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.
The State of Maharashtra, Through the Commissioner of Police, Pune and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
G.S. Patel, J. 1. On 11th January 2013, a Division Bench of this Court passed a detailed order in this writ petition. The facts were briefly set out. Some of the documents were considered. The Court arrived at a prima-facie conclusion of non-compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in D.K.Basuv State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416) in matters of illegal detention. The Division Bench directed the Principal District Judge, Pune, to nominate any Judicial Magistrate, First Class (not one dealing with any of pending cases in this matter) to hold an enquiry. The Judicial Magistrate was required to call for the record from the police, to allow the petitioner to adduce documentary and oral evidence and to issue witness summonses to the witnesses concerned. The police authorities, too, were allowed to lead evidence. The Judicial Magistrate was required to enquire into the petitioners allegations and, in particular, the allegations that the petitioner was illegally detained by...
Chintaman Sitaram Bajad (Dead) Through L.Rs. and Others Vs. Shankar So ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
Oral Judgment. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.170 of 1985 by the Additional District Judge, Buldana, on 14.8.1989, thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 140 of 1980 by the Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Mehkar, on 16.2.1985. 2. The original appellant Chintaman (now dead) was the original defendant in a suit filed against him for enforcing specific performance of contract by the respondent, the original plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present appeal are hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendant, as they were originally arrayed in the civil suit. 3. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant being owner in possession of agricultural land bearing survey no.7, had agreed to sell 18 acres out of the same, situated at village Balsamudra, Tq. Mehkar, district Buldana, to him for a total consideration of Rs.21,600/-. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had...
Hasan Mohammad Issak Maniyar and Others Vs. Harun Gulab Maniyar and An ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
RevatiMohie Dere, J. 1. Rule was granted in this petition on 4th January, 2013 and by way of an ad-interim relief, the trial of the petitioners was not to proceed until further orders. As Rule on interim relief was made returnable in March, 2013, and considering the narrow controversy involved in the petition, we have taken up this petition itself for final disposal with the consent of the parties. 2. Heard learned Counsel Shri S.V. Kotwal for the petitioners, Mr. S. M. Kamble for respondent No.1 and Ms. Usha Kejriwal, A.P.P. for the State. 3. This petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code'), takes exception to the order dated 24th April, 2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pimpalgaon (B), Taluka Niphad, District“ Nashik, directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code, after recording verification of the complainant, in Criminal...
The State of Maharashtra, Through the Commissioner of Police, Pune and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
G.S. Patel, J. 1. On 11th January 2013, a Division Bench of this Court passed a detailed order in this writ petition. The facts were briefly set out. Some of the documents were considered. The Court arrived at a prima-facie conclusion of non-compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in D.K.Basuv State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416) in matters of illegal detention. The Division Bench directed the Principal District Judge, Pune, to nominate any Judicial Magistrate, First Class (not one dealing with any of pending cases in this matter) to hold an enquiry. The Judicial Magistrate was required to call for the record from the police, to allow the petitioner to adduce documentary and oral evidence and to issue witness summonses to the witnesses concerned. The police authorities, too, were allowed to lead evidence. The Judicial Magistrate was required to enquire into the petitioners allegations and, in particular, the allegations that the petitioner was illegally detained by...
Janardhan Haribhau Hend (Patil) and Another Vs. Jaikumar Shaligram Cha ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
Oral Judgment: Heard. Admit. Heard forthwith with consent of the parties. Aggrieved by the rejection of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Special Civil Suit No. 11/2012, the present civil revision application is filed. The petitioners-original defendant nos. 2 and 3 claim that the suit is barred by limitation. The respondent no. 1plaintiff has claimed a right of preemption on the basis of the special contract at the time of partition of the properties between him and the respondent no.2. In the plaint, it was submitted that in breach of the said term of pre-emption, the respondent no. 2 has sold the suit plot to the present petitioners-defendant nos. 2 and 3 on 12.05.2009. The plaintiff had issued notice to the defendant no.1 i.e. Respondent no. 2 on 1.8.2011. No reply was given and therefore when inquiry was made by the respondent no. 1plaintiff it was found that the respondent no.2 has executed the aforesaid sale deed on 12.5.2009 in favour of th...
Dr. Carla Guiomar Souza Vs. the State of Goa, Through the Public Prose ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 15/02/2011 and 25/11/2010 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji in Criminal Revision Application No.134/2010 and by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 'C' Court at Panaji in Criminal Case No.114/2008/C. The petitioner has also prayed for dropping further proceedings in the matter and discharge her. 3. A charge sheet was filed by the Women Police Station against One Dr. Anthony Lobo and Dr. Carla Guiomar Souza (petitioner), before the Children's Court, for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 354, 509, 506(ii), 109 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code ( 'IPC' for short) and Section 8 of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 (Children's Act, for short) alleging that since 9 months prior to 05/05/2005 at Machado Cove, Vaiguinim, Valley, Dona Paula, the said accused no. 1, Dr Anthony Lobo wrongfully confined the complainant Ms. Rupa Sharma ...
B.C. Jhaveri and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
1. By this Writ Petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioners pray for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ in the nature thereof to call for all records and thereafter direct that possession of Flat No.3, admeasuring about 730 Sq. ft. situate at on the first floor of building known as Parna Kutir, Plot No.23, Nagardas Plot Scheme, S.No.31 H.No.1(part) Revision Survey No.28, Andheri, Mumbai 400 069. (for short 'said flat') be handed over to them. 2. The facts necessary to appreciate the nature of the relief are that the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the authorities exercising powers under the Bombay Land Acquisition Act, 1948. The Respondent No.4 is the Commissioner of Police for whose benefit this said flat was requisitioned by Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Respondent No.5 is the present occupant of the said flat. 3. It is undisputed that the said flat was requisitioned by Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 prior to 1962 for the benefit of Respondent No.4. It is clai...
Bapurao Siddeshwar Salave Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) 1. 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 to undergo SI for one month, by the Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Goregaon, Mumbai, by judgment dated 30 April 2012 in Sessions Case No.134 of 2010, by this Appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. The facts, as are necessary for the decision of this appeal, may briefly be stated thus: (i) PW-8 PSI Shivaji Shirsat, who on 14.3.2010 was attached to the Kurar Police Station, received information at about 5 am from the Bhagwati Hospital regarding admission of a lady with burns. (ii) PW-8 PSI Shivaji Shirsat accordingly proceeded to the Bhagawati Hospital and ascertained from the Medical Officer regarding the condition of injured Mangal to give her statement. The Medical Officer opined tha...
B.C. Jhaveri and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
1. By this Writ Petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioners pray for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ in the nature thereof to call for all records and thereafter direct that possession of Flat No.3, admeasuring about 730 Sq. ft. situate at on the first floor of building known as Parna Kutir, Plot No.23, Nagardas Plot Scheme, S.No.31 H.No.1(part) Revision Survey No.28, Andheri, Mumbai 400 069. (for short 'said flat') be handed over to them. 2. The facts necessary to appreciate the nature of the relief are that the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the authorities exercising powers under the Bombay Land Acquisition Act, 1948. The Respondent No.4 is the Commissioner of Police for whose benefit this said flat was requisitioned by Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Respondent No.5 is the present occupant of the said flat. 3. It is undisputed that the said flat was requisitioned by Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 prior to 1962 for the benefit of Respondent No.4. It is clai...
Kashinath Shetye Vs. the State, Through Its Public Prosecutor and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
Oral Judgment: (Smt. R.S. Dalvi, J.) The petitioner is the brother of the complainant who had lodged a complaint before the relevant Magistrate's Court with regard to the offence of theft of electricity meter and other incidental offences against respondent No.2. The Magistrate concerned directed the complaint to be investigated under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. A charge-sheet came to be filed on 26/11/2010. Respondent No.2 applied for bail. The learned Magistrate granted bail. The petitioner, who is the brother of the original complainant who has since expired, applied for cancellation of bail before the concerned Sessions Judge. However, the learned Sessions Judge did not cancel the bail. The impugned order gives reasons why the application for cancellation of bail was made and why it has not been allowed. 2. The main contention of the petitioner for cancellation of bail is that the learned Magistrate did not have power to grant bail. The bail was granted in the cr...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »