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.
Suresh Malhari Gaware Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2013
Oral Judgment: (Mrs. Bhatkar, J.) 1. The appellant is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The appellant and the deceased Raziyabi Nashir Khan were residing together after death of her husband. Raziyabi was having three children including PW1 Ameenabai Nasir Khan. On the night of 9.5.2001, the accused, who was addicted to liquor, came home and demanded money from Raziyabi. Raziyabi did not given money. So by pouring kerosene he set her on fire. She started shouting. So her children, who were sleeping outside the room, came running inside. The accused poured water on the deceased and ran away. Raziyabi was shifted immediately to the Sion hospital. She was treated by PW3 Dr.Vikas Krishnamkumar Bihani. She had sustained 65% burn injuries. PW6 API Prabhakar Parab, then attached to Antop hill police station, on receiving information of the incident, registered C.R. No.216 of 2001. Statement of Raziyabi w...
Dilip Janaba Kamble Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2013
Oral Judgment: (Mrs. Tahilramani, J.) 1. This appeal is directed by the appellant accused against the judgment and order dated 7.8.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No.11 of 2009. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, i/d RI for six months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: The appellant was married to the deceased Kalpana on 23.6.2007. After the marriage, the appellant and his wife i.e., the deceased were residing at Village Wajare, Taluka Aajra, District Kolhapur. The mother law of the appellant was also residing with them. The appellant was addicted to liquor. Earlier the appellant used to do work of agriculture, thereafter he did not do any work. PW5 Parsu, the father of Kalpana and other persons tried to persuade the appellant to behave properly but there was no improvement in his b...
Garware Marine Industries Limited Vs. Integrated Finance Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2013
Oral Judgment : By this chamber summons filed by the defendant, it is prayed that the plaint in this suit be returned to the plaintiff for presentation in appropriate court at Chennai and in the alternative to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by law of limitation and that the plaint does not disclose cause of action for the reliefs claimed in the suit. 2. Some of the facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this chamber summons are summarized as under : (a) By an Equipment Lease Agreement dated 30th June, 1992 entered into between Plaintiff and defendant, the defendant gave on lease one Himson scragg SDS8 Texturising machine (hereinafter referred to as the said machine) for the period of five years on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said agreement. The said machine was installed at the factory premises of Garware Nylons Limited, an associate company of the plaintiff at Ahmednagar and the said associate company was using the said machine. The registere...
Govinda Goga Donde and Another Vs. Mayur Ramesh Bora and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. This Petition challenges the order dated 9.6.2011 passed by the learned 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nasik below Exhibit 62 in Regular Civil Suit No. 45 of 2011. By this order, the Court has directed framing of preliminary issue of limitation in exercise of its power conferred by section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. In Regular Civil Suit No.45 of 2011 the Plaintiff has claimed a relief as under: (a) It may kindly be declared that sale deed Day-Book serial No. 1357/1965 dated 2nd August, 1965 is illegal and not binding on the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 4 to 8 and the said sale deed may be cancelled. (b) Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 through themselves and any other persons on their behalf may kindly be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff and defendant No.6 from the suit property illegally and by coercion by granting permanent injunction against the defendant Nos. 1 to 3. (c) Costs of the suit may be awarded to the plaintiff from the defendant Nos...
Dodsal Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent heard forthwith finally. 2. The petitioner herein is the complainant in Criminal Complaint No.1641/P/2000 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the tenant in Tejkiran Building. It had taken a godown on rent from the landlord vide letter dated 29.8.1969. Subsequently, the company became a tenant of the said premises. The petitioner had entered into an agreement with M/s. Keshavlal R. Shah on 9.10.1969. The petitioner was paying the rent of Rs.1850/- per month. In the year 1981, the tenants of the said building had formed a Co-operative Housing Society which was registered under the Societies Registration Act. The petitioner had expressed its desire to become the member of the said Society and further that they would buy the said premises since they were occupying the same since August 1969. The members of the Society in the Annual General Mee...
Pandurang Tilu Gosavi Vs. Dy. Conservator of Forests and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-20-2013
Oral Judgment: This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 9th October, 2003 passed the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem (trial Court) in Regular Civil Suit No. 18/91/A. 2. This appeal was initially filed before the District Judge, South Goa, Margao and registered as Regular Civil Appeal No 11/2005. However, the same was transferred from the District Court to this Court, on account of lack of jurisdiction in view of the Goa Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the same was forwarded to this Court along with original record and Proceedings. The appeal then came to be registered as First Appeal No. 304 of 2005. After the admission of the appeal, notice was issued to the appellant as well as to the respondents and both the parties were duly served. However, the respondents have chosen to remain absent. 3. Heard Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for the appellant, who was the plaintiff before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem. 4. Parties sha...
Chandrashekhar S/O Manohar Tanksale Vs. Pandharinath S/O Vithobaji New ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-20-2013
B.R. Gavai, J. 1. The appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.176/2011 thereby allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent/tenant herein. 2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal, are as under:- The appellant/landlord filed a suit being R.C.S. No.473/2002 against the respondent/tenant in the Court of Small Causes, Nagpur for possession of the suit premises under Section 16(1) (a), (b), (c) and (g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The suit was resisted by the respondent/defendant. The learned trial Judge vide judgment and order dated 27th November, 2006 decreed the suit. It is not in dispute that the said decree has been affirmed up to the Apex Court. After the decree was passed, the execution proceedings vide Special Darkhast No.2/2007 came to be filed by the appellant before the Additional Small Causes Court, Nagpur. In the said proceedings, on 20th January, 2010 an application vide Exh.52 came t...
State Vs. Manoj Pednekar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-20-2013
Oral Judgment: This appeal by the State questions acquittal of the respondents by the learned JMFC, 'B' Court, Mapusa for offence punishable under Sections 326 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. 2. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under: Victim Yeshwant Pednekar and respondent no.1 Manoj Pednekar are twins. The other three respondents i.e. Manisha Pednekar, Reshma Chodankar and Ramesh Chodankar are respectively wife of Manoj, sister and brother-in-law of Manisha. It is not in dispute that the brothers are goldsmiths and, therefore, use nitric acid in their work as goldsmiths. They reside in the same house and their relations are extremely strained. On 25/03/2007 at about 5.30 p.m. while the other three respondents i.e. Manisha, Reshma and Ramesh were holding Yeshwant Pednekar, Manoj Pednekar is alleged to have hit Yeshwant with the bottle of acid on head. Yeshwant suffered several acid burn injuries on his face, neck, chest and back. Respondent no.1...
Shubham S/O Satish Borekar Vs. State of Maharashtra Through the Direct ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-20-2013
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Considering the fact that the matter pertains to MBBS admission of a student to Medical course and involves an issue about hilly area reservation, with consent, we have heard respective Counsel at length by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. We also extended opportunity to learned Advocate JT Gilda with Advocate AJ Gilda appearing for intervenor student and perused reply/affidavits filed by him. At first hearing on 17th July,2013, we have passed following order:- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI and A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ. DATED : 17th JULY 2013. Advocate Shri Parchure states that there is no independent Junior College or then similar facility for taking education in 11th or 12th standard at Semadoh and hence, all students are required to go to adjacent places. Semadoh is an hilly area and the petitioner has taken education in adjacent Dharni Tahsil, which is also included in the Hilly area. In this situation, notice, returnable on 23.07.2013. Additional ...
Salvador D'Souza (since deceased) and Others Vs. Mrs. Maria Lizia Aure ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-20-2013
Heard Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Ms. Linhares, the learned Additional Government Advocate, on behalf of the respondents no. 13 and 14. 2. The present appeal arises out of the Judgment, Order and Decree dated 12/01/2006 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, South Goa, Margao (trial Court, for short) in Civil Suit No.176/2004 (new) : Regular Civil Suit No.79/2003/A(old). 3. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which their names appear in the cause title of the said civil suit. 4. The plaintiffs had filed the said suit for declaration that they are absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and that the defendants have no right, title and interest in the suit property; for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from constructing road on or over the suit property or from interfering with the same in any manner detrimental to the ownership a...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »