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.
Dr. Mahesh Bapurao Swami and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Thro ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2013
Sunil P. Deshmukh, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent. 2. Petitioners assail, in this group of writ petitions, propriety, legality and validity of communications / letters dated 14.02.2013, 06.06.2013 and 26.06.2013 [dated 25.02.2013 Exhibit-G1 in Writ Petition No.5272/2013, dated 21.02.2013 and 26.02.2013 Exhibit-F2 and Exhibit-F1 in Writ Petition No.5810/2013], Exhibit-G1, Exhibit-G2 and Exhibit-I respectively to rest of the the writ petitions, issued by respondents No.3 and 6 respectively, communicating that pay fixation of the lecturers under the list appended to the same, has been done taking into account the dates of their appointment and accordingly giving them benefit of Career Advancement Scheme (herein after CAS for brevity). The CAS benefits given are not according to the Government Resolution dated 18.10.2001 whereunder the benefits would be available from the date of acquiring requisite qualifications and as such their pay fixation needs r...
Navroz Kershasp Mody Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
M.S. Sonak, J. 1] Rule. Rule is made returnable with the consent of all the parties forthwith. 2] The petitioner takes exception to the communication dated 8th December, 2012 (impugned communication) of the Regional Manager (Estates) of Life Insurance Corporation of India (respondent No.1), rejecting the regularisation application made by the petitioner in respect of the premises being a flat No.2A (said premises) in Mumbai, under tenancy code No.5928 and the Notes and Decision dated 7th December, 2012 containing the reasons/basis for issuance of the impugned communication dated 8th December, 2012. 3] The facts and circumstances in which the impugned communication came to be made, are set out briefly hereinafter: A] In the year 1939 or thereabouts one S.B. Madan was tenant of the said premises and lived therein alongwith his wife Mrs. Dina Madan. They did not have any children. Dina's sister Rati Mody, her husband Kershasp Mody and their son Navroz (petitioner) began to live with them ...
Randhir S/O Chandrabal Gautam Vs. Secretary (Special) Home Department, ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
Oral Judgment: (Z.A. Haq, J.) 1. Heard Shri S. D. Chopde, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri M. K. Pathan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Secretary (Special), Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai on 3rd of December, 2012, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirming the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Wardha on 7th of July, 2012, by which the petitioner has been externed from the area of Wardha, Amravati and Yavatmal districts for the period of two years. Apart from the other grounds, the challenge of the petitioner is that while passing the impugned orders, the Authorities have taken into consideration the prosecutions which were filed under the Bombay Prohibition Act and most of the prosecutions are stale. 4. With the assistance of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, we have gone through...
Gopal Bhagwandas Ahuja Vs. Jagdish Bhagwandas Ahuja and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
Oral Judgment: Plaintiff who has filed suit for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/10th share of the assets and properties set out in the plaint, and for partition of the said properties by metes and bounds on the ground that all such properties were properties of the joint family, has prayed in this notice of motion for appointment of the Court Receiver in respect of the properties described in Exh. B and injunction in respect thereof. Some of the facts which emerge from the pleadings and documents filed by both the parties and which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this notice of motion are as under: 2. CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF: (a) Plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 8 are children of one Mr. Bhagwandas Ahuja who expired on 14th April, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said deceased). Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are the brothers of the plaintiff. Defendant nos. 5 to 8 are sisters of the plaintiff. Defendant no. 9 to 11 are the children of the deceased sister of the plain...
Pushkar Damle Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable and heard finally with consent. 2. In regular criminal trial for the offences punishable under Sections 211, 499 and 588 of the Indian Penal Code, the Petitioner-Applicant desires to lead evidence by way of affidavit of examination-in-chief. For that purpose, he filed application Exhibit-63, copy whereof is at page nos.18 and 19. 3. The application has been rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class by order dated 28th February 2012. The said order is impugned in this Petition. 4. The learned Magistrate has observed that the prayer for recording evidence of the witness on affidavit cannot be granted since in summons trial since if examination-in-chief is recorded on an affidavit, the court would be deprived of the facility of watching and noticing the personality and demeanour of the witness which would be exhibited when the examination-in-chief is recorded extempore and by appearance in person. 5. Argument advanced in support of this petit...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Shrikant Bandu Bhojne
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. By consent, admitted and taken up for final hearing forthwith. By consent, calling for Record and Proceedings dispensed with. 2. The respondent is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.116/2010 pending before the Sessions Court, at Parbhani. In that case, the First Information Report came to be lodged on the allegations that the respondent herein and one Suresh Shelke had committed the offences punishable under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and 366 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the Investigating Agency filed charge sheet only against the respondent alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376 of Indian Penal Code and 366 of Indian Penal Code by the respondent. The charge of offences punishable under Sections 376 of Indian Penal Code and 366 of Indian Penal Code was framed on 20.4.2011 and the case was kept for recording of evidence. After the evidence of the victim the first...
Sunil Devidas Bhavsar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
P.C. Heard. 2. This is an application filed by the first informant - Sunil Devidas Bhavsar. His wife had committed suicide. According to the F.I.R. was registered, alleging that the accused persons has abated the suicide. Charge-sheet was filed. 3. At the end of trial, the learned Sessions Court acquitted the accused. The first informant has filed this appeal against acquittal. 4. Learned Advocate for the applicant has read out to the court the copy of suicide note. It is at page 195. This court has also perused the same. 5. The suicide note expresses grievance against accused persons to the effect that :- She had sold the house in return of debt, to the Accused. The accused were demanding interest. She had landed in a situation of penuery and extreme frustration due to the pestering by accused. She believed that during her lifetime the justice would not be done. 6. Any other independent evidence in support of the charge was not led. 7. In the result, the Sessions Judge had recorded a ...
Bansnarayan Sitaprasad Patel Vs. Shri Sairam (Sra) Co-operative Housin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
Oral Judgment: The Appellant-Original Plaintiff has challenged order dated 16 December 2008, passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Greater Bombay, whereby his Suit for declaration about his entitlement to the joint possession of the transit premises Room No. 702, Gomati Nagar Transit Camp, G.K. Marg, Worli, Mumbai and other related prayers including of injunction, were not entertained, by holding that the Court has no jurisdiction and further directed to represent before the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short, SRA) read with Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC). Section 42 of the SRA reads as under:- 42. Bar of Jurisdiction.- Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no civil court shall have jurisdiction is respect of any matter which the Administrator, Competent Authority or Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act, to determine; and no injunction shal...
Narendra Nathuram Pardeshi Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) The appellant, who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, by the Sessions Judge, Raigad, by judgment dated 24/10/2005, in Sessions Case No.245 of 2003, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this appeal may briefly be stated thus:- PW 7 - ASI Jyotiram Chavan, who, on 21/8/2003, was attached to the Police Station, Karjat, received information on telephone at his residence from the Police Station about admission of Bharati in the Karjat Rural Hospital. PW 7 - ASI Chavan, therefore, proceeded to the hospital and noticed that injured Bharati had sustained burns and, therefore, enquired from her as to how she had received the burn injuries. Bharati was found to be fully conscious and was pr...
M/S. Akash Pruthvi Lifestyle Vs. Akash Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
Oral Order: 1. The above Suit is filed by the Plaintiffs for a declaration that the Development Agreement dated 12th June, 2012 (Exhibit-F to the Plaint) in respect of the property bearing Plot No. 23 of Paranjape Scheme No. B and Survey No. 50A, Hissa No. 1 (Part) CTS No. 156 and 156/1 to 156/11, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai 400 057 (the Suit Property) is valid, legal and binding on the Defendant Nos.1 and 2. The Plaintiffs have also sought directions against Defendant Nos.1 and 2 to specifically perform the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement dated 12th June, 2012. The Plaintiffs have further sought an order and direction against Defendant No. 2 to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of his flat i.e. Flat No.201, Second Floor, Akash Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Plot No. 23, Paranjape Scheme No. B, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai 400 057 (the Suit Flat) to the Plaintiffs for reconstruction and redevelopment of the Suit Property in accordance with the terms and condition...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »