Mumbai Court April 2013 Judgments
Yelumalai Kanan Shettiyar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-2013
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) This appeal is directed by the appellant-original accused against the judgment and order dated 6th May, 2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.97 of 2004. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under:- There was some enmity between the original accused No.2 Murgesh and the deceased Managatti Shettiar. The appellant original accused No.1 Yelumalai is the brother of Murgesh - original accused No.2. On 5th November, 2003 at about 6.30 a.m. a quarrel took place between accused No.2 and Managatti. Murgesh assaulted Managatti on his shoulder with his hand. At that time the appellant assaulted Managatti with wooden rod on the...
Tag this Judgment!The Divisional Manager M/S. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sm ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-2013
1] First Appeal No. 66 of 2012 is an appeal by the Insurance Company. The owner of Truck / Tanker has filed cross-objection. Common prayer is for exoneration from liability. The Truck owner alternatively prays for liability, if any, to be fastened to insurance company alone. 2] Accident, ownership of Truck and insurance are admitted facts. 3] Insurer claims that the driver did not possess valid driving licence and hence it has no liability due to breach of conditions of policy. 4] Truck owner denies the liability contending that the deceased was not employed by him, but was employed by the user lessee of Truck the Shivamrut Dudh Utpadak Sangh. 5] The evidence of the claimant has gone unchallenged on all points since none amongst respondents have led any evidence. 6] Appellants have filed appeals / cross objection with extreme rigour and they have argued with same urge. It is not shown as to how and why Claimant's evidence which is not duly rebutted and traversed can be disregarded / d...
Tag this Judgment!Anna @ Dada Janardhan Kharat Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-2013
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) This appeal is directed by the appellant-original accused against the judgment and order dated 19th October, 2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Satara, in Sessions Case No.12 of 2007. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer for life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: The appellant was married to Sarika (deceased). He was married to her about six years prior to the incident. The appellant was addicted to drinking liquor. The incident occurred on 23rd September, 2006 at about 10.00 p.m. On that day, Sarika told her husband i.e. the appellant to arrange for meals of their children. The appellant got angry and beat her. The appellant then poured kerosene on the person of Sarika and set her on fire. The appellant then poured water on h...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Shalabai Annasaheb Patil and Others Vs. Dr. Ashok R. Kulkarni and ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-2013
S.B. Sawarkar, J. Member: (1)This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 12/05/2003 in Consumer Complaint No.321/2001, Sou.Shalabai Annasaheb Patil Vs. Dr.A.R.Kulkarni, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur (District Forum in short). (2) The case of the appellant is that she went to the respondent No.1-Dr.A.R.Kurlkarni on 01/01/2000 with a complaint of pain in her stomach near left upper side. Respondent No.1 doctor gave here medicines, but the pain did not recede. Therefore, the respondent asked her to get operation done for ulcer and operated her on 21/03/2001. But after the operation, respondent doctor told that as her appendix was affected which he came to know while operating for ulcer, he removed it. (3)She remained in hospital for 20-25 days, out in spite of operation the pains did not subsist, therefore, was again required to undergo various medical tests. It came to the notice after 3 months that there was mass of unspecified nature in her stomach...
Tag this Judgment!Bhausaheb Dattatray Patil Vs. Abasaheb Ramchandra Patil Since Deceased ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
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 is invoked against the order dated 14/3/2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur i.e. the Executing Court by which order the Application Exhibit 34 filed in Regular Darkhast No.66 of 2010 by the Respondent Nos.1(c) and 1(d) herein for their impleadment, came to be allowed and resultantly the Respondent Nos.1(c) and 1(d) were allowed to be impleaded in the said darkhast proceedings. 3 The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above Petition can be stated thus:- The Petitioner herein is the original owner of the suit property in question. The suit in question being Regular Civil Suit No.95 of 1985 was filed by the Petitioner for possession on the ground that the Defendant was in illegal possession. The Defendant claimed to be a tenant of the suit property as a consequence of which the Trial Court had f...
Tag this Judgment!Ramswaroop Sunderlal Goyal Vs. North India Association
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
1. Appeal is taken up for final disposal with consent of parties. Heard at length. Perused the record as produced. 2. This is the first appeal by unsuccessful plaintiff. 3. The plaintiff's case espoused in the plaint is as follows:- (a) The plaintiff was member of the defendant's association. The defendant is society registered under Societies Registration Act. (b) By the letter dated 9th September, 2010 the managing committee of the defendant has removed the plaintiff from his life membership. Reason assigned is that the plaintiff had misbehaved on 3rd September, 2010 by physically assaulting the staff of association and that misbehavior of the plaintiff was recurrent and repeated inspite of warning and even suspension in past. (c) The defendant had failed to prove the misbehavior and even failed to produce copy of the complaint and the basis on which managing committee took decision. (d) The plaintiff's request made through letter dated 29th January, 2011 asking for documents was not...
Tag this Judgment!Annappa Bhimrao Malugol and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
P.C. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned APP for State. Perused the papers. 2. This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On 21st March, 2013 Deepali wife of Sunil Malugol lodged a report at Gadhinglaj Police Station, Kolhapur alleging therein that she was married Sunil on 9th March, 2011. At the time of the betrothal ceremony, the applicants had assured her and her parents that soon after the marriage she will be sent to Australia to cohabit with her husband. On 30th May, 2011 her passport was ready. However, she was not sent to Australia. She was being harassed on the ground that she was not efficient at the household work and secondly, there was demand of Rs.15 Lakhs for purchasing a flat at Banglore. According to the complainant, since February, 2012 she is residing with her parents and that she was not allowed to reside at her matrimonial abode and therefore, on 21st March, 2013, she approached the police station. On ...
Tag this Judgment!Worli Adarsh Nagar Sagar Darshan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Thr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
Oral Order: 1 Admit, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties taken up for final hearing forthwith and heard. 2 The revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is invoked against the order dated 23/07/2012 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai by which order the learned Judge has held that the City Civil Court would have the jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit in the present form. 3 Since both the above Civil Revision Applications challenge the said order dated 23/7/2012, they are taken up for hearing together. 4 Shorn of unnecessary details, few facts can be stated thus:- The Applicant in Civil Revision Application No.960 of 2012 is the society of the slum dwellers on a plot of land in which slum the suit premises in question are situated. The Applicant No.1 in Civil Revision Application No.678 of 2012 is presently in occupation of the suit premises being the daughter of ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Gopalrao and Others Vs. Deepak Niranjanath Pandit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
Oral Judgment: 1 The Applicants, the original Plaintiffs/Decree Holder have filed this Execution Application under Order XXI, Rule 11 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) and have prayed as under: a) This Hon'ble Competent Authority be pleased to order that the said flat as well as the salary, provident fund and gratuity accumulated till date and that may be accumulated in future and/or any other property of the Respondent be attached. b) The said flat as well as the salary, provident fund and gratuity, accumulated till date and that may be accumulated in future and/or any other property of the Respondent be ordered to be sold/realised to recover the said amount of Rs. 29,50,000/- with interest thereon till payment. c) Cost of this Application be provided for. d) Such other and further reliefs be granted as this Hon'ble Competent Authority deems fit and proper. 2 The Respondent did not surrender the possession till the judgment and decree dated 5th July, 2011 passed on an ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/S. National Transport Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
1 The Petitioner, Original Respondent has challenged the Award dated 19th May, 2009 passed by the Sole Arbitrator. 2 The basic events are that the Petitioner is the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (called the IOC) who owns and operates 10 of India's 19 refineries with a combined refining capacity of 60.2 million Metric Tones per annum. The Respondent is a fleet owner and a transport contractor who gives on hire tankers for transportation of various petroleum products. On 22.08.2002, a Bulk POL Road Transport Contract Agreement was entered into between the Petitioner and the Respondent. By this agreement the Petitioner gave contract to Respondent to transport Lube Oil Products to different dispatch points of the Petitioner. Petitioner relies on Clauses 21 and 27 besides other terms and conditions contained in the agreement. On 01.09.2004, the agreement i.e. Bulk POL Road Transport Contract Agreement was extended for a period of one year i.e. upto 31.08.2005. On 03.09.2004, a tanker bearing...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »