Mumbai Court September 2013 Judgments
Mrs. Smita Dilip Amonkar Vs. the State of Goa and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
NareshH. Patil, J. Heard. 2. The Petitioner challenges the legality and propriety of the selection and promotion of the Respondent no.4 - Mrs. Sunia Bhandare, to the post of trained Graduate Teacher and prays for other consequential reliefs. 3. It is the contention of the Petitioner that in the month of October,1976, she appeared for the Secondary School Certificate examination of the Goa, Daman and Diu Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary. She was declared to have successfully passed the said examination on 01/03/1977. The Petitioner was awarded a Diploma in Education by the Directorate of Education, Government of Goa, Daman and Diu (as it was then) after being declared successful in examination of the Diploma in Education (D. Ed.) held in the month of April, 1979. The Petitioner was appointed by the Respondent no.3 vide Order of Appointment dated 09/11/1979 against the post of Trained Arts Undergraduate Teacher in the Sarvodaya High School run by the Respondent no.3. The Petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Sakharam Digambar Mahajan Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
Oral Order:- 1. Heard Mr. S.M.Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the original complainant. He filed a complaint against 11 persons i.e. the respondent nos. 2 to 12 herein, alleging the commission of offences punishable under sections 177 and 182 of the Indian Penal Code. The substance of the allegations was that, the respondent no.1 had given false information to the Vice Chancellor of Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University, Nanded. The Magistrate, upon examining the petitioner as contemplated under section 200 of the Code, formed an opinion that there was a prima facie case for proceeding against the respondents and by his order dated 25.6.2002 directed issuance of process against respondent nos. 2 to 12 (the accused herein) in respect of the aforesaid offences. After the service of summons, some of the accused made an application for rejection of the complaint contending that the cognizance of the alleged offence could not have been taken witho...
Tag this Judgment!Ashwini Ganesh Sakpal and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.R. Joshi, J.) 1) Both the criminal appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order as they challenge same judgment and order of conviction passed in Sessions Case No. 710 of 2006 by which respective appellant accused were convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC vide order dated 16th April, 2008 passed by the 10th Ad hoc Additional Sessions judge, Mumbai. 2) Both the appellants are original accused Nos. 1 and 2 and they were tried and convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with section 34 of IPC and were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer RI for one month each. Admittedly, from the date of their arrest i.e. 8th May, 2006 both the appellants-accused are in custody till date. The appellant in Appeal No. 979 of 2010 is original accused No.1 and is represented by learned Advocate Ms Rebeca Gonsalvez. Appellant in Cri...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrashekhar Bhayaji Khawale and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
Oral Judgment: 01. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr. Kadu waives service on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2, and learned Adv. Mr. Meghe, for respondent no.3. By consent, this Civil Revision Application is taken up for final hearing. 02. The learned counsel for the Revision Applicants invited my attention to para 4 of the Revision Application, and argued that despite transfer of the suit from one Court to another, neither Advocate, nor the party, i.e., the applicants had any intimation about the transfers. That is why, the parties could not appear and evidence could not be adduced. To substantiate his contention, he relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Appasaheb Mohanrao Chede Vs. State of Mah. and another [2011 (2) ALL MR 255] and also the copy of order-sheet which was produced before me in support of the said statement contained in para 4. 03. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Wajid Abdul Wahid Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
Oral Order: 1 The applicant, who is an accused in C.R. No. 60/2013 registered at R.A. Kidwai Marg Police Station, Mumbai, by this application, prays for bail. According to the applicant, the investigation was not completed within the period prescribed by clause (a) of the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), but that, he was still not released on bail, thereby defeating the right to be released on bail, that had accrued to him. The applicant, therefore, is seeking bail only on the ground that effect should be given to the right that had accrued in his favour of being released on bail. 2. Since this is the only contention and since no arguments on the merits of the allegations levelled against the applicant and the case against him have been advanced, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of the case. What, however, needs to be observed is that the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised C...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram Sakharam Keluskar Vs. Dayaram Gulzarilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
Oral Judgment: 1 The appeal is preferred against judgment and order dated 22.12.2000 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge, Bombay City Civil Court, Mumbai, in S.C.Suit No.5167 of 1989 whereby the suit was dismissed with costs. 2 The appellant (original plaintiff) had prayed for mandatory injunction against respondent to the effect that defendant should be ordered to remove the construction of drainage allegedly on the door step of the plaintiff and affecting the entrance of the plaintiff with damages claimed in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and also mandatory injunction in terms that dangerous portion of the first floor falling on the plaintiff's room be removed as unauthorized and illegal construction. According to plaintiff (appellant) he is tenant occupying Room No.24, situated at 9, Punjabi Chawl, Jawahar Nagar, Khar (E), Mumbai, while defendant is owner of the said chawl. When tenant wanted to carry out certain repairs with the permission of Municipal authorities, landlord ...
Tag this Judgment!Sayaji S/O Tukaram Shinde Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. 2. In view of what transpired on the last date of hearing, Mr. G.K. Naik Thigale, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that there is no question of arriving at any settlement with the petitioner, as indicated by Mr. C.V. Dharurkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Under the circumstances, Rule. By consent Rule is made returnable, forthwith. By consent heard finally. 4. The petitioner is an accused in S.C.C. No. 1084/2008 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed. The said case is in respect of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and arises on a complaint filed by the respondent no.2 herein. The trial is in progress. On 08.02.2013, when the case before the Magistrate was kept for recording of defence evidence, the petitioner made an application (Exhibit 68) contending therein that the cheque in question had not been issued by the petitioner, and that the handwriting and signature on ...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Janabai and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
Oral Judgment : Heard learned counsel for respective parties. 2. Admit. 3. Learned Counsel Shri S.S. Patil waives notices for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in First Appeal No. 2575/2012 and also waives notice Respondent No. 1 in First Appeal No. 2548/2012. By Consent of learned Counsel for the parties, first appeals are heard finally at the stage of admission. 4. Two first appeals are filed by the appellant/ Insurance Company challenging the judgments and awards dated 16-06-2010 by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon in M.A.C.P. Nos.89/2006 and 90/2006, whereby allowing the compensation for the death.FACTS OF THE CASE 5. The main defence taken by the learned Counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company is that the vehicle involved in the accident is goods vehicle an Isher truck, and both the deceased were travelling as passengers in the said truck. They were neither owners of the goods nor the persons authrorised who can be covered under the policy. Therefore, ...
Tag this Judgment!Wallace Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.V. Bunga Bidara and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
1 The brief facts of the case necessary to consider the rival contentions of the plaintiff and defendant nos.1 and 2 are required to be set down. 2 The plaintiff has instituted a suit for the recovery of an amount of U.S. Dollars 154,000 together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the institution of the suit until payment/realization. The amount which is claimed in the suit represents the CIF value of 40 Drums said to contain 1000 BOU Lincomycin HCL BP (Oral Grade) weighing about 1184 kg. (the consignment) alleged to have been short-landed. The case of the plaintiff is that in February 2001, the plaintiff imported from Shanghai to Mumbai the consignment under an invoice dated 16th February, 2001 of the shippers M/s.Sino Pharmaceuticals (HK) Ltd. (the Shipper). The consignment was entrusted by the shipper to the Third Defendant at Shanghai. The Third Defendant issued a Bill of Lading dated 22nd February, 2001 acknowledging receipt of the consignment on board a vessel by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Esther Manickam Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2 The tenant who is in occupation of a premises by paying rent less than Rs.50/- per month, not willing to vacate the premises though offer is made to compensate by paying about Rupees one crore and more. The premises is very short but the demand and expectations are very high. This Appeal from Order is filed by the Appellant/original Plaintiff as the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai, refused to grant ad interim relief by order dated 22 August 2013. The Suit as well as Notice of Motion are still pending. A notice under Section 354 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 to pull down the suit premises i.e. Flat No.A2, Ground floor, Ruia Building on CTS No.72A (part), Survey No.44 (part), Military Road, Juhu, Mumbai 400049, is challenged in the Suit mainly on the ground and with prayer to provide alternate permanent accommodation being tenant of the premises/flat of area admeasuring 340...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »