Mumbai Court April 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.
Bhanudas Bandu Thite Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) This appeal is directed by the appellant-original accused against the judgment and order dated 22.8.2006 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.453 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to RI for life and a fine of Rs.200/- in default RI for two months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: The deceased Indubai was the wife of the appellant. She had two sons. Indubai was residing along with her husband i.e. appellant and her two sons at Thitewadi, Pune. Since one month prior to the incident, her husband lost his job due to which, there were frequent quarrels between Indubai and her husband. It is the prosecution case that on 3.7.2004 in the morning at 11.15 a.m. the appellant started quarrel with Indubai. He then poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. The appellant also poured kerosene on ...
Kishori Sharad Gaitonde and Another Vs. Laxman Ganesh Gaonkar and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Advocate Mr. Rao for the appellants and Advocate Mr. Ramani for respondents no.2 to 4. None appears for the other respondents. 2. By this Second Appeal, the appellants/ original plaintiffs take exception to the judgment and decree dated 17/11/2001 passed by Additional District Judge, Mapusa in Regular Civil Appeal No.63/1994 by which the appeal preferred by the respondents against the judgment and decree dated 25/04/1991 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bicholim, has been allowed. 3. Briefly, the facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs filed the above suit against the respondents/ defendants simpliciter for injunction, claiming that they were the owners in possession of the suit property. The suit was contested by the defendants. The trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit property O.P.P. 2. Whether the defendants have interfered into plaintiff's possess...
Ku. Archana Dadarao Pethkar and Others Vs. Joint Commissioner and Vice ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. By these petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of termination passed by their respective Employer as a consequence of invalidation of their caste claim. Though in the petitions as filed the orders passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, invalidating caste claims of the petitioners as belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe, have also been impugned, the petitioners only claim protection in employment and expressly restrict their challenge only to the order of termination and have given up the claim to the status as belonging to Halba-Scheduled Tribe. Right to challenge order invalidating caste certificate is given up with knowledge of the judgment dated 11.3.2013 delivered in Writ Petition No. 5569 of 2012 and of fact that Respondent-Employer, as also the Caste Scrutiny Committee are opposing the grant of protection. In Writ Petition No. 5569/2012, Shri Narnaware, only ...
Bhupedra Yeshu Karade and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
Oral Judgment Heard Shri Teni, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Jaiswal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. 2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. Petitioners feel aggrieved by the order dated 6th February 2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Regular Criminal Case No.4502 of 2008. Learned Magistrate had rejected the prayer of the applicant who is one of the accused to recall prosecution witnesses No.1 and 4. 3. It is submitted before me that dispute has been resolved between the parties and they want to put an end to the dispute. It is submitted by Shri Teni learned counsel for the petitioners that P. W. Nos.1 and 4 are relatives of the complainant. Complainant who had filed complaint under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code is dead. It is submitted by Shri Teni learned counsel for the petitioners tha...
State of Maharashtra (as the Instance of Irrigation Department,) Execu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
By this review petition filed by the original respondent no.1 to the Arbitration Appeal No. 6 of 2007, the petitioner seeks review of the order and judgment dated 1st February, 2013 passed by this Court in Arbitration Appeal NO. 6 of 2007 and in particular paragraphs 35, 36 and 46 thereof holding that claim nos. 1 and 2 are barred by limitation. 2. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this review petition are as under:- 3. Pursuant to the invitation of tenders on 1st April, 1991 by the Government and submission of bid by the petitioner on 17th June, 1991, the Government awarded the work of construction of civil work of pressure and power house in ICT contract No.2 to the petitioner. The work was completed by the petitioner on 31st March, 2000. The dispute arose between the parties during the execution of the work in respect of hidden expenses. The petitioner invoked arbitration clause. On 27th April, 1998, first arbitration proceedings started. The matter was referred...
Dinesh Bhaguji Kandhare Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) This appeal is directed by the appellant-original accused against the judgment and order dated 2nd November, 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.523 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for four months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under:- The deceased Reshma was residing along with her husband and children including PW-9 Sagar at Survey No.112, Sutardara, Kothrud, Pune. On 14th April, 2005 at about 7.30 p.m. a quarrel took place between the appellant and his wife Reshma. The appellant stabbed his wife Reshma with a knife in the back. Reshma was admitted to the hospital where she was declared dead. PW-1 Ananta who was residing next to the house of the appellant lodged...
Hdfc Bank Limited Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 2(3) an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) 1 Rule; with the consent of Counsel for the parties returnable forthwith. With the consent of Counsel and at their request the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2 The Petitioner is in challenge to an order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 2(3), Mumbai dated 18 March 2013. By the impugned order, while disposing of an application for a stay of demand in the amount of Rs.1719.65 crores arising out of an order dated 31 January 2013 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2010-11, the assessee has been called upon to deposit an amount of Rs.377.65 crores. This is apart from an adjustment which has been effected by the department in respect of two refunds respectively in the amount of Rs.49.56 crores payable to the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 pursuant to an order under Section 156 dated 28 February 2013 and an amount of Rs.518.30 crores payable for Assessment Year 2009-10 i...
Nasir @ Munna Raju Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) This appeal is directed by the appellant-original accused against the judgment and order dated 29th June, 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.624 of 1928. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default, to suffer imprisonment for one and a half year. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under: The appellant was residing at Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagar, Wadala, MUmbai, in the house of PW-6 Gopal. He was staying there as a Paying Guest. The appellant and the deceased Rajanikant were knowing each other. On 20th January, 1998 at about 9.00 p.m. to 9.15 p.m. deceased Rajanikant, the appellant and one Amit were sitting in the Tadi shop at Dadar, Mumbai. At about 9.45 p.m. Rajanikant and Amit left the Tadi shop. Rajan...
Sagar Sudhakar Shendge Vs. Mrs. Naina Sagar Shendge and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
P.C. : 1. The Petitioner is the husband against whom maintenance order has been passed U/s.20 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act). The Petitioner has challenged the order of maintenance in the Sessions Court in which the Petitioner has not obtained any stay of the order ordering maintenance U/s.20 of the DV Act. The husband breached the order of maintenance. Consequently, wife applied for execution of the order of maintenance. Hence the wife filed an application for issue of warrant for recovery of the maintenance amount. Consequent, NBW has been issued. The Petitioner has challenged the order of issuing NBW. 2. In his application the learned Judge observed that an appeal was preferred, but no stay was granted and that the husband (petitioner herein) was given ample opportunity to deposit interim maintenance but he was only binding time. Hence learned Magistrate granted the application of the wife and issued the NBW. He also directed that if the Respondent pa...
Prathamesh Tower Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. Gorai Road ( ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
1. Rule. Heard finally by consent pursuant to order passed by this Court on 1st April 2013. The Petitioner has challenged legality of the impugned order on preliminary issue framed under Section 9A of the Civil Procedure Code (Maharashtra Amendment). The issue framed was as to whether the suit is maintainable in view of Section 149 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred as MRTP Act). Parties had chosen not to lead any oral evidence. The Court below decided the preliminary issue holding the suit as maintainable. 2. The facts briefly stated are:- The plaintiff had filed Long Cause Civil suit no. 2642 of 2012 with a prayer for to declare the notice bearing no.AC/RC/BF-I/MRTP 53(i)/8437 of 2012 dated 29-10-2012 issued under Section 53(1) of MRTP Act as illegal, bad in law, extraneous, non-germane, issued upon irrelevant consideration and not enforceable in respect of suit compound wall as shown in photograph marked A for identification in law. The plainti...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »