-ichi Karkaria Limited and Another Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Both parties have filed petitions under section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and seek to challenge the impugned award dated 25th September, 2006. Arbitration Petition No. 102 of 2007 has been filed by M/s. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ONGC). Arbitration Petition No. 488 of 2006 has been filed by M/s. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Contractor). Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these petitions are as under: 2. On 23rd April, 1985 ONGC floated tenders for supply of 9,500 MT of Pour Point Depressant/Flow Improver. The tender submitted by the contractor was found favourable. On 9/12th September, 1986 the contractor placed supply order No. C-1438 BandA for supply of total 3500 MT of PPD by supplying its product Diatrolate MNF 1206. On or about 29th January, 1987 the contractor completed the entire supply of PPD namely 1500 MT in total eight lots. The samples from the first two lots were test...
Yashomandir Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit Vs. Ashok Raj Enterprises and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
Matter was called out in first half and as nobody appeared for respondents, it was passed over. It is called out again. 2. Challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India is to the judgment and order dated 20th February, 1998 passed by Cooperative Appellate Court Bombay in Appeal No.466/1997 remanding matter back to Co-operative Court to work out the exact liability of respondent no.1 borrower. Respondents 2 and 3 are his Guarantors. 3. Learned Counsel for petitioner has invited attention to the dispute under Section 91 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act as filed by the petitioner Credit Co-operative Society for recovery of amount of Rs. 1,30,212.85 due on 31st December, 1990. Attention is also invited to the judgment of Co-operative Court dated 11th November, 1993 wherein it is recorded that respondent no.1 remained present, accepted liability, did not dispute quantum and sought installment. Accordingly, Co-operative Court permitted petitione...
itc Limited Vs. Canara Bank and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
R.Y. Ganoo, J. 1. Rule. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Pradeep Sancheti waives service on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 6. Presence of respondent nos.7, 8 and 9 is not necessary to hear and dispose of this petition finally. 3. By consent, petition is taken up for final hearing. 4. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 18.3.2010 in Misc. Civil Application No.142 of 2009 passed by the Special Court constituted under the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to The Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (For short Special Court) be quashed and set aside. In terms of prayer clause (b) it is prayed that order dated 10.10.2005 passed by the Special Court constituted under the Special Court in Chamber Summons No.2 of 2005 and Order dated 26.6.2006 passed by the very Special Court in Chamber Summons No.6 of 2006 in Suit No.5 of 2002 be set aside. 5. Few facts necessary for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are as under: T...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »