Mumbai Court March 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.
State Through P.i. Vs. Ms. Anita Parab and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-07-2013
U.V. Bakre, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 28/12/2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Margao in Sessions Case No. 11 of 2001. 2. The respondents were tried for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 326, 427, 307, 115 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short). The trial Court acquitted all of them. 3. Case of the prosecution, in short, is as follows: On 17/07/2000 between 20.00 hours to 20.30 hours at Palmar, Pomburpa, the accused nos. 1 to 5, in furtherance of their common intention, formed an unlawfully assembly armed with iron bar, dandas, etc. and damaged the fencing to the property of Shri George Fernandes and assaulted his family members including his wife Catharine, daughters Sonia and Sheela and one Keith D'Souza by means of knife and sword and caused grievous injuries to them. Accused no. 5 stabbed Keith D'souza with sword on his abdomen, back, etc. and he stabbed Catharine and Sheela...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prabhakar Marotrao Ghagare an ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-07-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the matter finally by consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The only question raised and involved in the present case is as to whether the Tribunal exceeds the limit by awarding the amount more than to Rs.15,000/- towards the medical expenses as prescribed under Section 163A r/w Sch. II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The position is apparent and no arguments are required to be advanced for that purpose. The Tribunal has granted medical expenses of Rs.1,17,927/-. The claimant would be entitled for medical expenses only to the extent of Rs.15,000/-. Hence, the decree passed by the Tribunal in respect of the medical expenses to the extent of Rs.1,17,927/- cannot be sustained. 3. Shri Deshpande, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/claimant submits that although the certificate of permanent disability was to the extent of 40%, the Tribunal has granted it only to the extent of 20%. However, there is no cross objection filed ...
Suresh S/O Devikisan Oza Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Its Sec ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-07-2013
R.M. Borde, J. 1 Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 The petitioner is requesting for issuance of a declaration that deletion of his name from the record of town planning scheme no.1 in respect of final plot no.746/2, situate at Shrirampur, while finalising town planning scheme no.1, is illegal and arbitrary. Petitioner is also seeking a direction against Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to hand over vacant possession of final plot no.746/2, admeasuring 340 square meters to the petitioner in view of the order passed on 01.05.2011 by Respondent No.3 the Arbitrator for Town Planning Scheme No.1, Shrirampur. A direction is also sought for inclusion of name of petitioner in the final town planning scheme no.1 in respect of final plot no.746/2. A request is also made for issuance of writ of prohibition against Respondent Nos.1 to 4 from taking any steps for alienating or altering or granting permission to construct in r...
Gangareddy Rajanna Deotale Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-07-2013
Oral Judgment: Admitted. Heard finally by consent. Heard learned counsel Mr.A.S. Dhore, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. Rashi Deshpande, learned Addl. P.P. for non-applicant no.1-State. No notices are being issued to respondent Nos.2 and 3 as no adverse order is being passed against them. 2. The applicant is the first informant in Criminal Case No.326/2005 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pandharkawada. It is the report filed by the police u/s 173 of Cr.P.C. after investigation on the report made by the applicant. 3. The applicant had made an Application for recall of certain witnesses and for their further examination before the trial Court. The trial Court rejected the Application on the ground that the applicant had no locus standi to move the Application for recall of witnesses. The Revision filed in the Sessions Court has been rejected. 3A. In my view, the learned trial Court was right in rejecting the prayer of the applicant. I am told that ...
Dr. Sangita W/O.NitIn Dhakne Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-07-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The sonography machine of the petitioner has been sealed on 16/06/2011. Shri Chapalgaonkar, the learned counsel submits that while sealing the sonography machine, it has only been stated that some irregularities are found that the sonography machine is not functioning and form is not properly filled up. The said cannot be the ground to seal the machine. The order sealing the machine nowhere states about the fact that the said machine may furnish evidence of commission of an offence under the Act. 3. The learned A.G.P.submits that after the machine is sealed, thereafter criminal case is filed against the petitioner and the same is pending. The action has been rightly taken by the authorities. The record i.e. particular 'F' form was not properly maintained and no reason is stated as to why the sonography machine is closed. 4. The only act...
Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital and Another Vs. Asha Hargun Yadav and O ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2013
S.R. Khanozde, Presiding Judicial Member [1] These two appeals since refer to identical facts and involve common question of law, are disposed of by this common order. [2] Appeal No.846 of 2010 is filed by Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital while Appeal No.878 of 2010 is filed by Dr. M. G. Pillai. Both these appeals take an exception to an order dated 29/6/2010 passed by the Additional Mumbai Suburban Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as the Forum for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.248 of 2006, Smt. Asha Hargen Yadav Vs. Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital and Another. It was a case of alleged deficiency in service vis--vis medical negligence on the part of the Appellant/original Opponent No.1, Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the Hospital for the sake of brevity) and the Appellant/original Opponent No.2, Dr. M. G. Pillai (hereinafter referred to as the Treating Doctor for the sake of brevity) in relation with the medical serv...
Rajesh S/O. Late Jyotiswarup Valmiki and Others Vs. the Assistant Muni ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
Oral Judgment: 1 By this Appeal the Appellant challenges the judgment and decree passed by the learned Ad-hoc Judge Judge, City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in L.C. Suit No. 755 of 2006, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the suit with cost. 2 The brief facts are that at the instance of the Bombay Port Trust, a complaint was made regarding existence of an unauthorized structure and/or illegal unauthorized extension of structure in the Indigo Hotel existed on the open space situated at Room No. 11, Galli of Phiroz Building, Steven Street, Ground Floor, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005. The Appellant was purchaser-in-title of late Jyotiswarup Valmiki, who was working as Watchman appointed by the occupiers and landlord of the said Phiroz Building since many years. It is further contended that the landlord of the Phiroz Building had allowed late Shri Jotiswarup Valmiki to stay in the suit premises. It is contended that the Appellant are in possession of the document...
Smt. Pinky and Another Vs. Krishnamurthy Santappa Govilekar and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule in both the Petitions with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India take exception to two identical orders both dated 3112012 passed by the Learned Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court. By the said orders, the Chamber Summons No.906 of 2013 (in Writ Petition No.12155 of 2012) and Chamber Summons No.905 of 2012 (in Writ Petition No.12156 of 2012) came to be dismissed and resultantly the amendments sought in the plaint in two suits, wherein the Petitioner No.1 is the Plaintiff, came to be rejected. 3. As indicated above the Petitioner No.1 herein is the original Plaintiff in S.C.Suit No.2242 of 2008 and S.C.Suit No.2072 of 2008 which suits have been filed by her for declaration and injunction. The subject matter of the Suits is the property which the Petitioner claimed that she owned pursuant to a conveyance deed which has been executed in favo...
City and Industrial Development Corporation (Cidco) Vs. Percival Josep ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
K.K. Tated, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By consent, the matter is taken on board for final hearing. 3. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the original Respondent no.3 - City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) against the judgment dated 7th November, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition no.1211 of 2009 by which the learned Single Judge has set aside the order dated 29th September, 2008 passed by the Reference Court in Application Exhibit 113 in Land Acquisition Reference No.620 of 2000 holding that the Appellant is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the Land Acquisition Reference Application. 4. A few facts of the matter are as under: In the present proceeding, the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the acquired land was issued on 24th September, 1986. Thereafter, the declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 17th September, 1987. After the Award da...
Vishnu Ramchandra Patil and Others Vs. Group Gram Panchayat and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
K.K. Tated, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In these Letters Patent Appeals, common question of law has been argued and, therefore, we are disposing of the same by this common judgment. Each of these Appeals challenge the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 26th July, 2011 and 11th December, 2012 by which their Writ Petitions challenging the order of the Collector and the Commissioner of the concerned districts dismissing the dispute and the Appeals which were preferred to question the no confidence motion passed against Appellants herein were dismissed. 3 The Appellants are either the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch of the concerned Gram Panchayats. In terms of the statutory provisions the members of the Panchayat are entitled to bring a motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch or the Up-Sarpanch. The statutory provision in that regard is in section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short the said Act) which reads thus:- 35. Motion of no confide...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »