Mumbai Court January 2013 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.
Vijay and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. Perused. 2. Issuance of witness summons to Mahalasa, daughter of petitioner No.2 - accused Gangubai in Sessions Case No.8/2001, conducted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga is questioned in the present petition. 3. The petitioners are the accused in the aforesaid case. Charges under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were framed against the petitioners in the said case. Witnesses were examined and the petitioners/ accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Before the arguments could be opened, an application (Exh. 71) was moved by the complainant P.W.3 Shivmurti Pethkar for issuance of witness summons to Mahalasa, daughter of the petitioner No.2. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court invoked the provisions under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on being satisfied that the examination of the said witness was necessary and consequently allowed the said appli...
Devendra and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of the parties. 2. By this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicants against whom the First Information Report has been lodged by the non-applicant no.2 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A 506 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, seek quashing of the First Information Report on the ground that the parties have settled the dispute amongst themselves. The applicant no.1 is the husband of the respondent no.2 and the applicant nos.3 to 5 are close relatives of the applicant no.1. The applicants are present in the Court and have been identified by Advocate Mr. Thakur and the respondent no.2 has been identified by Mr. Bobde Advocate. 3. The applicants and the respondents have filed individual affidavits, inter alia, mentioning that they want to settle the dispute amongst themselves and that the applicant no.1 and the respon...
M/S. Dhanera Diamonds Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member This consumer complaint refers to alleged deficiency in service on the part of opponent United India Insurance Co.Ltd. (Insurance Co. in short) in repudiating the insurance claim pertaining to theft of diamonds. 2. It is the case of complainants that since from the year 1999 they are taking Jewellers Block Insurance policy to obtain the insurance cover for their stock, etc. Each year said policy was renewed and the last policy which covers the event was valid for the period 00.00 hrs. on 10/04/2003 to midnight of 09/04/2004. On 05/11/2003 against the two receipts 254.15 carats diamonds were entrusted to broker Mr.Chandrakant V. Shah through his son Mr.Anand Chandrakant Shah for being shown to the prospective customers. Those diamonds were issued against the Jangad receipts. Said broker delivered those diamonds to London Star Diamond Company (India) Ltd. (referred as second broker) since they had come to know that some foreign party was visiting ...
Frontier Cycle Industries Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
PC : 1. The Petitioner has challenged an order of the Settlement Commission dated 24 March 2011 under section 127 C(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 directing the Petitioner to pay interest in terms of the provisions of Section 28 AB of the Act on the full amount of the duty in the case. 2. The Petitioner had initially filed an application before the Settlement Commission even before the issuance of a notice to show cause which was rejected on 9 January 2007 precisely for that reason. The Petitioner moved a second application for settlement on 29 May 2007 which was rejected on 9 October 2007. A notice to show cause was issued to the Petitioner on 24 January 2008 for the recovery of duty in the amount of Rs.93.75 lakhs upon which the Petitioner then moved the Settlement Commission with a valid application. By its order dated 27 April 2009, the Settlement Commission directed payment of duty of Rs.93.75 lakhs and granted immunity from penalty in excess of Rs.3.00 lakhs and from prosecution. A ...
M/S. Motichand and Company and Others Vs. Life Insurance Corporation o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2) Both these Appeals are directed against the selfsame impugned decision of the Learned Single Judge, confirming the order of eviction and recovery of damages, passed by the Estate Officer, under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1971). 3) Letters Patent Appeal No. 11 of 2013 has been filed by the Original Opponent Nos. 1 (a proprietary concern), 2, 3 and 7 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 12 of 2013 has been filed by the Original Opponent No. 5. The issues raised in both these Appeals are overlapping, therefore, we propose to dispose of these Appeals together, by this common order. 4) The Estate Officer, in exercise of enabling provisions in the Act of 1971, initiated action of eviction, against Opponent Nos. 1 to 7 on the ground that Opponent No. 1, who was the lessee in respect of the premises, which are admittedly public premises, unlawfully sub...
Santosh Jaywant Takawane Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
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 11.6.2004 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, District Pune. The impugned judgment and order was passed in Sessions Case No.25 of 2003 and present appellant/sole 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 to suffer RI for two months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as under: The complainant Vithabai is resident of village Pargaon, Taluka Daund, District Pune. She has three sons, namely, Shantaram, Chandrakant and Kailash. All her sons were residing separately with their respective families, but they were residing in the neighbourhood of the complainant. The family of the complainant owned an agricultural land known as Satpatti land situate at a distance of about 3 km from...
M/S.Madhav Structural Engineering Ltd. Vs. the Maharashtra State Road ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
By this review petition, the petitioner seeks that the order and judgment dated 18th July, 2008 passed by this court rejecting appeal filed by the petitioner under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 be recalled. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding review petition are as under:- 2. The petitioner was awarded a contract by the respondents on 26th June, 2001 for a project Improvement to Existing Katraj-Kondhwa-Hadapsar-Saswad Road of length 3.675 kilometers. Disputes arose between the parties. The matter was referred to the arbitration. 3. On 8th November, 2004 the learned arbitrator dismissed the claims made by the petitioner. On 4th October, 2007, the District Court dismissed the petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the petitioner. On 18th July, 2008 this court dismissed Arbitration Appeal No. 5 of 2008 filed by the petitioner under section 37 of the Act. The Supreme Court thereafter dismissed the Speci...
Vachaspati Sharma Vs. India Cements Capital and Finance Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
Oral Judgment: The Petitioner-original claimant has challenged the impugned award dated 16 June 2011 passed by the Arbitrator, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act). 2 The basic lease agreements of January 2000 and 25 March 2000 were for a trailer and tanker. The relevant clauses of the agreements are as under:- Arbitration 33. All disputes, differences, claims and questions, which may arise during the subsistence of this Agreement between the Lessor and the Lessee touching any matter covered by this Agreement shall be referred to the arbitration of two Arbitrators one to be appointed by each party to the dispute in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940. Jurisdiction 34. Subject to the provisions of Clause-33 above, as a part of cause of action arises in Chennai it is agreed between the parties that in respect of any suit touching any matter, claims or disputes arising out of or in any relating to this Agreeme...
Tulashiram Nivarutthi Shendage and Others Vs. Taluka Legal Services Au ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) Rule. Learned AGP appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 waives service. Respondent No.1 is the Taluka Legal Services Authority. The Respondent No.6 is the learned Judge before whom the Reference Applications were pending. The Respondent No.1 and 6 are formal parties and notice to them is not necessary. Considering the controversy involved, the petitions are forthwith taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioners are the claimants in the Reference Applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). Notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act was published on 7th October, 1999. The acquisition was for construction of Ujani Canal. Awards under Section 11 of the said Act were made on 28th February, 2003. Market value offered by the said awards was at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per Hectare. As the petitioners did not accept the awards, at their instance, References under Section 18 of the said Act we...
Santosh Padu Sinare Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
NareshH. Patil, J. 1] Heard. 2] The appellant / accused was convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under section 302, 363 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment and order dated 13.1.2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Raigad at Alibag in Sessions Case No. 149 of 2003. He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for offence punishable under section 302 and for other offences three years and fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer S.I. for 15 days. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3] The prosecution case in brief is that the accused was residing adjacent to the house of the complainant. The said house consisted of two rooms. Accused was staying alone in the said house. He was a mason. Complainant P.W. 2 Suresh Harischandra Tokare is also a mason. They were knowing each other very well. At times both of them used to go together for doing labour work. Sankrant day fell on 14th January 2003. The prosecution case is that on the said day Sneha daughte...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »