Mumbai Court February 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.
Sunil Vs. Prabhakar
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Oral Judgment: By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgments passed by the trial and the first appellate Court granting a decree of eviction and possession in favour of the respondent-landlord and against the petitioner-tenant. 2. The respondent is the original plaintiff. A suit was instituted by the respondent for ejection and possession under Section 16(1)(h) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. It was the case of the plaintiff that in the month of September, 2003 the Nagpur Improvement Trust had proposed to widen the road and the portion which was in occupation of the petitioner-defendant was required to be demolished for road widening. It was pleaded that since the plaintiff was asked by the Nagpur Improvement Trust to demolish the shop block, it was necessary for the defendant to vacate the shop block so that the plaintiff could demolish the portion in occupation of the defendant and construct a new building. 3. The case of the plaintiff was denied by the petitioner...
Sanjay Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
A.P. Lavande, J. By this appeal, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") takes exception to the judgment and order dated 24.4.2009 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Case No.233/05 convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for one month for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and to undergo R.I. for three months for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly, the prosecution case is as under:- Deceased Hawasu Dhurwe was the father of the first informant PW.1 Bastiram Dhurwe. They were residing at Tiosa Ghat. The accused was also resident of Tiosa Ghat. The accused had alleged that the deceased had practised witchcraft upon him and had threatened to kill him. On 24.8.2005 at a...
Revu Wala Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
The present appellant is convicted by the Special Judge at Ambajogai in Special Case no. 6 of 2001 for the offences punishable under section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"). He is sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable under section 7 of the Act and further to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence punishable under section 13(1)(d) r/w. section 13(2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order and judgment dated 9.2.2004, the present Appeal is preferred. 2. The facts in brief are as under:. That appellant, during the relevant period, was Police Head Constable attached to Shirsala Police Station, Dist. Beed. One person named as Prabhu Chavan has died in unnatural circumstances after taking liquor. In that connection, one accidental death case no.3 of 2001 was registered with Shirsala Police Station. Thereafter, certain applications were fi...
The State of Maharashtra, Through the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
P.B. Varale, J. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. Shri A.J. Pathak, the learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of respondent No.1. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioners-State of Maharashtra through Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Entry Tax Officer, Nagpur are challenging the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai in Second Appeal No. 1294 of 2005 thereby allowing the appeal preferred by respondent No.1-Smt. Anuja Chhajed. The brief facts, giving rise to filing of the present petition, can be summarized as under. 3. The respondent No.1 purchased a chassis (vehicle chassis) at Raipur in State of Madhya Pradesh on 10.07.1995. Respondent No.1 effected the entry of said chassis in the State of Maharashtra causing it to be driven on public road. Respondent No.1 thereafter purchased bus body at Nagpur for mounting the same on the chassis, which was entered into State of Maharashtra. Respondent ...
Savitribai R. Lotlikar, (Since Deceased), Represented by Lrs: and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
This common judgment shall dispose of both the above appeals since they arise out of the same judgment and award dated 12/7/2004, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Margao, (hereinafter referred to as the reference Court), in Land Acquisition Case No. 178/1990. 2. The Government had acquired land for construction of fish market at Margao, in exercise of powers under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for short). Notification under section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Official Gazette dated 24/7/1980. An area of 735 square metres out of Chalta No. 76 of P. T. Sheet No. 253 belonging to the original applicant Mrs. Savitribai R. Lotlikar was acquired along with land belonging to some other persons. By award dated 16/2/1982, the Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O, for short) offered the market rate of Rs. 200/- per square metre, for the acquired land. Not being satisfied with the said offer, the original applicant filed application, before the L.A.O., ...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Baburao Amrutrao More
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard learned APP for appellant - State and learned counsel appearing for respondent. 2. The State questions acquittal of respondent in Special Case No.9 of 1998 for offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act dated 31st August, 2001 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge / Special Judge, Ambajogai. 3. Leave was granted on 26th September, 2003. Appeal was admitted and Paper book was dispensed with. 4. The prosecution case was, Rohidas, uncle of complainant, had purchased 2 acres land from survey no.52 of village Chinchpur. He handed over copy of sale deed and urged the respondent to take mutation in revenue record and issue 7/12 extract. The accused, allegedly, demanded amount of Rs.1,000/-, it was negotiated and settled at Rs.500/-. Said Rohidas paid Rs.200/- to accused, the accused called Rohidas after 15-20 days. On 14th July, 1997, Rohidas inquired with accused whether, work was done. As stated earlier, amount of Rs.200/- was r...
Michael D'Souza Vs. Kamal D'Souza Nee Kamal Shambu Surlekar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Oral Judgment:- Heard Shri J. Godinho, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri I. Agha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above petition challenges the orders passed by the Courts below dated 19.07.2011 and 09.07.2012 whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the ex-parte decree in favour of the respondent came to be rejected. 3. Shri Godinho, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on the ground that the petitioner and the respondent are residing in the same apartment at the time of filing of the divorce suit by the respondent and immediately after receiving the summons from the Court in the divorce suit filed by the respondent, the respondent had given an assurance to the petitioner that she would withdraw the divorce suit as according to him, there was no subsisting differences between them. The learned counsel further pointed out that during the sai...
The Chief Officer, Mangalwedha Municipal Council and Others Vs. Hariha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
Oral Order: 1 Rule with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 14/08/2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mangalwedha by which order the Application filed by the Petitioner-Municipal Council being Exhibit 106 came to be rejected, and the Trial Court also ordered the deletion of Issue No.1. 3 It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary details. Suffice it to say that the suit in question which is filed by the Respondent herein is one for injunction restraining the Petitioner-Municipal Council from demolishing the sheds/shops constructed which are mentioned in Para 1 of the plaint, and for restraining it from taking any action which would be prejudicial to the Plaintiff. It is the case of the Plaintiff that he is the owner of City Survey No.27B admeasuring 122 sq.meters. It is his case th...
Tata Capital Financial Services Limited and Another Vs. M/S Deccan Chr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
Common Judgment: 1. By these petitions filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as the Act for short), petitioner seeks appointment of Court Receiver in respect of various properties described in the petition, for injunction and for an order and direction against the respondents to secure, in favour of the petitioner, its claim with interest. As the respondents have raised various issues on maintainability of both these petitions, which are common in both the petitions, same were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. Some of the facts emerge from the pleadings filed in ARBP No.1321/12 are as under. 2. By orders dated 24th February 2012 and 12th March 2012, this Court accorded sanction to the scheme of arrangement filed by Tata Capital Limited (TCL) and Tata Capital Financial Services Limited (TCFSL) by virtue of which, the securities and/or benefits, rights and obligations under any security arrangements, collateral...
Tikaram Krishnalal Pandey Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
Oral Judgment: [Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.] 1. This appeal is directed by the appellant-original accused against the judgment and order dated 03.07.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions Court, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 76 of 2004. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC and sentenced him as follow:-Convicted UnderSentenced toSection 302 of IPCTo suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 500/- IDRI for 1 month.Section 324 of IPCTo suffer RI for 2 months and to pay a fine of ` 100/- IDRI for 7 days.The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed that both the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (i) Deceased Murugan and his wife PW 2 Mallika were working as labourers in Mumbai. They were residing on the footpath of Carter Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai. During daytime, Murugan and his wife Mallika u...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »