Mumbai Court July 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.
Dnyananda Sameer Nilekar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
P.C. : 1. The respondent no.2, an Advocate (complainant) desires to argue the matter for himself. His Counsel, Mr.Ketan Chottani is discharged. Heard extensively. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. A unique litigation between an Advocate and his client has reached this court. On a complaint by respondent no.2, process for offence under Section 420, 120B of I.P.C. issued by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune, on 15.2.2012, confirmed in Criminal Revision No.157 of 2012 by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, is questioned by original accused. 3. The accused-applicants, a couple had difference in their matrimonial life, had approached respondent no.2 for his legal advise. Applicant no.1 Smt. Dnyananda (Wife), was known to the complainant through her parents. The complainant advised that a petition for Divorce by mutual consent could be filed. Parties had 4-5 sittings. Complainant e-mailed draft of such consent petition to the wife, while it could not reach the husb...
Bhaskar S/O. Subrav Jagtap and Others Vs. Pandurang S/O. Baburao Jagta ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
Heard Mr.M.P.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.G.V.Mohekar, learned counsel for the respondents, at length. 2] Rule. Mr.Mohekar waives service for the respondents. At the request and by consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3] A short but interesting question arises in the present petition. The respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) instituted Regular Civil Suit No.545 of 2006 on 13th September, 2006 against the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) for declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners and in possession of one mango tree situate in gat no.152 admeasuring 5 H 65 R situate at Mauje Satephal, Tq.Kalamb, District Osmanabad (for short the said tree). The plaintiffs also sought perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs from enjoying the said tree. 4] The defendants resisted the suit by filing written statement dated 17th...
Dhagadu Dhondiba Dhumal Vs. Dhanaji Dhondiba Pachpute and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
Oral Judgment: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant Shri Shriram Kulkarni, and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 Shri Nitin Deshpande. Admit on the following substantial questions of law:- A] Whether the Courts below could have ignored the opinion of the hand writing expert so as to go to the extent of discarding his evidence in view of the evidence of the witnesses of the Defendant No.1 being DW No.2 and DW No.3 on the ground that the direct evidence would have more weightage and the opinion of the hand writing expert would not impinge upon the same? B] Whether the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse, and having been rendered in ignorance of the material pleadings and the material evidence led by the parties considering the fact that the Defendant No.1 had admitted the hand loan transaction and thereafter comes out a new theory of additional consideration of Rs.11,000/- for execution of the sale deed ? C] Whether the Defendant No.1 has proved the surr...
Shivaji Laxman Sahane and Another Vs. Election Commissioner and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
P.C Heard on the following preliminary objection. (1) Whether the Election Petition is liable to be dismissed for non compliance of provisions of Sections 82 and 86 of the Representation of the people Act, 1951. 2 The Petitioner has invoked the provisions of Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short the Act), basically against Respondent No.6, the Returning Candidate, to the Legislative Council of Maharashtra State in the Nashik Local Authorities Constituency in the Biennial Election for the year 2012. Apart from prayer to quash and set aside the Election, also prayed for declaration that the Petitioner be declared as elected candidate. There are other various connected and related prayers made including for interim reliefs, by filing the Election Petition on 19 June 2012. 3 On 23 July 2012, the Court while admitting the matter, issued notice of final disposal and made returnable on 3 September 2012. On 31 August 2012, Application No. 5 of 2012 was filed by Respondent No.6 (Jaywant...
Som Distilleries and Breweries Ltd. Vs. Sabmiller India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) The Appeal arises from an order of a Learned Single Judge by which an interlocutory Motion in a suit for infringement was made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads as follows: (a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, that the Defendant by itself, its directors, servants, agents, stockists, distributors and dealers, be restrained by an order and permanent injunction of this Hon'ble Court from infringing the Plaintiff's registered trade mark SABMiller India / SABMILLER INDIA bearing No. 1787321 in classes 21 and 32 by using bottles embossed with the trade mark SABMILLER INDIA or by the use of the trade mark SABMiller India / SABMILLER INDIA or any other trade mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trade mark SABMiller India / SABMILLER INDIA upon or in relation to beer or any other goods for which the Plaintiff's said trade mark No.1787321 has been registered or in any other manner whatsoever. 2. ...
Mahindra Bt Investment Co. (Mauritius) Ltd. Vs. the Director of Income ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2013
M.S. Sanklecha, J. Rule. Respondents waive service. At the request of the Counsel for both sides, petition taken up for final hearing. 2) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 27 August 2012 passed by the Authority for Advance Ruling (the Authority) constituted under Section 245-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). By the impugned order the Authority while closing the application for Advance Ruling refused to give a ruling on the question formulated while admitting the application of the petitioner. 3) This refusal of the Authority to give a ruling at the time of final hearing according to the petitioner is completely without jurisdiction on the following grounds:- (a) the Authority after having accepted/admitted the application under Section 245R(2) of the Act for the purposes of giving a ruling cannot refuse to give a ruling at the final hearing; (b) the jurisdiction of the Authority not to entertain and/or give a ruling o...
Dental College and Hospital of the Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-25-2013
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission in view of the urgency expressed by all. 2. The petitioner-Dental College and Hospital has prayed for several reliefs, which are reproduced as under: a. quash and set aside the impugned refusal/nonrenewal of the Permission as communicated under Letter dated 30.3.2013 (Annexure-P1) interalia, direct the respondent No.1 Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Dental Education Section, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi to renew/grant permission for 3rd Year MDS Course of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in the Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society's Dental College and Hospital, Amravati for the Academic Session 2013-14, in view of above and in the interest of justice. b. considering the Representation dated 16/18.4.2013 (Annexure-P4) of the petitioner College, direct the respondent No.2 Dental Council of India, Kotla road, New Delhi to Inspect and Verify the...
Rajesab Mujawar Vs. the State of Goa Through Public Prosecutor
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-25-2013
U.V. Bakre, J. By this appeal, the appellant/accused, takes exception to the judgment and order dated 2nd June, 2011, passed by the Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Sessions Case No. 20/2008, by which the accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 392 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for a term of one year; to undergo imprisonment for a term of 3 years for the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year; and lastly, to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC., and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. The fine amount has been ordered to be paid to the family of the deceased i.e. PW.21 Mahadevi,...
Raghunath Madhav Shimpi Vs. Digambar Kashinath Shimpi and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-25-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr.L.V.Sangit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Snehal Raut, learned counsel for respondent no.2, at length. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the original defendant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 29th March, 1986 passed by the learned IInd Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon in Regular Civil Suit No.41 of 1983 as also the judgment and decree dated 13th April, 1992 passed by the learned IInd Addl. District Judge, Jalgaon in Civil Appeal No.189 of 1986. By these orders, the Courts below decreed the suit instituted by the respondents (hereinafter referred as "the plaintiffs") under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") and passed decree of eviction against the defendant on the ground of default in payment of rent as contemplated under Section 12 of the Act. 3. The dispute between the parties is in respect of a room admeasuring 10 ft. x 12...
The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Vs. Vijay Vishnupan ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
1. The appeal is to question the validity and legality of the Judgment and Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 28 of 1995 awarding sum of Rs 6,10,000/- inclusive of no fault liability together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization. 2. Rajendra, deceased was a Commission Agent for the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Unit Trust, Housing and financial Consultant as also was an agriculturist. On 07-08-1994, he was proceeding by a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-31/ L-2293 coming from Shankar Nagar square, Nagpur and was dashed by Maruti Car bearing registration No. MH-31/4834 owned by Govardhandas Ramchandra Kela, resident of Nagpur and insured with appellant/Insurer. The Tribunal had considered the income of the victim from 01-04-1991 till 19931994 in the sum of Rs.68,293, Rs.74,429, Rs.83,367 on the basis of Income Tax returns of the victim (Exh Nos.42 to 44). Considering the age of the vi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »