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.
Narendra @ Nandu Vs. Kishor
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this application, the accused in Criminal Case No. 203/2009 pending on the file of learned J.M.F.C. Court No.2, Yavatmal, has prayed for exercising powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the order dated 18.03.2013. The said accused is facing the accusation in the said case of commission of an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the count of cheque of an amount of Rs.2,35,000/- given by him having bounced and he has failed to pay the demanded amount in spite of service of notice upon him. 3. Leaned counsel for the applicant submitted that after the evidence in the said case was over, he examined two witnesses in his defence and filed an application for examining third witness i.e. one of his relative and resident of Buldhana. It is submitted that upon his application, the trial court was pleased to issue a summons to the said wi...
Smt. Hema W/O. Late Shri Dilip Valecha Vs. Nasi M. Randelia and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
Oral Judgment: By this Chamber summons, plaintiff impugned the order dated 2nd May, 2011 passed by the learned Taxing Master of this court directing at the plaintiff to pay court fees as per current market value of the property under section 5 of the Bombay Court Fees Act. 2. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this Chamber summons are as under: (a) Parties to suit No. 2541 of 1984 filed consent terms on 7th July, 2005 and 1st September, 2005. This court passed a decree in terms of the consent terms on 1st September, 2005 in the said suit. In the said suit, plaintiffs had applied for the declaration that the deed of cancellation dated 31st July, 1985 was not binding on the plaintiffs therein and was null and void and had no legal effect. By an order passed in terms of the said consent terms filed by the parties to the said suit, it was ordered and declared that the conveyance dated 7th April, 1981, between the defendants in the said suit and the plaintiffs was subsis...
Anand Prafulla Behra and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
Oral Judgment: (Mrs. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) Criminal Appeal No.300 of 2009 has been preferred by original accused No.3 Anand Behra and original accused No.4 Ajay Das. Criminal Appeal No.301 of 2009 has been preferred by original accused No.1 Manoj Avale and original accused No.2 Anwar Shaikh. Both these appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 1st January, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No.187/2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted all the four appellants under section 302 read with 34 of IPC, Section 397 and Section 394 of IPC. For the offence under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC, each of the appellants is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/- each, i/d. R.I. for three months. For the offence under section 397, each of the appellants is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 500/- each i/d. R.I for th...
Shubh Apartments Chs Ltd. Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mum ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
1. The Appellant / Plaintiff is a co-operative housing society which has been issued notice by the Respondent / Defendant / Mumbai Municipal Corporation (MMC) under Section 351 of the MMC Act dated 19th November, 2005 for demolition of unauthorised construction of the 6th and 7th Floors of the suit building of the society which has been challenged by the society. 2. The Plaintiff obtained status quo order which came to be extended until the hearing of the suit. 3. The Plaintiff society building is one amongst several other buildings constructed under one sanctioned plan in a layout dated 8th June, 1981. The other buildings in the same layout similarly constructed had similar an even more extensive construction far in excess of the sanction granted under aforesaid plan. Those societies had also filed suits and obtained orders of injunction or status quo. Their interim applications had come to be dismissed. Appeals filed by them against orders of dismissal on their interim applications c...
Munish Madanlal Bumb (Huf) Vs. M/S.Joindre Capital Services Ltd. and A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) The Appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 25 September 2012 on a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A reference was made to arbitration, before an arbitral tribunal, constituted by the National Stock Exchange of India Limited. The Appellant was a constituent of the First Respondent. The First Respondent was carrying on transactions in shares on behalf of the Appellant. There was a debit balance of Rs.16,76,892/- at the foot of the account which the Appellant failed to pay despite a notice of demand dated 26 September 2009. The First Respondent submitted a reference to arbitration and lodged a statement of case on 20 December 2010. The arbitral tribunal allowed the claim together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 29 February 2008. 2 The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition under Section 34. In appeal, the only point which has been canvassed on behalf of the Ap...
Dinesh @ Dhebarya Virendra Bhatkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
Oral Judgment: (Mrs. Tahilramani, J.) 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.8.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay in Sessions Case No.907 of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under sections 302, 392 and 397 read with 392 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Sessions Judge sentenced him to R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, R.I. for six months. For the offence u/s 392 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant was sentenced to R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, R.I. for one month; and for the offence u/s 397 r/w 392 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for seven years. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under: SatyaMedchelmy, PW1, is the first informant in the present case. PW1 Satya was residing alongwith his family consisting of his father...
Ashok S/O Ramchandra Nirmal Vs. Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society, Throug ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
Oral Judgment: (Z.A. Haq, J.) Heard Mr. Wakode, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Jagtap, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2] The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Clerk with respondent no.2-College on 23rd September, 1986 and, at that time, all the relevant documents including School Leaving Certificate were given to the respondents and on the basis of those documents, the entries were taken in the Service Book of the petitioner. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Accountant on 7th April 1997. The petitioner had made an application to the respondents on 19th December 2009 requesting for proper fixation of pay scale. On 12th May 2010 respondent no.2 issued communication to the petitioner stating that he had claimed his date of birth as 21st August 1953, but during verification of his personal file by the Grievance Committee, School Leaving Certificate was found which showed the date of birth as 21st August 1951 and, therefore, t...
Girja Shankar G. Gupta and Others Vs. M/S.Shanil Builders and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) The Appeal arises from an order of a learned Single Judge dated 18 June 2012 by which Consent Terms arrived at between the original plaintiffs on the one hand and the Fourth Defendant for himself and on behalf of defendants 5 to 10 were accepted and a decree was passed in terms thereof. 2 A preliminary objection has been raised to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that a substantive appeal against an order passed in terms of Consent Terms is not maintainable by virtue of the provisions of Section 96(3) read with the proviso to Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 3 The Appellants before the court were originally plaintiffs 15, 16, 20 and 23. All the plaintiffs together had joined in seeking specific performance of their agreements with the developer, the original Fourth Defendant. Initially on 10 June 2004, certain consent terms were arrived at in Notice of Motion 634/2003 under which the developer was to carry ou...
Kumar J. Sujan, Director of M/S Indec Equipment Pvt. Ltd. and Others V ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1 In this Writ Petition, a Division Bench of this Court extensively heard the parties and delivered a judgment on 05.11.2012 holding that the prayer clause (b) of the Writ Petition cannot be granted. The prayer clause (b) reads as under: (b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that subsections (b) and (c) of Section 376 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are unconstitutional and/or ultra vires Part III of the Constitution of India. 2 The Division Bench clarified that as far as other prayers are concerned, the Petition may be placed for hearing. Hence, Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3 We have heard Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr.Farhan Khan, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2/ original Complainant. 4 The Petitioners were arraigned as accused in a complaint filed by the Respondent No.2 alleging offences punishable under Section 138 r/w 141 of the Negoti...
The New India Assurance Company Limited, Through Its Divisional Manage ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
1. The appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 01-09-2004 passed by the Motor accidents claims Tribunal Amravati in MACP no 11 of 2003 whereby the Tribunal had partly allowed the claim in the sum of Rs 3,82,000/- inclusive of no fault liability together with interest @ 9% p.a. From the date of the petition till realization. 2. The facts in brief are On 15-08-2002 Abdul Rauf aged about 35 years was victim of the motor vehicle accident while he was as fare paying passenger travelling by the Mahindra Savari bearing No. MH-27-C-5192 owned by Akil Khan Gaffar Khan and insured with the New India Assurance Co Ltd Amravati branch. One Abdul Salim was driving the auto rickshaw rashly and negligently. When the Rickshaw came near village Bhugaon, he lost control over the vehicle because of bursting of Tyre of rear wheel of the said vehicle. The vehicle had dashed against the tree. Abdul Salim was seriously injured and died on the spot. While the victim Abdul Rauf was admitted in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »