Mumbai Court January 2014 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.
Raju Vs. Rekha and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. M.M. Joshi, the learned Counsel for the applicant. Heard Mr. R.V. Gore, the learned Counsel for the respondent no.1. Heard Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent no.2. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 3. The applicant is the husband of the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 has filed an application for maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [For short, "the Code"], in the court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kannad, wherein the present applicant is the respondent. The applicant has approached this Court, invoking its inherent powers, and praying that the proceedings instituted by the respondent no.1, which are pending before the Magistrate, be quashed. 4. According to the learned Counsel for the applicant, the proceedings instituted by the respondent no.1 are nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. Acco...
Bhikubee Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Special Land Acquisitio ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally. Learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 accept service. Record and proceedings is available. 2. The original claimant / appellant / questions judgment and order dated 29th August, 2013, in LAR No.401/1998, questioning deficiency in awarding compensation in respect of 300 sweet lime trees. 3. Agricultural properties of the appellant/ claimant situate at village Sultanpur and Bhandegaon, taluka Khultabad, district Aurangabad, were acquired by respondent State for construction of K.T.Weir (Kolhapur Bandhara) of village Sultanpur / Bhandegaon. There is no controversy about description of the agricultural property and ownership vesting in the appellant. Possession of the land was taken on 31st Oct., 1988. Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the gazette on 3/6/1993. The Special Land Acquisition Officer recorded the award on 19.10.1995. Notice in terms of...
Rajendra Vs. Sou. Sujata
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This Second Appeal arises out of Judgment and Order dt.4.9.2013 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Wardha in Regular Civil Appeal No.150 of 2009, which was dismissed. The First Appeal arose from the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No.6 of 2005 on 21.7.2009 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Wardha whereby the decree for possession of the suit house was granted and the trial Court directed the defendant to hand over possession of the suit house to the plaintiff and also ordered enquiry into mesne profit under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: It was the case of plaintiff Sujata Ashok Moon that she had purchased open plot on 12.11.1990 as self-acquired property and thereafter, constructed two storeyed house on the said plot in the year 1999-2000. She was occupying ground floor while her brother-in-law (her husband's brother and defendant herein) orally requested plaintiff to permit him to oc...
Ranjana Pathak Vs. State, Through Public Prosecutor
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Special Case No.26/2006 which was pending before the President, Children's Court for the State of Goa at Panaji. The appellant is convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Section 323 and 342 of Indian Penal Code. She is also convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Section 4(1), 5(1)(d) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'PITA'). The maximum sentence of imprisonment given to the appellant is 7 years under PITA. She is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the victim girl under the provisions of PITA. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows: The prosecutrix is a Bangladeshi national. At the relevant time, she was aged about 14 years. One Parveen alias Aarti hails from the village of prosecutrix from Bangladesh. Jitendra alias Jitu is the husband of Aarti. Aarti, her brother and father used ...
SachIn Bhaskarrao Bobde Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar J.) This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code takes exception to the judgment dated 24th August 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Wardha in Sessions Case No.184 of 2007 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Penal Code) and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the murder of his mother-Anusayabai and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. The appellant has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the murder of his sister-Sandhya and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. Both the sentences have been directed to run one after the other. 2. The case of the prosecution as can be gathered from the materi...
Public Education Society Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through the Sec ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved and dissatisfied with an order passed on 1st August, 2013, permitting the respondent no.4, to shift a secondary school from village Khedle, Taluka Talwada, District Nandurbar to village Gautamnagar, Gondur Road, Walwadi, Dist. Dhule. 3. Petitioner is a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is registered in the year 1980. It is an educational trust. The petitioner states that the trust is managing and administering the secondary school from Standard 5th to Standard 12th at village Walwadi, Tq. and Dist. Dhule. The school is existing from 1st October, 1982. It is stated that the petitioner has basic amenities and infrastructure and fully complies with the requirement of the Education Department, permitting, managing and administering a secondary ...
Luis Sales De Andrade E Souza (Jr.) and Another Vs. Jijabai Namdev Sat ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Mangeshkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners, who are the defendants in Regular Civil Suit no. 46/2011/C, filed against them by the respondents (plaintiffs) have challenged the order dated 10/10/2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, œC? Court at Panaji in the said Suit, thereby granting the application dated 20/09/2013 filed by the respondents for taking on record notarized copy of the declaration dated 06/07/1994 and to exhibit the same and read the same in evidence. 4. Issues were framed in the said suit and the matter was pending for evidence. The plaintiffs filed the said application dated 20/09/2013 for leave to produce the secondary evidence in the form of notarized copy of the declaration dated 06/07/1994, alleging that at the time ...
State of Goa Through Its Chief Secretary and Others Vs. Andrew Francis ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
The appeal is filed against Judgment and Decree of the Civil Suit No.25/2009, which was pending in Court of District Judge, Panaji. The suit filed by the respondents under Section 77 of the Registration Act, 1908 and for directions is decreed in their favour by the Trial Court. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the suit can be stated as follows. The plaintiffs are British Nationals. They are retired persons and they want to reside in India for most of their time in their retired life. For the purpose of residence, they decided to purchase immovable property and the owner of house No.172, ward Ranoi, in village Aldona, Taluka and Sub District of Bardez, District North Goa Goa has executed sale deed in their favour of the property admeasuring 925 square metres for valuable consideration. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they had presented the sale deed for registration before the registering authority on 30/4/2008. It is contended that...
Udaysing Jalamsing Valvi Vs. the Secretary, District Selection Committ ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) Rule returnable forthwith. 2 Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 3 The Petitioner's main prayer is to direct the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner on the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts) under Scheduled Tribe reserved category, as by communication dated 2 November 2012, the Respondents rejected the representation and claim of the Petitioner, though being waiting list candidate No.1 and as the post was vacant, as the appointed candidate unable to join the post, as unable to furnish the caste certificate. 4 Respondent No.1 issued advertisement on 1 September 2011, for the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts) out of which one post was reserved for Scheduled Tribe category (for short, ST category). As two candidates appeared under the ST category, after written and oral examination, in October 2011, a list was published, in which the name of one Mr. Pritam Hiraji Surekar shown as selected candidate. The Petitioner was shown in the waiting lis...
Liban Maria D'Souza Vs. State represented by the Mamlatdar of Bardez a ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Braganza, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Dhargalkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 and Mr. Kanekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 21/02/2013 and 06/05/2013 passed by the learned Deputy Collector and S.D.M. Mapusa Sub-Division Mapusa-Goa in case No. GLPC/ILL/MAP/12/2011. 4. On 09/02/2011, the respondent no.2 filed a complaint before the Deputy Collector and S.D.M. Mapusa alleging that the property known as œBatti? admeasuring about 5387 square metres bearing survey no.111 of Village Oxel of Bardez Taluka was partitioned vide Deed of Partition dated 31/08/1990 between Mr. Luis D'Souza and Mr. Antonio Mariano D'Souza and that the respondent no.2, being the legal heir of Mr. Luis D'Souza, was allotted Part œB? admeas...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »