Mumbai Court May 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.
Madan Malji Kambli and Others Vs. State of Goa, Through Its Chief Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-07-2012
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule. The respondents waive service. Since all the affidavits are filed, pleadings are complete, with the consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2} This writ petition together with other petitions involve identical questions of fact and law, they were heard together and are, therefore, disposed off by this common judgment. 3} The State of Goa has initiated proceedings for Acquisition of the lands of the petitioners for the construction of the New International Airport at Mopa in Pernem Taluka. 4} The Notification and Declaration in that behalf was issued on 25th July 2008 and 28th July 2009, respectively, under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the L.A Act”) and under section 6 of the L.A Act. Both are impugned on various grounds to which we will advert a little later. 5} The petitioners claim to be owners/tenants of the properties indicated against their names/ the names of their ancestors i...
VipIn Nair and Another Vs. Gulam Mohammed Malik and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-2012
R.G. Ketkar, J. 1. This confirmation case as also the Criminal Appeal No.528 of 2008 arise out of the judgment and order dated 03.08.2011 passed by the Special Court (under the N.D.P.S.Act), Greater Mumbai, in N.D.P.S.Case No.60 of 2002. 2. By that order, the learned Sessions Judge found Gulam Mohammad Malik (hereinafter referred to as ‘Accused No.1’) guilty for having committed offence under section 8 (c) punishable under section 20(b) (ii) punishable under section 31- A of the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the ‘Act’) - for having been previously convicted for the offence punishable under section 8 (c) read with Section 20(b) vide Sessions Case No.01/2002 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha, Himmatnagar, Gujarat State. Consequently, the Special Court sentenced the Accused No.1 to death and ordered that he shall be hanged by neck till death. The execution of the sentence is subject to the confirmation of this Court. The Spe...
PravIn S/O Dattuji Divte and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and O ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-07-2012
Mrs. Sadhana S. Jadhav J. 1. The appellants herein are original accused nos. 1,3,5,6 and 7 in Sessions Case No.28/2008 decided by Sessions Judge, Yavatmal by a judgment and order dated 21.5.2011. Eight accused persons were facing the trial in Sessions Case No.28/2008. Original accused nos. 2,4 and 8 are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. The State has filed Criminal Appeal No.393/2011 challenging the acquittal of original accused nos.2,4 and 8. The accused/appellants are convicted for offences punishable under Section:- (a) 147 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 1 year. (b) 148 of Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer R.I. for 2 years. (c) 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer further R.I. for 1 year. 2. The original accused no.6 i.e. Pravin Dattuji Divte is convicted for offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC and sentenced to suffer...
Anand Tarachand Chindale and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-07-2012
Oral Judgment: [Mrs. Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.] 1. The appellants herein are challenging their conviction and sentence recorded by Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Trial No.23/2006 by a judgment and order dated 30.6.2009. The charge under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code was framed against those persons in Sessions Trial No.23/2006. The original accused nos. 4 to 6 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 149 of I.P.C. The original accused nos. 1 to 3 are acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 147 and 148 of I.P.C. The original accused Nos. 1 to 3 (the present appellants) are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each in default further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:- (a) Krushnarao Marotrao Likhar (PW2) runs a vegetable shop. He ...
Tainwala Personal Care Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Royal Sundaram Alliance ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. This application arises under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In pursuance of a proposal submitted by the Applicant for the issuance of a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy, the Respondent issued a risk cover note on 14 February 2008. The cover note stated that the policy document was under preparation and would be submitted in due course. The Respondent by a letter dated 18 February 2008, informed the Applicant that the consideration received for covering the risk was lower than the offer and consequently the Respondent was not in a position to cover the risk. The case of the Applicant is that the letter dated 18 February 2008 is antedated since in the meantime on 22 February 2008, a surveyor appointed by the Respondent had adverted to the fact that the Respondent had issued instructions to the surveyor on 20 February 2008. The Applicant has invoked the provisions of Section 11(6) and relied upon the Arbitration Clause contained in w...
Bnp Paribas Securities India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cable Corporation of India ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-2012
Oral Judgment : 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties at length. 2. By order dated 15th November, 2011 the parties were already put to the notice that the Petition will be disposed off finally at the stage of admission. Accordingly, I have heard the learned Advocates at length. 3. By this Petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the Petitioner has sought following interim measures : (a) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the arbitration proceedings and the making and implementation of the award therein, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order and injunction restraining the Respondent from in any manner selling and/or transferring and/or alienating and/or encumbering and /or parting with and/or disposing off [and/or disturbing the Petitioner's occupation and possession of ] the said Premises. (b) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the arbitration proceed...
Uttam Ganpat Ubale and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through th ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-05-2012
Oral Judgment: (Naresh H Patil, J.) 1) Heard. 2) Rule, made returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally. 3) These petitions raise identical issue in respect of payment of rental compensation and interest under Government Resolution dated 1st December 1972 and Government Resolution dated 2nd April 1979. In the group of 22 petitions, in Writ Petition No.21 of 2010 and Writ Petition No.6190 of 2010, the petitioners contend that their applications for claiming rental compensation and benefit under Government Resolution dated 1st December 1972 and Government Resolution dated 2nd April 1979 have been kept pending by the concerned Collectorate / Special Land Acquisition Officers. The learned Additional Government Pleader, Shri. K.B. Choudhari, on instructions of responsible officers, submits that possession of the subject land was taken after issuance of Section 4(1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act 1894, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for claiming rental compensati...
Abdul Arif Abdul Karim Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-05-2012
Oral Judgment: [Mrs. Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.] 1. The appellant herein stands convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in-default to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months and Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in-default to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months, by the Ad-hoc District Judge _ 3 and Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, in Sessions Trial No.69 of 2004, by his judgment and order dated 22.2.2007. 2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is as follows : “[a] On 26.2.2004, Ravikant s/o Sulabrao Dhoke, who was posted as P.S.I. at Nagpurigate Police Station, lodged a report contending therein that on 26.2.2004 at about 12.05 midnight, Farzana Parveen, resident of Jamir Colony, Amravati, was brought to the Police Station in an injured condition. She had sustai...
Mrs. Vanmala Manoharrao Kamdi and Others Vs. the Deputy Charity Commis ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-04-2012
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. All these matters are taken up for final disposal with consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties. 2. In these letters patent appeals and writ petitions, learned Counsel for both parties made their submissions on the questions, which we have framed in this judgment. 3. Advocate Shri Khapre appearing for the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No.368/2011 made the following submissions : (i) The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 was enacted to regulate and make better provisions for the administration of public religious and charitable Trusts in the State of Bombay. Various officers who are required to implement the provisions of the said B.P.T. Act, 1950, namely the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Deputy Charity Commissioner, Joint Charity Commissioner and Charity Commissioner are performing judicial functions or in respect of some provisions; the quasi-judicial functions. That is evident from the reading of several pr...
Raju Narayan Shirke Vs. State of Goa Through Public Prosecutor
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-04-2012
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Shri Mahesh Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri C. A. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Respondent-State. 2. The challenge in the above Appeal is to the conviction of the Appellant in Sessions Case no. 4/2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North Goa, at Panaji, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for which he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 3. It was the case of the prosecution/Respondents that the Appellant and the deceased were residing in a house at Piddukarwada, Jogiwada, IDC Road Bicholim and that there were frequent quarrels between the two over drinks relating to the use of a portion of the house by the accused who was admittedly married to the sister of the deceased. It is further their contention that the Appellant was doing his tailoring job in a portion of the house of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »