Mumbai Court November 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.
Mukund Vasudev Naik Vs. Deepak Shamsundar Naik and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-18-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Shirodkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Agni, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1/accused and Mrs. Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2. 2. This appeal takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 07/07/2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sattari at Valpoi in Criminal Case No. 61/OA/2010. 3. The appellant was the complainant, whereas respondent No. 1 was the accused in the said case. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which their names appear in the cause title of the said criminal case. 4. The complainant had filed the complaint against the accused for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (The Act, for short). 5. The case of the complainant, in short, was as follows: The accused is his relative and a Government employee and needed money and approached the complainant re...
Smt. Aldila Braganza Vs. Shri. Antonetto J. D'Souza and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-18-2013
1. Heard Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 and Mr. P. Phaldessai, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents no. 2 and 3. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the parties. 3. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs : (a) That the records and proceedings of the case no. MAM/BAR/MCA/4/07 before the Mamlatdar of Bardez and case no. MCA/AC-II/REV/02/2013 before the Additional Collector-II at Panaji be called for and upon perusing the same, this Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 28/03/2013 and 20/09/2013 passed therein. (b) That this Court be pleased to direct the Mamlatdar of Bardez to hear and dispose off the Petitioner's application under...
Sheshrao @ Vijay Bhikaji Salve Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through It ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. The petitioner had made an application for a licence to acquire, hold and possess a firearm, to the licensing authority i.e. Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad. This application was rejected by the said licensing authority by an order dated 19.07.2011. The petitioner filed an appeal as contemplated under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 challenging the said order, but the appellate authority dismissed the said appeal. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking its constitutional jurisdiction. 3. Amongst other things, it is contended that the licence came to be refused to the petitioner on the basis that two criminal cases were pending against him. It is submitted that these cases were already over and had resulted in the acquittal of the petitioner. On this, it is submitted that the order passed by the competent authority and the order passed by the appellate a...
Smita Ravindra Wagh Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Rural ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-16-2013
RavindraV. Ghuge, J. 1] Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is heard finally. 2] The petition pertains to the petitioner's claim for inclusion of her name in the voters list for the purpose of Elections of Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti, District Dhule. 3] Present writ petition and few more petitions espousing similar cause were heard on 13.11.2013 till 6.00 p.m. However, thereafter, the judgment was reserved. 4] Today, We have taken up this writ petition to deliver our judgment, first in sequence and taking the case on supplementary board at 2.30 p.m. since the last date fixed for nomination of candidates for elections of Dhule Zilla Parishad is 16.11.2013 and 15.11.2013 was declared as holiday and the declaration reached us only after court rose. 5] The petitioner claims that:- [a] She is a resident of Sindkheda. [b] She has applied for inclusion of her name in the voters list on 31st August, 2013. [c] As per the programme regulating elections de...
Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. Formerly M/S Ashoka Info Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of M ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-16-2013
Oral Judgment: 1] This Arbitration Appeal is arising out of the order, dated 25.7.2013, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar, in Arbitration Application No. 1 of 2013. Along with the Arbitration Appeal, the appellant has also filed Civil Application for grant of interim relief during the pendency of the appeal. 2] The facts leading for filing application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the said Act' for short), as summarized by the District Court, are as follows :- (2) The Executive Engineer, Public Works Division, Ahmednagar wanted to construct improvements to Ahmednagar-Karmala Road, S.H. No. 141 Km. 0/0 to 80/600 Ahmednagar to District Border under Building, Operate and Transfer (in short BOT) Scheme (with toll rights). The scope of the work includes (1) improvements to Ahmednagar-Karmala Road as aforesaid under BOT Scheme under toll rights and (2) maintenance and renewal of the road upto end of conces...
Smt. Anusayabai Khanderao Sure Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent. 2 The Petitioner is the widow of a freedom fighter by the name Khanderao Sure. The case made out in the petition is that the petitioner's husband actively participated in the Bharatnagar Satyagraha in the 1939 in old Hyderabad State and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 11 months under Sections 122 and 164 of the Taziral by Nazim Sahib Adalth, Patihan on 7th May 1939. The certificate of imprisonment annexed to the petition shows that the petitioner's husband was detained in the Aurangabad Central Prison from 8th May 1939 and was released on 10th August 1939 on the basis of an order of the Government. Prayers were made initially by the petitioner's husband and thereafter by the petitioner for grant of pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (for short the said scheme). On 15th June 2001, an order was passed holding that the petitioner's hus...
Kantilal Mangilal Kothari and Others Vs. Bhujang Bapurao Phukey and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-13-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. When appellants no. 1, 4 and wife of appellant no. 1 Shobha were standing by the side of their Luna bearing No. MGT 9046, ambassador car bearing No. MZV 1861 driven by respondent no. 1; owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 dashed against it from back side. All the three received injuries. Shobha who suffered serious injuries, was shifted to General Hospital, Amravati where she died. According to claimants, Shobha (aged about 35 years) was sel-femployed and was engaged in tailoring work. She used to earn Rs. 1500-2000 per month from that work. Appellants claimed Rs. 3 lacs as compensation on various counts. 3. Learned Member of the Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence led on record and hearing the parties, awarded compensation of Rs. 90,000/- inclusive of interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till realization of the award amount. 4. According to the c...
Rajesh Chandmal Varma Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-13-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. The petitioner filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon alleging commission of various cognizable offences by the respondent nos.2 and 3 herein and praying that, the police be ordered to investigate into the matter as contemplated under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate, on 25.9.2012, passed an order on the said application to the effect that, he needed some clarification from the mouth of the complaint on the point of the alleged offences. He, therefore, directed the complainant to adduce his evidence at the pre-cognizance stage. Pursuant to this order, the applicant was examined by the Magistrate on oath. Thereafter, the Magistrate passed an order purportedly under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the police to investigate into the matter. The respondent nos.2 and 3 challenged the said order by f...
Vijay Lalso Jadhav and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Speci ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-2013
Revati Mohite Dere, J. 1. By these writ petitions, the petitioners take exception to the order dated 4th September, 2013 passed by the Secretary (Special), Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, in appeal No. EXT- 2013/109/SPL-3(B) confirming the order of externment, dated 25th July, 2013 passed by the Competent Authority i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Satara, externing the petitioners from Satara District for a period of one year, under Section 55 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. Both these petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the parties. Hence, rule made returnable forthwith. 3. We have heard Shri Lokhande, learned Counsel for the petitioners in both the aforesaid petitions and Ms. A. S. Pai, learned A.P.P. for the State. 4. The principal ground which is urged before us, by the petitioners for seeking quashing and setting-aside of the impugned orders dated 4th September, 2013 passed by the Secretary (Special), Home Department, Government of ...
Marathwada Rakh Upyogit Udyojak Sahakari Audhyogik Sansthan Vs. State ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-13-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.H. Joshi, J.) 1. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard both sides. 2. Petitioners claim is as follows:- (a) Petitioner is a Co-operative Society. (b) It is a society formed by Small Scale Industries using fly ash as the raw material. (c) It had entered into a consortium arrangement with private enterprises and had offered bid for said consortium for purchase of fly ash from respondent No.2 at Parali Vaijnath. (d) In all 3 bidders had become successful in qualification for consideration of price bid. (e) The price bid of respondent No.9 was highest. (f) As per the provisions contained in the tender document, respondent No.2 called upon other 2 qualified participants having their bid low in value, including the petitioner, to express willingness, to match the price bid with that of the highest bidder i.e. the bid of the Respondent No.9. (g) Petitioner concurred to offer the same price. (h) The respondent No.2 prepared and submitted an office note and submitted it ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »