Mumbai Court September 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.
Pundalik Narayan Xet Pednekar, (Since Deceased) Represented by His Leg ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-15-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. The above Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiffs of Regular Civil Suit No. 397/88/Jr. 2. The plaintiffs had filed the said Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and/or any other persons acting on their behalf, from interfering in any manner with the suit access. 3. Case of the plaintiffs, in short, was as follows:- They are occupying a house as mundkars situated in the suit property bearing survey no. 229/25 of Calangute Village, for more than 50 years. The suit property is land locked and on the southern side of the same there is a property managed and looked after by the defendants, beyond which there exists a public road. The plaintiffs were always using an access having width of about 3 metres leading from the public road to the suit property, through this property of the defendants since the time they and their family members started occupying the house in the suit property. The said property of the defendants bears surve...
Thagendra Budhmagar Prisoner Vs. State (Through Public Prosecutor)
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-15-2012
Oral Judgment: By this appeal, the appellant/accused takes exception to the judgment and order dated 29.4.2009 passed by Special Judge, NDPS, Court, Mapusa in Special Criminal Case No.14/2008 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 a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months. The period of detention undergone by the accused during the investigation and trial, has been ordered to be set off in terms of Section 428 of Cr. P.C. 2. Briefly the prosecution case is as under;- On 5.2.2008 at about 4.00p.m, PW8, PI Suraj Halarnkar attached to Anti Narcotic Cell, Police Station at Panaji received specific information that one Nepali aged about 25 to 30 years would be coming to Caranzalem beach near Martin's B...
Glorio Fabiano Dias Vs. State of Goa, Through Public Prosecutor and An ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard, Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the applicant and Ms. Gomes, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no. 1. 2. Respondent no. 2 was given legal aid and Advocate Ms. C. Collasso was appointed to appear on her behalf. However, she sought leave to withdraw her appearance on behalf of respondent no. 2, on the ground that all the papers were collected by respondent no. 2 as she wanted to engage a private Advocate. Thereafter, no one appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2. Therefore, on 19-07-2012, notice was ordered to be issued to respondent no. 2, returnable on 23-08-2012. Respondent no. 2 was served, but she chose not to put appearance, as such I find no other alternative but to dispose of the revision application in the absence of respondent no. 2. 3. By this revision application, the applicant has challenged the judgment and order dated 07-01-2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-2, Panaji, allowing the revision application preferred by respondent no...
State of Goa Vs. Nishant Surlekar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Lawande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Mr. J. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 14/05/2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji in Criminal Case No.39/07/C by which the respondent/ accused has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of I.P.C. and Section 134(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3. Briefly, the prosecution case is as under: On 15/01/2006 at about 4.30 p.m. near Reshma General Stores at Neura, the accused, who was proceeding on scooter bearing no.GA01-Y 3981 from Pillar to Old Goa along with pillion rider Ms. Shama Parab, resident of Shiroda, drove the scooter in rash and negligent manner endangering the human life. When he reached at Piquen Neura, the accused lost control of his motorcycle on the speed breaker and the pillion rider was thrown off and dashed against the...
Nasir Ismail Mujavar Vs. Commissioner of Police and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
R.Y. Ganoo, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the Detention order, D.O. No.1/PCB/DP/Zone-X-2012 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai on 3rd February, 2012. By this order it was directed that the petitioner be detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (For short Act of 1981). Mr. C.D. Choudhari, under Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special) Mantralaya has filed affidavit dated 15th June, 2012 opposing the petition. Mr. Arup M. Patnaik, Commissioner of Police, respondent no.1 has filed affidavit opposing the petition. Additional affidavit is also filed by Mr. Patnaik being affidavit dated 17th August, 2012. 2. The Sponsoring Authority has based its recommendations for considering the case of the petitioner for detention on the basis of alleged involvement of the petitioner in the commission of an offence under Section 387 and 307 of ...
Vishal Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Vs. Damodar Rajeram Thakre
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
1. Heard rival submissions at length on the earlier date and also today on this criminal appeal preferred by the appellant-original complainant challenging the order of acquittal of the respondent in the matter of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the Act). 2. The impugned judgment and order dated 30/4/2009 was passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Special Court), Nagpur, thereby acquitting the respondent-accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act mainly holding that the accused proved that the concerned cheque (Exh.23) was not issued by him for any liability, and therefore, the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act is not attracted. 3. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, the case of the complainant in nutshell can be mentioned as under:- The complainant is society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and engaged in the business of advancing loan on cred...
Jsw Ispat Steel Limited Vs. Jeumont Electric and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
The plaintiff has filed the present suit for a declaration that there is no arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 including in relation to contract No.4600006177 dated 7th September 2006 as amended on 4th July 2007. The plaintiff has also taken out a notice of motion praying for an order of restraint restraining defendant No.1 from proceeding with or prosecuting the arbitration proceeding initiated by it before the International Chamber of Commerce vide letter dated 24th May 2012 on the basis of the aforesaid contract. The plaintiff had also moved this court for ex parte ad-interim relief. Vide order dated 3rd July 2012, I had granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a). The said order was carried in appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench, vide order dated 6th August 2012, has disposed of the appeal requesting this court to take up the notice of motion for hearing and to grant the opportunity of hearing to the appellant-defendant on th...
Zuari Agro Chemicals Limited Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax, Centr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. This Income Tax Reference arises out of RA Nos.1052 and 1053/Bom/1991 which, in turn, arise out of ITA Nos.5033 and 5034/B/1986, which were disposed of by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 9th January, 1991, and pertain to assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. 2.(A) The Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court, at the instance of the assessee under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: “Assessment year : 1981-82 1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the sum of Japanese Yen 2,973,750 paid to Toyo Engineering Corporation was chargeable to tax in India? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that the sum payable was “Industrial or Commercial Profits” within the meaning of the Article III of the DTAA between India and Japan and was, therefore, not liable to be taxed in India, the ...
M/S Polytronic Corporation and Others Vs. M/S Tukaram S. Loliencar and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri P. A. Kamat, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1(b). 2. Admit on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Margao could have decreed the suit when the respondent had not produced the accounts book to prove the payment of amount and establish the liability? (2) Whether the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Margao could have granted interest @ 20% per annum when the law provides existing rate of interest which could not have been more than 6% per annum? 3. Heard forthwith by consent of the learned Counsels. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1(b) waives service. 5. The above appeal challenges the judgment passed in Special Civil Suit No. 156/1999 dated 12.03.2001 whereby the suit filed by the respondents was decreed and the appellants were inter-alia directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,77,975/- with fur...
Nooria Y. Haveliwala Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. This Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the FRRO and Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch - II, CID, Mumbai, dated 13th October, 2011, in restriction order No. 09/DCP/SBII/FSC/2011, in exercise of powers conferred under Para 11(2) of the Foreigners Orders, 1948, against the Petitioner for not to move out of the limits of Gr. Mumbai District, till the completion of the trial pending against her, arising from C.R. No. 22/2010, registered with L. T. Marg Police Station, Mumbai, in connection with motor accident committed by the Petitioner, which resulted in death of PSI Shinde of the Traffic Division and motorcyclist Afzal Akbar and also injured four constables, while driving car, under influence of alcohol as well as drugs. 2) The Petitioner was arrested in connection with the said offence but, came to be released on bail, vide order dated 31st March, 2012, passed by the Additional Chie...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »