Mumbai Court August 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.
The Divisional Manager, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mahad ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 18/6/2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darwha in Claim Petition No. 42 of 2007, appellant the New India Assurance Company has approached this Court via present First Appeal. 2. Facts of the case are as under: On 8/2/2003 Manoj Mahadeorao Yete was proceeding by minidor bearing registration no. MH-29/2963 from Bori to Ner. When the said minidor came at Bori Shivar on Ladkhed to Darwha road, one TATA-407 Tempo bearing registration no. MH-31/AP-2124 coming from opposite side from Ladkhed in uncontrollable speed, gave forceful dash to the minidor, as a result of which Manoj Yete died on the spot. The owner of minidor reported the incident to Police Station, Darwha, on which Crime No. 21/2003 came to be registered against the driver of TATA-407 Tempo. Original claimants, who are parents of deceased Manoj claimed that Manoj, who was 21 years of age at the time of accident, was working as a conductor-cum-clean...
Dr. Yogesh Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
Order: 1. The application is filed under section 439 (2) ofCriminal Procedure Code for cancellation of relief granted bySessions Court, Jalgaon in Criminal Application No. 1392/2012.Both the sides are heard. This Court has heard the learned APPalso. 2. The crime at C.R. No. 146/12 is registered inChalisgaon Police Station on the basis of report given by applicantfor offences under sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 471 etc. of IndianPenal Code. The applicant has completed B.A.M.S. course from theMedical College run by Kisan Dnyanodaya Mandal, Chalisgaon.Respondents/accused were running the institution. They wereworking as Treasurer, Principal and also as Trustees. Allegationsare made that the respondents/accused joined hands withMembers of Committee appointed by C.C.I.M. and created falserecord regarding the appointment of staff, the compliance of theconditions necessary for giving permission to continue theinstitution. It is contended that after inspection of the institutionthe permission g...
Harish Vithal Kulkarni and Another Vs. Pradeep Mahadev Sabnis
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Plaintiffs who claim to be executors under the Will and testament dated 11th October, 1991, alleged to have been executed by the deceased Mahadeo Sabnis (hereinafter referred to as the said deceased) have filed testamentary petition inter alia praying for grant of probate in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs having effect through0ut the State of Maharashtra. The deceased had expired on 23rd April, 1992 leaving behind him Smt. Sudha Mahadeo Sabnis, widow of the deceased and Mr. Pradeep Mahadeo Sabnis, son of the deceased. On the date of the death of the deceased, both the said legal heirs were alive. On 8th October, 1993, defendant herein filed Suit (3354 of 1993) in this court inter alia praying for the letter of administration in respect of the estate of the said deceased. Mother of the defendant who was widow of the said deceased was impleaded as defendant in the said suit. It was alleged in the said suit that the deceased died intestate. Defendant had taken out ...
M/S. Sunil Builders and Others Vs. Kaveri Co. Operative Housing Societ ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
Common order in A/10/696 + A/11/61: S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member These two above-referred appeals since the nature of cross-appeals are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. [2] Both these appeals take an exception to an order dated 15/5/2010 passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as the Forum for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.583 of 2007, Kaveri Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and Others Vs. M/s. Sunil Builders through its partners Smt. Radhadevi Ramji Singh and Others. [3] The Complainant No.1 Kaveri Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Society for the sake of brevity) represents the flat-purchasers inter-alia including Complainants Nos.2 to 14 in the building constructed on the land which was earlier belonging to Ardeseer Hormarji Wadia Charitable Trust and which was taken for development by the Opponent M/s. Sunil Builders, a partnership firm repr...
------ Vs. State of Goa and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
A.P. Lavande, J. Taking cognizance of deteriorating garbage situation in the State of Goa, on 14th August, 2007, this Court directed registration of the above petition and issued notices to all the Municipal Councils and the Corporation of the City of Panaji, in order to examine the compliance of the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 ("MSW Rules 2000" for short). Ms. Norma Alvares was appointed as Amicus Curiae. Having regard to the fact that large quantity of garbage is generated in certain Village Panchayats visited by tourists, on 3rd October, 2007, the Court issued notices to 26 Village Panchayats, through their Sarpanchas and directed them to file affidavits, indicating the steps taken for identifying/obtaining necessary approvals for setting up sites for disposal of garbage. This Court was constrained to pass the above referred order since, inspite of repeated orders passed by this Court regarding disposal of garbage, no concrete steps were being taken b...
Mahesh Atalrai Keswani Vs. Suresh Atalrai Keswani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-2013
By this chamber summons filed by the petitioner, petitioner has prayed for vacating the Caveat filed by the respondents. Citation was served on Mrs Manu Shukla on 26th June 2012 and on Mr Suresh Atalrai Keshwani on 2nd July 2012, respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 respectively. Petitioner was called upon to furnish copy of the probate petition by Mrs Manu Shukla. Petitioner furnished copy of the probate petition. The petitioner through his Advocate's letter dated 19th July 2012, 23rd August 2012 and 31st August 2012, called upon the Caveator to provide copy of affidavit in support of the Caveat. There was no response to any of those letters. Petitioner thereafter applied for certified copies of the Caveat and affidavit in support thereof. The petitioner at that stage came to know that Caveator has not filed affidavit in support of Caveat till date in the office of this Court. Though this chamber summons was taken out by the petitioner on 8th December 2012, no affidavit in reply has be...
Pornima W/O Milind Bansode and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-12-2013
PER COURT: 1 Both the appeals are filed against the judgment and order of Special (N.D.P.S.) Case No.1 of 2012. The case was pending in Special Court, Parbhani constituted under the NDPS Act (hereinafter after referred to as the Act). The Appellants are convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 20 (1)(b) of the Act. Both the sides are heard. 2 In short, the facts leading to institution of the appeals can be sated as follows: Police Sub-Inspector Mr. Ballad was attached to Kotwali Police Station, Parbhani at the relevant time. On 7th April, 2012 at about 12:45 pm., he received information that one Trimbak Jadhav (Accused No. 2) was selling Ganja at his residential place. Mr. Ballad followed the procedure and effected raid at the residential place of accused Jadhav at about 05:00 pm. This accused was not present in the house, but one lady, Accused No.1 was present in the house. When search of this house was taken in the presence of this lady, 2.5 kilogram Ganja was...
Kalpesh Amrut Sorthi and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-2013
Revati Mohite Dere, J. 1. The Appellants stand convicted for the offences punishable; under Section 302 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC') and sentenced to suffer RI for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to suffer SI for one month; under Section 148 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer SI for three months; under Section 323 r/w 149 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer SI for three months; under Section 452 r/w 149 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to suffer SI for three months, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar, by Judgment and Order dated 5th July, 2011, in Sessions Case No.55/2009. By this Appeal, the Appellants question the correctness of their conviction and sentence. 2. The prosecution case in brief can be stated as under: PW 22 PSI Pawar was at...
Balu and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through P.S.i. Police St ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-12-2013
Oral Judgment: 1 The appeal is filed against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No.113 of 2005, which was pending in Sessions Court, Beed. 7th Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed has convicted and sentence the Appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They are also convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Sections 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also for the offence punishable under Section 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the provisions of the Bombay Police Act. 2 Both the sides are heard. 3 In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows: The Complainant Pralhad Tishtak was working as Police Patil of his village Kathoda. The Appellants are real brothers, interse. Accused No.4 was their father. The incident took place on 30th March, 2004 after 05:30 pm. The Complainant was in the company of his two labours and he was intercepted at Golegaon Phat...
Sanket Balkurshna Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-2013
K.R. Shriram, J. 1. Rule, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. The order of externment passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Satara Sub-Division, Satara has been challenged on various grounds. 2 That order which was passed on 20th April 2013 has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated 4th June 2013. The Petitioner has been externed from the entire Satara District pursuant to this order for a period of two years. 3 The counsel appearing for the Petitioner took a preliminary objection that the Authority who has passed the externment order is not specifically empowered by the State Government and therefore order is without authority in law and jurisdiction because the Sub-Divisional Officer who has passed the order was not specifically empowered by the State Government by notification and in the official gazette. 4 The counsel for the Petitioner relied on the judgment of Gujarat High Court reported in AIR 1969...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »