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.
Vikas Jaywant Jagtap Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2013
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) The appellant-original accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.01.2008 passed by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.167 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 imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/- IDRI for six months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (a) Sangita (deceased) was married to the appellant about 15 years prior to the incident. After the marriage, Sangita was residing with her husband at Hol, Tal. Phaltan, Dist. Satara. Sangita did not have a son. On account of this, the appellant used to ill-treat her and used to quarrel with her for petty reasons and he also used to beat her. (b) The incident occurred on 07.02.2007 at about 01.30 a.m. It is the prosecution case that the appellant assaulted his wife Sangita with a pata i.e grinding stone. Sang...
Yusuf Abdul Gani, Sole Proprietor of Jumbo Offshore Enterprises Vs. Ge ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2013
1. The above Notice of Motion is taken out by the Applicant/Original Defendant GEOWAVE COMMANDER (GC) for vacating ex parte order of its arrest dated 15th March 2013. 2. The Applicant/Defendant has pointed out that the Plaintiffs specific case in the Plaint is that they have a claim against Reflect Geophysical Pte. Ltd. (Reflect) for unpaid charter hire under a Charterparty dated 1st October 2012 concerning the Plaintiffs vessel Orion Laxmi (OL) which was chartered to Reflect as time charterer and further Reflect is the owner of the Defendant Vessel GC and consequently the Plaintiff alleged that it is entitled to arrest the Defendant Vessel GC. According to the Defendant, the entire claim of the Plaintiff rests on the allegation that the Defendant vessel is owned by Reflect which is incorrect. The Defendant vessel is owned by Master and Commander AS, Norway, a Company incorporated under the Laws of Norway and not Reflect. It is submitted that the Plaintiff admittedly has no claim ag...
Bostiao @ Sebi Rodrigues Vs. State of Goa and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-17-2013
Rule, made returnable forthwith. 2. Petition is taken up for final hearing by consent of the Parties. 3. The petitioner herein is serving sentence of life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 325 and 452 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. He has completed over 12 years of sentence during which period he has been released on parole on four occasions and on furlough on five occasions. On 4th February, 2013 he filed an application for grant of parole for a period of 30 days on the ground that his mother has to undergo surgery of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (Bilateral). That application came to be rejected by Inspector General of Prisons on the ground that his conduct in jail is not satisfactory since he has been punished along with other inmates from cell No.13 in terms of Rule 358(a)(1) of Goa Prisons Rules, 2006 and on the ground that there was no emergent situation for releasing the petitioner on parole. 4. Ms. Poulekar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his...
Karishma Lalwani and Others Vs. TerraIn Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Thro ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2013
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Presiding Member [1] Since these three consumer complaints bearing Nos.30 of 2012, 48 of 2012 and 49 of 2012 involve identical facts and common question of law, all these three complaints are clubbed together and are decided by this common order. Consumer Complaint No.30 of 2012 is being treated as Master Complaint while other two complaints are treated as Slave Complaints. [2] Alleging deficiency in housing construction service on the part of the Opponents viz. Terrain Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the Opponent No.1 herein and its Directors, the Opponents Nos.2 to 5 herein, the Complainants have filed these three consumer complaints, seeking direction as against the Opponents to execute and register agreement for sale in their favour and hand-over to them possession of residential premises together with consequential relief of compensation and costs of the proceeding. [3] Mrs. Karishma Lalwani has filed Consumer Complaint No.30 of 2012. She alleges that as against the a...
Shrirang Nagorao Chavan and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-17-2013
A.V. Nirgude, J. All the three appeals arose from the judgment and order passed by learned Special Judge, Parbhani, in Special Case No.30 of 1999 dated 31.12.1999. For the sake of convenience the parties to the appeals shall be referred to according to their original designation, namely, accused Nos.1 to 18 and the State of Maharashtra/prosecution. 2. Accused Nos.1 to 18 faced trial for the offences punishable under section 147, 148 and 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. In the alternative, the prosecution also charged them for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In additional to this, they were charged for committing offence of conspiracy punishable under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and for offence punishable under section 25 of the Arms Act and lastly for the offence punishable under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. In addition to this, the accused were also charged for the offence punishable under s...
Bombay Construction and Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mehta Finstock Pvt. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2013
The Petitioner-original Respondent has invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act) and thereby challenged Award dated 24 February 2010 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three learned Arbitrators of National Stock Exchange of India Limited (NSEIL). The operative part of the Award is as under : "1) The Respondent is directed to pay to the Applicant a sum of Rs.53,76,751.46p together within interest @ 12% p.a from 20.2.2008 till realization. 2) The counter claim stands rejected. 3) The Respondent to bear its own cost and also the cost of the Applicant No.1 after the remand of the matter. 4) We authorize the National Stock Exchange of India Limited, to file the Original Award and forward a copy of the Award each to the parties." 2. The Petitioner appointed the Respondent to effect transactions on the Futures and Options Segment of NSEIL. The Respondent squared off the outstanding positions of the Petitioner on 22 January 200...
M/S. Supreme-mahavir (Jv) and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Grea ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2013
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Rule. Learned counsel for the Respondents waive service. By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, by consent and on the request of learned counsel. 2. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (`MCGM') invited bids through an electronic tendering process on 5 January 2013 for carrying out the following two categories of work: (i) AE-41 : Improvement of various roads in Eastern Suburbs in flexible pavement; and (ii) E-211 : Improvement of various roads in Eastern Suburbs in rigid pavements. The petition relates to the tendered work at (i) above. The initial estimated cost of Rs.162.88 crores was subsequently revised by a corrigendum to Rs.168.01 crores. The MCGM received two offers, one by the Petitioner which is a joint venture formed by the Second and the Third Petitioners, and the other by the Fifth Respondent which is a joint venture constituted by the Sixth and the Seventh Responde...
Bank of Baroda and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2013
1 Rule. 2 The Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3 Since both Writ Petitions involve common questions, they are being decided by this common judgment. For properly appreciating the arguments of the parties, the facts in Writ Petition No.3785/2011 are referred to. 4 By this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioners are challenging the order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard Estate, Mumbai in Complaint being CC No.13136/SS/2010 issuing a process and calling upon the Petitioners to appear in person or by pleader on the date and time specified in the same. 5 The Petitioners are also seeking to quash the said complaint being CC No.13136/SS/2010. 6 The Respondent No.2/original Complainant is the Inspector, Security Guards Board for Greater Mumbai and Thane District. He states that he is Inspector appointed under Section ...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vinod Lalji Hariya and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2013
Appealis taken up for hearing. 2. Insurance company has challenged the award only on the ground that the insurance company was not liable due to breach of policy by the insured, since the driver thereof was driving the offending vehicle while he was under the influence of liquor. 3. The claim petition was opposed by the insurance company by filing the written statement by raising the said plea of breach of conditions of policy. 4. The claimant relied on his own testimony. He was cross-examined. In his cross-examination this witness has admitted as under: "..... I have not gone through with the police papers produced in this case. It is true that the truck driver was found having consumed the liquor." (quoted from examination of appellant No.1 Vinod Lalji Haria - page 45 of paper book) 5. The insurance company has filed the affidavit of examination-in-chief sworn by one Shri Babasaheb Sitaram Jadhav, Assistant Manager. 6. In the affidavit of Shri Babasaheb Sitaram Jadhav Assistant Manag...
Western Maharashtra Development Corporation and Others Vs. State of Ma ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-16-2013
Rule was issued on 6th February, 2007. Heard Mr.Godsay and Party-in-person, who argued in Marathi. 2. A distillery was started at Chitali in Rahata Ahmednagar district by the Government of Maharashtra. It was transferred to the petitioner -Western Maharashtra Development Corporation (for short, the Corporation). For the purposes of such industrial unit, the distillery, properties of agriculturists were acquired. However, the left over properties in the near by area were adversely affected due to non-treatment of spent water/molasses. This resulted into percolation in the wells and fertility of the soil was adversely affected. The farmers in the area staged agitation. The Government, at that time, realized a piquant condition. Consequently, fresh water used to be supplied to Chitali village. However, it did not resolve the damage to the agricultural fields, yield and to the well water. 3. Respondent No.2 and others filed Writ Petition No.2533/1989 in this Court, asserting privilege incl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »