Court : Mumbai
P.C. Heard finally. Criminal application no.1187 of 2011 is moved by the accused nos.1 and 4-applicants challenging order of process confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 5th October, 2011. Writ petition no.983 of 2012 is moved by the original complainant questioning quashing of process against respondent nos.2 and 3 (original accused nos.2 and 3). 2. The parties are referred as complainant and accused. On the complaint of Mahabal Realty Pvt.Ltd. under Section 138 read with 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the learned Judge issued process after recording verification on 17th December,2008. 3. The complaint proceeds on the accusation that in discharge of legally enforceable liability in respect of financial assistance rendered by the complainant to the accused no.1 from time to time, a cheque of Rs.10 crores was issued. An agreement was entered into between the parties. The complainant used to send statement of accounts in respect of loan transaction (financial ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
A.R. Joshi, J. 1. Heard rival arguments at length on earlier dates on the present Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellants/orig.accused Nos.1,3 and 4 challenging the judgment and order dated 30.4.2007 passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-3, Nashik in Sessions Case No.156 of 2006. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 304B and 498A read with Section 34 of IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, they were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to suffer RI for two months each. For the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC, they were sentenced to suffer RI for seven years each. For the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC, they were sentenced to suffer RI for three years each and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to suffer RI for two months each. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. By the said ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. The Plaintiff has filed the above three Summary Suits for recovery of sums of (i) Rs. 597,98,37,329/-, (ii) Rs. 406,47,26,027/- and (iii) Rs. 597,98,37,329/- with interest thereon at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the suits until payment and/or realisation. In the above three Summary Suits, the Plaintiff has taken out the above three Summonses for Judgment praying that judgment be entered for the Plaintiff in the above suits against the Defendants for the sums set out hereinabove along with interest. 2. All the above three Summonses for Judgment are taken up for hearing and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The facts in the matter are briefly set out hereunder: 4. By a Media Rights License Agreement dated 15th October 2009 (the said Agreement), entered into between the PlaintiffThe Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and one Nimbus Communications Limited (Nimbus), BCCI granted Nimbus license of certain rights in respect of cricket matches...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard Ms. Mathkar for the applicant, Mr. Pangam for respondent No.1 and Mr. adkarni, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this application, the applicant seeks cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.1 by the Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji by order dated 23rd August, 2012. The applicant has also sought further relief to the extent of holding an inquiry against the learned Sessions Judge for not disposing of the matter expeditiously. 4. Since the issue regarding delay in disposal of the anticipatory bail was raised in the application, we deemed it appropriate to take up the matter although the application seeking only cancellation of bail or anticipatory bail would lie before learned Single Judge in terms of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules. Moreover, learned Single Judge before whom the matter was placed, ordered that the same be placed before Division Bench. Even Mr. Pangam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
A.P. Lavande, J. Heard Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General for respondents no.1, 4, 7 and 8. None appears on behalf of the other respondents. 2. By this petition, the petitioner had sought the following reliefs : (a) a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India commanding respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 to give adequate protection to the petitioner, his caretakers, property Boroda Molios and the buildings situate within the compound, namely the house, chapel, residence meant for the priest, outhouses, garages, etc. and the fish pond in the property Hortabhat/ Batio next to Boroda Molios by Police other than Bicholim Police. (b) an order directing the CBI to investigate into the offences complained of by the petitioner in various complaints lodged by the petitioner to the Goa Police and referred to in the petition. (c) for an order dir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: Heard Ms. Asha Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents waives service. 4. The above petition challenges the conditions imposed by the respondent no.2 while disposing of the application for furlough on 10.09.2012 whereby in condition no.1 of the said order, the applicant has been directed to furnish a personal bond in Form II for Rs.1,00,000/- and produce one surety in like amount. 5. It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the applicant is not in a position to furnish such security. The learned Counsel points out in the facts and circumstances of the case that the security amount be accordingly reduced. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents points out that the inves...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
A.R. Joshi, J. 1. Heard rival submissions on this criminal appeal preferred by the appellant-accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 31.3.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2003. 2. By the said impugned judgment and order the appellant-accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC for committing murder of both the victims, one Pandurang Vithoba Hirave and one Manubai Pandurang Hirave and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer further RI for three years. It appears that the trial Court convicted the appellant-accused and awarded sentence of life imprisonment and fine for each offence of murder. However, the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution, in nut shell, is as under:- Deceased Pandurang and deceased Manubai were husband and wife and were residing at Limbachiwadi, taluka Kha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (A.R. Joshi, J.) 1. Heard rival arguments on this criminal Appeal preferred by the Appellant-Accused challenging the Judgment and order of conviction dated 10th May, 2005, passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No.244 of 2004. 2. By the impugned Judgment and order, the Appellant-Accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/in default to suffer further R.I. for thirty days. 3. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as under : The Appellant-Accused and his wife victim Barkabai were residing at village Kambagaon, Taluka Bhiwandi, District Thane. They were residing in a hut like structure having two rooms. Both were addicted to consume liquor and there were frequent quarrels between them on various counts. At times they used to go to the village Police Patil one Arun Gaikar P.W.1 for consultation etc. The incident o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dessai, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. By this Second Appeal, the appellant takes exception to judgment and decree dated 23/06/2004 passed by Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Regular Civil Appeal No.156/2003 by which the appeal preferred by the respondent against the judgment and decree dated 02/12/2003 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao in Regular Civil Suit No.140/2001/C has been reversed. 3. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff. 4. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 5. The original plaintiff filed the above suit for eviction of the defendant from the shop existing in the property 'Rimtolembata' situated at Acquem Alto, on the ground floor which according to the plaintiff, was given on leave and licence basis to the defendant in terms of agreement styled as Leave and Licence agreement...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: Heard finally. 2. The Petitioner has invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Petitioner challenges Award dated 3rd May, 2010 passed by the sole Arbitrator at Calcutta; because as per the agreement as well as the rules, byelaws and regulations of National Stock Exchange of India Limited Rules, the parties agreed to have their place of arbitration at Calcutta. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has raised a preliminary objection that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain section 34 petition in view of the rules. 4. There is an agreement between trade member broker and sub-broker. There is a separate tripartite agreement also between trade member broker/stock-broker, sub-broker and client. Xerox copies of which are on record. There is no denial to the binding agreements where the jurisdiction of courts with regard to the all trades, transactions and contracts is subject to the clauses 60 and 61 which read as under : 60. J...
Tag this Judgment!