Mumbai Court December 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.
Santana Antonio Eugenio Presently in Central Jail Vs. State of Goa, Th ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-18-2013
F.M. Reis, J. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment dated 04.08.2012 passed in Sessions Case no.8 of 2010, whereby the appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- or in default further one year rigorous imprisonment. 2. The appellant was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that on 09.11.2009 at about 19.45 hours, at house no.39, Torsawado, Nagoa, Verna, that the appellant had committed murder of Smt. Faustine Rebello. The learned Sessions Judge examined on behalf of the prosecution/respondents herein 20 witnesses including the Investigating Officer. After recording the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr. P.C., the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned Judgment came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case by clinching and reliable evidence. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and the sentence imposed up...
Shantiniketan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Shivkant and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-18-2013
Oral Judgment:- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties both the Writ Petitions are heard finally. 2] Writ Petition No.5826 of 2011 is filed challenging the judgment and order, dated 27.12.2008, passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Latur in Appeal No.7 of 2008 and the judgment and order, dated 14.1.2011, passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Latur in Revision Petition No.13 of 2009; whereas Writ Petition No.5819 of 2011 is filed challenging the judgment and order, dated 30.12.2008, passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Latur in Appeal No.6 of 2008 and the judgment and order, dated 14.1.2011, passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Latur in Revision Petition No.14 of 2009. 3] It is the case of the petitioner in both the petitions that the petitioner is a registered and deemed to be registered cooperative society under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Soc...
M/S Cpec Engineering Ltd. and Others Vs. the Bombay Mercantile Co-oper ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2013
1) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 2) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 waive service. 3) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners- the original accused persons in the matter of complaint lodged against them by the present respondent No.1, the Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. for taking action under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881) read with section 141 of the said Act. The present petition is filed for quashing the said criminal proceedings being Court Case No. 1452 of 2012 pending before the JMFC Vashi at CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai, District Thane. The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and as per the provisions of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4) Prior to discussing the rival arguments, certain factual position leading to the filing of the complaint under sect...
Francisco Dâcosta and Another Vs. Francisco Xavier Dâcosta a ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-17-2013
Heard Mr. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Admit on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Courts below erred, misconstrued and misinterpreted the Deed of Partition dated 24/07/1991 to arrive at a conclusion that the Respondent no.1 had constructed the suit house exclusively from his own expenses and he is the owner of the suit house? (ii) Whether the Courts below committed error of law by not analysing the evidence to know the real intention of the parties for execution of the said Partition Deed dated 24/07/1991 and thus misinterpreted Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act? (iii) Whether the Courts below committed error of law to conclude that the possession follows ownership and that the Respondents are the only owners of the suit house when admittedly licence of the same stands in the name of father of the Appellant No.1 and the Respondent no.1 and that the...
M/S R. N. Tandon and Sons Vs. Union of India, Through Its Deputy Chief ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-17-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. This is appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellant is aggrieved by judgment and order dated 18th December 2007 passed by learned District Judge, Nagpur when he had set aside the Award of Arbitral Tribunal in respect of price escalation awarded to the contractor in the sum of Rs. 7,36,469/- with interest @ 8% per annum. 2. It is grievance of the appellant that respondent Union of India had awarded the work of construction of bridges between CH. 3550 meters to 8000 mtrs in Section III of Metpanjara-Kohli Section of Central Railway which included Earth Work also for tender value in the sum of Rs. 57,21,132/-. The work was to be completed within nine months from the date of acceptance letter excluding monsoon period of four months from 15th June to 15th October and, therefore, total period for completion of contract was 13 months. On issuance of acceptance letter dated 23.1.1991, appellant undertook the aforesaid work. The contrac...
Rajkumar Dhunichand Sharma Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-17-2013
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 135/2011, which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad. The appellant was charged for offences punishable under sections 304, 307 and 427 of Indian Penal Code and also for the offence punishable under section 184 of Motor Vehicle Act. The appellant is convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under sections 307 and 304-A of I.P.C. and also for offence punishable under section 184 of Motor Vehicle Act. This Court (Presided over by other Hon'ble Judge of this Court) has issued notice to the appellant to show cause as to why the appellant should not be convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under section 304 of I.P.C. instead of giving him conviction and sentence for offence punishable under section 304-A of I.P.C. The appellant has filed reply to it. On the other hand, the main contention of the appellant is that the appellant/accused could not have been convicted and sentenced ...
icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Branch Ma ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-17-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30th April 2013 passed by the learned Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati whereby compensation was awarded in the sum of Rs. 45000/- inclusive of amount of no fault liability together with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of petition till realization, the appellant has filed present appeal. 2. Learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company invited my attention to impugned judgment and award in order to submit that the claimant drove his motor-cycle MH-27/Y-9861 from Warud ST Stand. He was proceeding towards Shendurjanaghat Road in normal speed and according to him, offending motor-cycle MH-27/AB-3195 gave dash to the petitioner's motor-cycle. In the result, petitioner/claimant suffered fracture to right leg of tibia and fibula; fracture of lateral end of left clavicle etc. According to learned Advocate for the Insurer, if at the time of the accident the offending motor-cycle driver did not hold v...
State (Through Pernem Police Station) Vs. Eknath Thakur (Major) and An ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-17-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor for the petitioner, Ms. Collasso, learned Counsel for the respondents and Ms. Matkar, learned Amicus Curiae. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this Revision Application, the State has prayed for quashing and setting aside the Order dated 13/08/2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa, Goa in Sessions Case No. 43 of 2013. 4. Charge sheet was filed by Pernem Police against the respondents (accused persons) for offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) alleging that on 31/03/2013 between 13.30 hours to 14.30 hours at Naphale, Nanachepani, Varkhand, Pernem, Goa, the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted Shri Sadanand Thakur with wooden danda and laterite stone, due to previous enmity over the issue of sharing of ancestral landed property and ancestral house and thereby caused serious injuries on his ...
Sharad Pawar and Others Vs. Gopinath Munde and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. There is no objection to the Appeals being heard finally by this Court, therefore by consent heard accordingly. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. 3. Both these Appeals are arising out of Order dated 26 November 2013 by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Bombay. The points/issues raised and argued are common and so also the parties, therefore, this common judgment. 4. The operative part of the order is as under : 1. The notice of motion no.3745/2013 is partly made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and defendant no.7 is hereby temporarily restrained from functioning as a president of defendant no.1 till final disposal of the suit. 2. The hearing of suit is expedited and parties are directed to make an endeavor to proceed with the suit so as to finish the same within a period of 3 months from the date of this order, preferably on day to day basis after filing of written statement. 3. Defendants are directed to file their written statement within 15 days from t...
Sandip Pandurang Nannaware Vs. Shrigonda Krishi Utpana Bazar Samiti an ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-16-2013
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The contentions of the petitioner are summarized as under:- (a) The petitioner was appointed as a peon in place of his father on 01/01/2002. (b) He was terminated from employment w.e.f. 01/03/2003. (c) He had challenged his termination by filing complaint (U.L.P.) No.41/2003 before the Labour Court. (d) By an interim order, he was directed to be reinstated. (e) This order came to be modified in Revision (ULP) No.111/2003 and 75% of the last drawn wages were directed to be paid during the pendency of the complaint. (f) Finally, the complaint (U.L.P.) No.41/2003 was allowed and the termination of the petitioner was held to be invalid w.e.f. 01/03/2003. (g) However, compensation of Rs.25,000/- alongwith costs of Rs. 500/- was directed to be paid by the respondents in lieu of reinstatement of the petitioner. (h) The petitioner, therefore, challenged the said judgment and order ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »