Court : Mumbai
S.J. Vazifdar, J. The petitioners have challenged orders dated 26th May, 1997 and 8th October, 1997, passed by the DRT and DRAT respectively. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are the DRT and DRAT and the ICICI Bank Limited. 2. The DRT held that respondent No.4 was entitled to realise a sum of Rs.12,61,977.14 with costs from the petitioners. Mr. Bulchandani admitted that there was a typographical error in Exhibit-M to the petition, which is the order of the DRT. The error is in the operative part of the order. He produced a copy of the original order wherein the operative part of the order reads as under : "ORDER Plaintiff Bank is entitle to recover a sum of Rs.12,61,977.14 with cost of the suit from defendant No.2 to 6 Plaintiff Bank is also entitle to get interest @ 16-1/2 % per annum to be calculated quarterly from 28/1/88, to its realisation. Plaintiff Bank is not entitle to get any decree against defendant No.1." 3. The petitioners were the directors of a company M/s. Amrit Biscuits Priva...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment : Heard Mr. A. R. Kantak along with Ms. Rajas Kantak, learned Advocates appearing for the appellant and Mr. I. Agha, learned Central Government Sanding Counsel appearing for the respondent no.4. None for the other respondents though served. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2007 in Civil Suit No. 138/2004 passed by the learned Ad-Hoc District Judge (2), FTC-II, South Goa, Margao, whereby the counter claim filed by the respondent no.4 was partly decreed and appellant were directed to shift/remove the temporary sheds situated in survey no.58/11 of Village Collem, which are situated within 30 metres of the Railway Land within two months or within the period further extended by the Railway Department unless the appellant obtains the permission from the Railway Department to construct/maintain the said sheds within 30 metres of the said land. The suit came to be filed by the appellant for permanent and mandatory injunction on the ground that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
The confirmation case and all the above criminal appeals are being disposed of by common judgment, since they arise out of the Judgment and Order dated 8.6.2007, passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao in Sessions Case No. 15/2005, convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 302, 201 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and sentencing them as below :Accused No.Name of the accusedSentences imposed on the accused1.Ryan FernandesDeath penalty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, and if recovered, the same shall be paid to PW.54 Sarika and PW.57 Jaimini and other daughter as compensation in accordance with Section 357, Cr.P.C.;Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo 15 days Simple Imprisonment, for the offence punishable under Section 365 of IPC; Death penalty for the offence under Section 120 B, IPC and to pay a fine...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: 1. The Petitioners have challenged award dated 6 May 2011 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act). 2. Petitioner No.1 is a partnership firm, Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners of the firm. Respondent No.4 is a guarantor. (The borrower). All of them have challenged even the validity, including the existence of Loan-Cum-Hypothecation Agreement dated 7 June 2007 (for short, the loan agreement), deed of guarantee for the vehicle/equipment and all actions arising out of the same. The Respondent/claimant (the financer) has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration Act for protective and injunctive reliefs. 3. The Vehicles/Equipments which have been in their possession since 2007, stated to have been purchased by them by their own funds. The submission is made on behalf of Respondent No. 4 that there exists no loan and Arbitration agreement and therefore there was no question of passing award against him. This was also on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. 2] By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are praying for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records and proceedings of the case culminating in the eviction order of the appellate authority dated 31st January 2007 and to quash and set aside the (I) Notice of Termination dated 10th/14th February 1995, (ii) the Notice of Eviction dated 19th April 1999 (iii) Order of 2nd respondent and (iv) the order of appellate authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, dated 31st January 2007 in Misc.Appeal No.261 of 2001. 3] The proceedings are under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. (for short PPE Act). The petitioner states that it was a Government Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and continued to be so till the eviction ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: 1. The Judgment Debtor has taken out this Notice of Motion for the following reliefs: (a) that it be declared that Insolvency Notice No. N/28 of 2011 dated 1st November, 2011, which was served on the Judgment Debtor on 2nd November, 2011 is patently illegal, without jurisdiction and null and void ab initio; (b) that Insolvency Notice No. N/28 of 2011 dated 1st November, 2011 be annulled and/or set aside; (c) that pending the hearing and final disposal of this Notice of Motion, Insolvency Notice No. N/28 of 2011 and all proceedings and/or actions and/or steps pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof or based/premised thereon be stayed; 2. The relevant events/ background in this case is as under: That on 05.10.2009, two Claim Forms [No. 2009 Folios 1304 and 1305 (the foreign proceedings)] were issued out of the Commercial Court in London (the foreign court), on separate actions brought by the Judgment Creditor (Abraaj) against one Bregawn Jersey Limited (Bregawn), a Chan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
A.R. Joshi, J. 1. Heard rival submissions on both the appeals which are respectively preferred by original accused No.1 and original accused No.2 challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 27th February, 2004 passed by III Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No.87 of 2003. Both the accused were convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and they were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- respectively, in default to undergo further sentence for six months each. 2. Initially Criminal Appeal No.1378 of 2004 was preferred by orig.accused No.1. When the said appeal was taken up for final hearing before this Bench and when it was partly heard, it was revealed that original accused No.2 who is in jail custody has also preferred separate appeal challenging the same judgment and order. She preferred appeal along with application for condonation of delay as her appeal was belated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Order: Heard Shri J.J. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri A. Nachinolkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and Ms. M. Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. 3. The above petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeks to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 31/07/2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, South Goa, Margao in Criminal Revision Application No.77/2011 and the order dated 20/09/2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vasco in Maintenance Application No.4/2010/C. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent no.1 claiming to be the son of the petitioner filed proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The fact that the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri S. Shet, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Mahesh Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent, waives service. 3. The above Petition challenges an Order dated 02.07.2012 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., at Pernem, in Criminal Case No.76/S/2010, whereby an application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., came to dismissed. 4. It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that on account of inadvertence of the Advocate, who was appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, some contradictions which had to be put to two witnesses namely Pw.2, Usha Gadekar and Pw.5, Dattaram Raut, were not put to such witnesses. Learned Counsel further pointed out that without putting such contradictions, the case of the Petitioners would be gravely jeopardised. Learned Counsel further pointed out that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: Heard both sides. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. Aggrieved by rejection of application for permission to carry further investigation in the crime under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the State has preferred present Criminal Revision Application. 3. In sum and substance, the allegations in Sessions Case No.107 of 2008 pending on the file of Addl. Sessions Judge, Parbhani are that the present respondents - accused had cheated the son of complainant by issuing bogus appointment order due to which, son of complainant has committed suicide. 4. Initially, charge sheet was submitted only for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution, upon committal of the case, filed application for addition of charge for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code i.e. for cheating by taking amount of Rs.One lac for giving service to the son of complaina...
Tag this Judgment!