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.
Melissa Monica Fernandes Vs. Thomas Aquino Vincent Serrao
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-06-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Usgaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Admit on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether in a suit for annulment of marriage on the ground of coercion it is mandatory to examine the person who has exercised coercion? (ii) Whether the District Court committed an error in law in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court by just taking a different view of the matter? 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent waives service of notice after admission. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard forthwith. 4. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14/1/2012 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji, in Matrimonial Petition No.16/2009/A. 5. The said Matrimonial Petition was filed by the respondent against the appellant, herein. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which they are desi...
Mrs. Rosy Pereira and Others Vs. M/S. Crasto Realtors and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-06-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Agni, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no.1 and 2. 2. Admit. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. By this appeal, the appellants have challenged the order dated 26/4/2013 passed by the Learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Ponda, in Special Civil Suit No.10/2012/A whereby the trial court partly allowed the application for temporary injunction but refused to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiffs thereby restraining the respondents from carrying on with any construction in the suit property and from selling/occupying the flats, etc. 4. The appellants are the owners and occupants of respective flats in "Macedo Apartments" at Tisk Ponda Goa. Respondent no.1 is the petitioner, who constructed the said building whereas, respondent no.2 is the original owner of the plot on which "Macedo Apartments" are situated. The plot is surveyed unde...
Dr. Shrihari Limbaji Lahane Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-05-2013
Oral Judgment: The applicant is the accused no.2 in Sessions Case No. 170 of 2012 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed. There are 16 other accused in the said case. The allegation against the applicant and the other accused is of having committed offences punishable under section 312 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with section 34 of IPC, section 313 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC, section 315 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC, section 316 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC, section 318 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC, section 201 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC, section 304 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC, section 302 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC, as also, in respect of offences punishable under the provisions of the Pre-Conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the PCPNDT Act) and Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. Charge of the aforesaid offences has been framed by the A...
Manakchand Chanilal Munot Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Depart ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule. The learned Advocates waive notice for respective respondents. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. 2. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the action of the respondents in not releasing a land more particularly described in prayer clauses (a) and (b) of this Writ Petition and by a further amendment in terms of prayer clause b(i), the petitioner seeks the following relief: (b)(i) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of Certiorari and/or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and thereby be pleased to quash and set aside the Resolutions dated 5.2.2009 and 4.5.2010 passed by the Respondent No.5. 3. The facts necessary to appreciate the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner are that the first respondent is the State, whereas, the respondents 2, 3 and 4 are Officers of the State of Maharashtra, who have been empowered to di...
Edc Limited Vs. M/S. Penthouse Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-05-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 2 to 4. None present for respondent no.1. 2. In terms of order dated 24/9/2013 passed by this court, respondents were already notified that the petition may be heard and disposed of finally at the admission stage. 3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Mr. Menezes waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents no. 2 to 4. By consent heard forthwith. 4. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21/09/2011 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, North Goa, Panaji ('trial Court' for short) in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.143/2008. 5. The petitioner, which is a deemed Financial Corporation under Section 2(b) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (SFC Act, for short) and to which the provisions of Sections 29, 30 and 31 of SFC Act apply, in view of Government of India Notifica...
M/S. Surbhi Constructions Surbhi Promoters and Developers, Vs. Sanjay ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2013
R. C. Chavan, President: [1] This appeal is directed against an ex-parte order dated 30/06/2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune partly allowing Consumer Complaint No.468 of 2011 and directing the Respondent/original Complainant to pay to the Appellant/original Opponent balance consideration amount of Rs.45,000/- and thereupon directing the Appellant herein/original Opponent to hand-over to the Respondent/original Complainant the possession of a flat bearing No.222 in the building known as Surbhi Garden. Appellant was further directed to pay to the Respondent an amount of Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation besides costs quantified at Rs.1,000/-. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:- [2] On 10/01/1997 the Appellant agreed to sell to the Respondent a flat bearing No.222 for a consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-. Possession was to be delivered within a period of 18 months. The Respondent paid to the Appellant an amount of Rs.3,55,000/-. ...
Ravindraprasad and Others Vs. Prakash and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-04-2013
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally. 2. These Writ Petitions take exception to the judgment and order dated 05.09.2013, passed by Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, in the Appeals preferred by the petitioners. 3. The relevant facts, leading to file the present petition as disclosed in this writ petition are as under: (a) The General elections of the Grampanchayat Ajegaon were held for 11 posts, wherein the petitioners were elected as successful candidates. (b) Pursuant to the said declaration, the petitioners have started working as members of the Grampanchayat, wherein in order to complete the work under schemes, namely, NRHM, DPDC, BRGF, certain advances were made by the petitioners only with a view to complete the work and due to non-availability of the funds at the relevant point of time and further directives of the B.D.O.to avoid administrative action. (c) Accordingly, on 25.01.2012, the Grampanchayat resolved to ava...
Sitaram and Another Vs. the District Superintendent of Police and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-04-2013
Oral Judgment: [Naresh H. Patil, J.] 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The Applicant No.1 Sitaram Madhavrao Wagh and Applicant No.2 Raosaheb Trimbak Tarde, filed present Criminal Application praying for quashing the complaint and the proceedings of Crime No.5 of 2006 registered under Section 354 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. During the pendency of the Application, prayer clauses were amended and it was further prayed that criminal proceedings bearing S.T.C. No.554 of 2008 (S.C.C. No.554 of 2008 "State vs. Sitaram and ors.) pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambad for the offences punishable under Section 354 read with 34 of I.P.C., be quashed and set aside. 3. The learned Single Judge had granted interim stay in terms of prayer clause (C) on 1st February 2006, which reads as under: "C) During the pendency and hearing of this appli...
Waman Mahadev Sawant Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-04-2013
Oral Judgment: By order dated 22/10/2013, the parties were put to notice that the Appeal may be heard and disposed of finally at the admission stage. 2. Heard Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Mr. Netravalkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent. 3. Admit on the following substantial question of law: Whether the mandate of Order XLI, Rule 31 of C.P.C. has not been followed by the learned District Court while deciding the Appeal. 4. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 31/01/2013 passed by the learned District Judge-I North Goa at Panaji (First Appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No.25/2011. 5. The said appeal was filed by the respondent against the judgment and order dated 18/12/2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, 'C' Court at Mapusa (trial Court) in Special Civil Suit No.14/2000/C. The trial Court had decreed the suit whereas the First Appellate Court has dismissed t...
Dr. Pratidnya Jayesh Shinde and Another Vs. Appropriate Authority, Dr. ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-04-2013
Oral Judgment : 1. Heard Mr. B.R. Warma, the learned Counsel for the applicants. Heard Mr. S.R. Palnitkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent no.2. 2. Since it was mentioned to me that, Mrs. Mantri appears for the respondent no.1 i.e. the appropriate authority, the matter was kept back repeatedly, for enabling her to remain present and make submissions, opposing the Application. However, inspite of keeping the matter back repeatedly, and even after it is called out in the afternoon session, Mrs. Mantri is absent. As such, the Application is being decided after going through the same, the annexures thereto, and after hearing Mr. Warma, the learned Counsel for the applicants, and Mr. Palnitkar, the learned APP for the respondent no.2. 3. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 4. The applicants are the accused nos.2 and 3, respectively, in Regular Criminal Case No. 7 of 2012, pending before the Judicial Magistrate (First C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »