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.
Rudhirkumar Kashinath Panda Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) Criminal Appeal No.979 of 2007 has been preferred by the original accused no.1 Sunil Kavichandra Rana and Criminal Appeal No.656 of 2007 has been preferred by original accused no.2 Rudhirkumar Kashinath Panda. (For the convenience, the appellants shall be referred to as they were referred to before the trial Court i.e. appellant Sunil Rana will be referred to as accused no.1 and appellant Rudhirkumar Panda will be referred to as accused no.2). Both the appeals are directed against the very same judgment and order dated 4.12.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.414 of 2004 and Sessions Case No.992 of 2004. By the said judgment and order, the learned Judge convicted the accused Nos.1 and 2 under Sections 302, 392 and 394 all read with Section 120-B of IPC. For the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of IPC, each of them is sentenced to life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.5000/-...
L and T Finance Limited Vs. Duplex Industries Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. By this petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner seeks an appointment of the Court Receiver in respect of the properties described in Exhibit F to the petition and also seeking an order of deposit of Rs.6,94,70,392.29 by the respondent or in the alternative to furnish security of the like amount to secure the claim of the petitioner. 2. On 31.8.2011, pursuant to the application with proposal made by the respondent no.1 for short term financing facility on revolving basis of Rs.10 Crores for purchase of goods from Sterlite Industries (I) Limited, the petitioner accorded their consent to the said request and sanctioned the loan to the tune of Rs.10.00 Crores to the 1st respondent. Both parties thereafter entered into facility agreement on 31.8.2011. The respondent no.1 had executed the demand promissory note on 31.8.2011 in favour fo the petitioner. The respondent no.2 executed deed of guarantee on 31.8.2011 in favour ...
Aglowmed Ltd. Vs. Shell Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) This Appeal arises from an order of a Learned Single Judge dated 17 December 2011 making absolute a Summons for Judgment in a suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. 2. The Respondent has its registered office at Vadodara and a corporate office at Mumbai. The Appellant has a local office at Mumbai and a registered office at Patna. Five purchase orders were placed by the Appellant upon the Respondent between 20 July 2009 and 26 November 2009 from its local office at Mumbai for the supply of goods. In pursuance of the purchase orders goods were supplied by the Respondent from Vadodara to Roorkee in the State of Uttaranchal. The Appellant issued four cheques towards payment of the price of the goods sold, supplied and delivered. Two of the cheques dated 4 January 2010 and 12 February 2010 were drawn on the HDFC Bank at Roorkee. One of the cheques dated 6 February 2010 was drawn on the Daman Branch of the HDFC Branch while the fina...
Prakash Sadu Raut Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
1 The appellant and two others were prosecuted on the allegation of having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 thereof. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, BrihanMumbai, after holding a trial, acquitted the other two accused. He acquitted even the appellant with respect to the charge of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 34 thereof, but held him guilty of an offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC read with Section 34 thereof, and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months. Being aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence imposed upon him, the appellant has approached this court by filing the present appeal. 2 The prosecution case before the trial court was as follows: Ranjanaalias Sakhubai had been residing at Sonubai Chawl, since the year 1984. She had gone to resid...
Vilas Vikramsingh Deshmukh and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.07.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur in Sessions Case No.54 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as follow:-Name of the AccusedReferred in Trial CourtConvicted and SentencedVilas Vikramsingh DeshmukhAccused No.1Under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to RI for 3 Years and fine of Rs.1000/- IDSI for 3 months.JaimalaVikramsingh DeshmukhAccused No.3Under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- IDRI for 3 months. Under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to RI for 3 Years and fine of Rs.500/- IDSI for 3 months.RajaniViswas DeshmukhAccused No.4Under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- IDRI for 3 months. Under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to RI for 3 Years and fine of Rs.500/- IDSI for 3 months. The learned ...
The State of Maharashtra (Through Executive Engineer, Public Works Div ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
Oral Judgment: 1 By these appeals filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 4th November, 2008 delivered by the learned District Judge-2, Sangli thereby allowing the part of these appeals by allowing the claim nos.2 and 3 and upholding claim nos.1A to 1E awarded by the learned arbitrator. 2 The relevant facts for the purposes of deciding these two appeals are as under: a) On 4.3.1999, the respondents-contractor entered into an agreement with the appellant for construction of major bridge across river Krishna on Miraj-Kolhapur (Maharashtra State High Way-3) at K.M. 181/400 near village Ankali which approaches with prior financing collecting toll rates on build, operate and transfer (for short 'BOT') basis. The appellant issued work order on 4.3.1999 in favour of the respondents. The work awarded to the respondents was to be completed within a period of two years from the date of issuance of work or...
Premal Kantilal Kamani Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
P.C. In this case the Applicant has approached this Court pointing out that though he has been detained in custody for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, yet he has not been enlarged on bail. It has been stated that the Applicant is languishing in custody and his Bail Applications are not decided. 2. On the last occasion, I had directed the learned APP to take instructions as to whether the bail application is pending in the Trial Court. After taking instructions, the learned APP informs that the Applicant has been enlarged on bail and stands released accordingly. 3. The communication dated 22.03.2013 received from the Superintendent, Mumbai Central Prison is relied upon in this regard. A copy of this communication is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. 4. I have been repeatedly noticing that firstly, such applications received through jail are not placed before the Court by the Registry promptly. This applicat...
Mrs. Rose Mary Fernandes Vs. the Administrator of Communidades and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
U.V. Bakre, J. By this Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks following reliefs: (A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the Respondents to allot Plot No. 4 in survey no. 57/1 of Village of Pilerne, belonging to the Communidade of Pilerne (Respondent no. 2 herein). (AA) This Honourable Court be pleased to issue a declaration that Explanation 1 to Article 334-A of the Code of Comunidades is ultra vires, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner was a Government servant working in Goa Medical College as Staff Nurse, who retired on 31/8/2004. In the year 1980, she had applied for a plot bearing no. 4 under survey no. 57/1 of village Pilerne belonging to respondent no. 2, for the purpose of constructing a residential house. According to the petitioner, she was ful...
Smt. Vijaya Vasant Sawant Alias Vijaya Subodh Parab Vs. Ms. Shubhangi ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
The revision petitioner herein is the complainant in Criminal Case No. 150/DVA/2009 filed against her husband and respondents no. 1 to 4 herein in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ponda, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as the Act). These respondents are her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law. She has also filed an application for protection orders under Section 19 to restrain the respondents and her husband from causing any domestic violence to her and to her child and to restrain them from dispossessing her or obstruct her from entering the matrimonial home at Borivali, as also to restrain respondent no.2 from alienating or encumbering the residential house at Borivali without intimation to her, selling or mortgaging her jewellery in the custody of respondent no.2 and for its return. She has also sought custody of the child. It is admitted position that the revision petitioner has been res...
Nilesh Vs. State of Goa and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
Oral Judgment: The revision petitioner herein has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment of 15 days for both the offences with fine of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- respectively. He had preferred an appeal against the order of his conviction. That appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Court by its judgment and order dated 30th June, 2011. 2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 7th August, 2008, the petitioner was driving a mini bus bearing No.GA-01-Z-5614 from Ibrampur to Mapusa via Assonora and when the vehicle reached near Gasket Factory, Mapusa, it dashed against a jackfruit tree causing injuries to the passengers in the bus thereby committing the offences alleged. 3. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses to support its case. Out of that, four are formal witnesses i.e. pancha for panchanama of scene of offence (PW1), motor mechanic (PW3), who has assessed the damages to th...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›