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.
Shiva Shrimant Pawar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-2013
S.B. Shukre, J. 1 This writ petition is directed against the order dated 9th April, 2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone3, Kalyan, externing the petitioner and also the order of the appellate authority dated 24th May, 2013 confirming the said order. 2 With the consent of both sides, this petition has been heard finally at the stage of admission. Hence, Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned A.P.P. waives notice for the respondents. 3 We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 4 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the impugned orders suffer from grave errors of law and are based upon insufficient and also some material extraneous to the inquiry conducted by the learned Assistant Commissioner of Police, Dombivali (East). He has submitted that, in the show cause notice dated 18th December, 2012, there are no allegations coming from the witnesses to the effect that the criminal activities of the pe...
Rajalya and Another Vs. Putabai
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-05-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties heard finally. 2. This Civil Revision Application takes exception to the order dated 9th February, 2012 below Exhibit-77 in Regular Civil Suit No.32 of 2007 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chopda. 3. It is the case of the revision applicants that, the respondent herein, i.e. plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction and declaration with respect to the agricultural land bearing Gat No.6 at Malapur, Tq. Chopda, District Jalgaon contending that, the husband of the plaintiff, Maharu Kalaji Pavra has paid six times of the land revenue to the Government and therefore, the suit land is given to the plaintiff for cultivation. By order NO.LNDWS/1592 dated 31-10-1967, name of the plaintiff's husband is entered in revenue record as owner and possessor of the land by Entry No.2619 at Tahsil office. The husband of the plaintiff died in the year 1981 and thereafter, the plaintiff is cultivating...
Tanoi Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-05-2013
Oral Judgment: This revision is directed against the concurrent findings of the learned trial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge holding the applicant guilty of offences punishable under Section 332 of the Penal Code. 2. The facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under: On 29/12/2008 at about 6.45 p.m., PW1 Head Constable Ravindra Khorate, buckle no.3501 claims to have been posted at duty at the spot. The applicant took exception to parking of a car possibly on the road. Head Constable Ravindra Khorate claims to have told the applicant that the car belonged to some Karnataka Minister and that it would move away as soon as the occupants alighted from the car. However, the applicant was not satisfied with the reply and hit the Head Constable with a key chain in his hand resulting in an abrasion on the victim's cheek. Other police men were informed and the applicant was taken to police station along with the Head Constable. The Head Constable was referred for m...
Dattatray Sahebrao Patil Vs. Mainabai and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-05-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard both sides. 2. Admit. The Appeal is taken up for final hearing, with consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Appeal has arisen out of the direction of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udgir in a petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to the owner of the vehicle to pay compensation of Rs.2,74,000/- to the claimant i.e. present respondent no.1 and absolving the Insurance Company i.e. present respondent no.2-Oriental Insurance Company from payment of compensation. 4. For the purpose of clarity, the present appellant would be hereinafter termed as "the owner", the respondent no.1 as "the claimant" and the respondent no.2 as "the insurer" of the vehicle". The vehicle in question is a light motor vehicle (L.M.V.) transport with additional permit to use it as a tourist vehicle i.e. a taxi. The present appellant-owner was himself the driver of the vehicle when the accident occurred. The accident occurred on 13th July, 2006. The clai...
Hector Firdaus Kothavala Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2013
P.C. Not on board. Upon production taken on board. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP. Perused the papers. 3. This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking pre-arrest bail. The applicant herein is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.79 of 2013 registered at Byculla Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 5, 8, 12, 14 and 17 of the Protection of the Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 13th April, 2013 Mrs. Diana Hector Kothawala, wife of the present applicant lodged a report at Byculla Police Station alleging therein that she was married to the present applicant. The couple is blessed with two children i.e. a son namely Ariez aged 9 years and daughter Anaina aged 6 years. She is a fashion designer by profession. She was married to the applicant in the year 2002. Initially he was working at Ooty. They came to Pu...
Lokeshwar Singh Kshatriya Vs. M/S. P.K. Constructions Thane and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2013
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member: This consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Builder/Developer for not handing over the flat agreed to be sold to the Complainant Mr. Lokeshwar Singh Kshatriya (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant for the sake of brevity) and in the alternative for compensation at the market price. [2] Undisputed facts are that the Opponent No.1 M/s. P. K. Constructions, a partnership firm of which the Opponent No.2 Mr. Raj Panicker alias Baburaj Bhaskar Panikar and the Opponent No.3 Mr. Rajendra Narayan Kakade were the partners was developing a housing complex known as Mahaveer Nagar. The Complainant agreed to purchase a flat bearing No.103, situated on the first floor in the Building No.3, admeasuring 680 sq. ft. for total consideration of Rs.2,72,680/- from the Opponents/Builder (hereinafter referred to as the Builder for the sake of brevity). The deal is witnessed by an agreement dated 26/7/1994. The Compl...
Mrs. Maria Sylvia Cardozo E Fernandes and Another Vs. Mrs. Savita Tina ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-02-2013
Oral Order:- Heard Shri C. A. Coutinho, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri N. Sardessai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4. 2. The above Writ Petition challenges an order passed by the lower appellate Court whereby an injunction granted in favour of the petitioners by the learned Trial Judge restraining the respondent nos. 3 and 4 from alienating and/or creating any third party right in respect of the suit property was set aside and the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioners came to be rejected. 3. Mr. Coutinho, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order on the ground that as per the case of the petitioners, the total consideration in respect of the subject matter of the sale deed in favour of the respondent no. 1 and 2 dated 9th March, 2006 was in fact paid by the petitioners. The learned counsel further pointed out that a bare perusal of the sale deed, clearly discloses that the cheq...
Samir Balasaheb Awati Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-2013
Revati Mohite Dere, J. 1. The Appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC') and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ichalkaranji, by the Judgment and Order dated 25th September, 2006, in Sessions Case No.38 of 2005. By this Appeal, the Appellant questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. The facts in brief as are necessary for deciding the appeal can briefly be stated as under: PW.13 Desai was attached to Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Ichalkaranji as an ASI. He has stated that on 13th July, 2005, a letter was received at the Police Station from IGM Hospital, to record the statement of Salama, who was admitted at the said Hospital. Accordingly, PW.13 Desai was directed by PSI Nalawade to proceed to the IGM Hospital, for recording the statement of Salama. He has stated, that he ...
Varun Resorts Ltd. Vs. Pan Electrical Services and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-01-2013
Oral Judgment: This appeal questions the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa whereby he dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction. 2. The plaintiff/ appellant had filed a suit against the respondent/ defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.12 Lakhs with interest. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff had placed an order for delivery of Diesel Generating set ('D.G. set' for short) to the defendant some time in the year 2006. This D.G. set was delivered and also commissioned by the defendant. It was then suggested that the plaintiff may go for another D.G. set and, therefore, an order for another D.G. set was placed and as desired by the defendant, full payment of Rs.12 Lakhs was made by a cheque drawn on bank at Mumbai. The defendant has its place of business at Mumbai. This D.G. set was not delivered and, therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money which has been paid towards delivery of this D.G. set. 3. The defendant appe...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swati Rajendra Ubale and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard both sides. It is admitted fact that the objection regarding delay of seven days caused in filing present first appeals is raised by the Registry in view of the fact that earlier the challenge to the award under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act could have been only by way of filing of writ petition. Those writ petitions were filed in all present cases. Thereafter, however, since in view of Supreme Court's decision, such interim award can be challenged by filing First Appeals, all the writ petitions were converted to First Appeals. As the writ petitions were filed seven days after the prescribed period of limitation for filing the First Appeals, the objection was raised. In that view of the matter, the delay in filing the First Appeals is condoned. 2. With consent of the parties, the First Appeals are admitted and taken for hearing. 3. On the earlier dates it was found by this Court that the writ petitions were filed in the year 2003 and present First Appeals w...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »