Mumbai Court February 2013 Judgments
Ambadas Sampat Zombade Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J. The appellant-original accused herein is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer R.I. for four months by Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.146/2005 vide judgment and order dated 21st April, 2006. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appellant-original accused has preferred the present appeal. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under:- PW-3 Varsha, daughter of Sunita, is the complainant in the present case and also an eye-witness. Sunita (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was the sister of Rekha. Rekha was married to the appellant. Some days prior to the incident, Rekha left the appellant and the appellant did not know her whereabouts. Rekha was earlier working as a maid-servant in Flat No.103, situated on the first floor of "C" Building of Premanand Park Society, Pune. After Rekha stopped...
Tag this Judgment!The Assistant Defence Estate Officer Vs. Thomas Rodrigues and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
Oral Judgment: The present appeal is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission, with the consent of learned counsel. 2. Heard the learned Central Government Standing Counsel Mr. Mahesh Amonkar appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned counsel Mr. V. P. Thali appearing on behalf of respondent no.1. 3. This appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 27/1/2012 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-I, FTC-I, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No.12 of 2005. 4. The respondent no.1 was the applicant and the appellant was the respondent no.2 in the said Land Acquisition Case. 5. The parties shall hereinafter be referred in the same manner as they appear in the cause title of the said Land Acquisition Case. 6. Vide Notification dated 1/6/1990 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (The Act, for short), land was acquired for camp training of recruits of 3 MTR (2 STC) at Cotombi in Quepem Taluka admeasuring 4876 sq.metres from the prope...
Tag this Judgment!Madhukar S/O Deorao Dudhe Vs. Ranapratap Shriram Malviya and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) The matter is heard finally with the consent of Shri J.J. Chandurkar, learned counsel for the appellant tenant, Shri A.S. Chandurkar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 landlord, and Shri M.J. Khan, learned AGP for respondent No. 5, in the light of order dated 20.03.2012. 2. The facts are not in dispute. Sudhakar, brother of present appellant was the tenant inducted by Respondent No. 1. Said Sudhakar expired in 1986. The landlord filed Small Cause Suit No. 79 of 2003 against Madhukar, present appellant and legal heirs of deceased Sudhakar, for their eviction under Sections 15 and 16 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 1999 Act). One of the contentions was, the premises were unauthorizedly sub-let to present appellant Madhukar. The suit was dismissed on 22.07.2008 and in Regular Civil Appeal No. 142 of 2008 preferred by Respondent No. 1, the District Judge, Amravati, set aside that judgment and decreed the suit. ...
Tag this Judgment!Rukhmaji Dnyanoba Hakke Vs. Collector, Latur and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
P.C. The petitioner contested election from Ward No.2 and Ward No.3 of Gram Panchayat Mashnerwadi. The petitioner was declared elected as a member of Gram Panchayat from both wards i. e. Ward No.2 and Ward No.3 on 21.10.2012. The results of the said election were published in the official Gazette. The petitioner failed to tender his resignation from one seat within 7 days. Vide order dated 02nd November, 2012 the Collector declared both the seats vacant. 2. Shri Nimbalkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner eruditely contends that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before such an order was passed by the Collector. The learned counsel submits that when the consequences to the extent of unseating the elected candidate results, it was imperative for the authorities to issue notice and hear the petitioner before passing the impugned order. The petitioner's seat would not become vacant only on the ground that the resignation of one seat has not been submitted within s...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Dhondy Vs. Her Majesty the Queen of Netherlands and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) Admit. With the consent of Counsel, taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. A suit has been filed by the Appellant for recovery of an amount of US $ 25 million together with interest at 19.5% per annum against the Respondents. The First Respondent is the sovereign head of Netherlands while the Second Respondent is the Union of India. The Appellant claims to have been the owner of a vessel which was taken on charter hire by the Dredging Corporation of India Ltd. on 10 November 1989. According to the Appellant, a national of the First Respondent was engaged as an expert to attach certain equipment to the vessel which was to operate on bed leveling operations at the Port of Old Mangalore. The vessel capsized. The Appellant alleges that it was due to the negligence of the expert. The Appellant instituted a suit against the First Respondent on the basis that under a Bilateral Trade Agreement between India and Netherlands, the Government of Nethe...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Vasantrao Sonawane and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned AGP for the first to fourth Respondents. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the fifth Respondent. The challenge in this Petition is to the Notification dated 29th August 2012 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). By the said Notification, urgency clause under Sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the said Act has been applied. The public purpose set out in the Notification is that the fifth Respondent which is a Planning Authority needs the lands for establishment of Oxidation Plant and Pumping Station. The contention raised in the Reply filed by the fifth Respondent is that there is an urgent need to establish the said Plant. It is contended in the reply of the State Government that the pollution level of river Godavari at Nashik is very high and it is necessary t...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Agarwal and Others Vs. Harinarayan G. Bajaj and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) Admit. By consent of Counsel, taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. A Chamber Summons was moved before the Learned Single Judge for amending a written statement. The Learned Single Judge held by an order dated 7 December 2011 that an application for amendment of a written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is governed by the Limitation Act, 1963 and Article 137 of the Schedule which applies to all applications made to a civil court would include an application for amendment of pleadings. The Learned Single Judge held that the right to apply for amendment of the written statement in this case arose on the day following the day on which the written statement was filed, on the ground that the amendment did not seek to bring on record new facts, but only an explanation regarding existing facts. Since the Chamber Summons was filed beyond a period of three years of the day on which the right to apply was held t...
Tag this Judgment!ParvIn Firoz Shaikh and Others Vs. Firoz SharfuddIn Shaikh and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
1) Heard finally. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2) Petitioner No.1 Smt. Parvin was married to Respondent No.1 Firoz. She had applied to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad for maintenance and consequential benefits under the provisions of Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the DV Act). 3) The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the application and directed the respondent and his parents not to cause domestic violence to the petitioners. The respondent was directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month to petitioner No.1 Parvin and Rs.1,000/- per month to Petitioner No.2 Vasim and Petitioner No.3 Muskan, as maintenance. The respondent was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month towards rental charges for accommodation. 4) In Criminal Appeal No.66/2010, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad allowed the appeal and set aside the order of maintenance, referred to above on the ground that there ha...
Tag this Judgment!Kamlakar Narayan Bhamre Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. 2. Rule was issued on 17th January, 2001. The revision applicant questions conviction in Regular Criminal Case No.220 of 1993 for offence under Sections 7(i) read with Section 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(j) and 2(ia)(m) under Section 7(v) read with Sections 23 and 28 punishable under Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "Act") directing him to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, R.I. for one month, by order dated 11th June, 1998 recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sakri. In Appeal, conviction was confirmed. 3. Complainant - Food Inspector had been to the shop of applicant wherein, he purchased 600 gm of salli-supari under receipt. Notice under Section 14(a) of Act was served upon the applicant. Three samples were kept in three plastic bags. 4. The sanction was asked from Jt. Commissioner in terms of Rule 20 of the Act, however, it was accorded by in-charge Officer, it is not permissible. There could no...
Tag this Judgment!Duratex Silk Mills Ltd Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Narendra Kawde, Member. 1. Complainant is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as complainant-company). The complainant-company hired services of opponent/ United India Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Insurance Company) for covering risk involving in transportation of second hand 32 Sulzer looms from European Port to Nhava-Sheva Port, Navi Mumbai and further to Tarapur at their factory site near Mumbai. It is alleged by the complainant-company that insurance claim payable on account of damage in transit was arbitrarily repudiated by the Insurance Company which was payable under the Marin Cargo Cover Insurance Policy. Aggrieved thereby this consumer complaint alleging deficiency of service against the opponent/Insurance Company has been filed. 2. Salient facts giving rise to file this complaint are that Complainant-company subscribed to Marin Cargo Cover Insurance Policy for providing transit insurance cover to the seco...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »