Mumbai Court October 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.
Ramkishan @ Bala and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-07-2014
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants, aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Ambajogai on 24th December, 2013, thereby convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default, to suffer further S.I. for three months and further convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to suffer S.I. for one months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under :- On 25.07.2007 at 04.00 p.m. in the evening in the land namely 'Ramana Forest Hilly' area within the limit of Ambalwadi, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed, the accused Nos.1 to 4 in furtherance of common intention committed murder of deceased Ram Baburao Masal. It is the prosecution...
Godrej Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2014
A.K. Menon, J. 1. The above appeal filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act) seeks to raise the following questions of law:- (a) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT was justified in directing to deposit interest liability for the period 14-5-2003 (when Section 11DD came into force) till the day demand of differential amount was paid? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT was justified in directing to deposit interest liability in absence of provision to charge interest on amount determined on finalization of provision assessment? The third question is merely consequential. 2. The facts in brief are as follows:- The Appellant, a company is inter alia engaged in the manufacture of Liquid Hair Dye (the product) falling under Tariff Item No.68 of the First Schedule to the Act during the period from September, 1982 to March, 1985 (the relevant period). The Appellant filed classification list in terms of Rule...
Dr. Shubash Singh Vs. Maharashtra Medical Council
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2014
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2. By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is a Medical Practitioner challenges the order passed by the respondent Maharashtra Medical Council, dated 9th July,2014 which was received by the petitioner on 17th July,2014, suspending the petitioner's registration. 3. It is the petitioner's case that he is a qualified and experienced orthopedic surgeon practising at Panvel since the year 1992. The petitioner claims to be a Director of Panvel Medical Research Centre, a company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act,1956 and managing Peneacea Hospital (for short 'the hospital'). It is the petitioner's case that in December,2002, the hospital had purchased a sonography machine when the said hospital had full fledged Gynecologist. The Gynecologist was working in the said hospital till the year 2005 and after...
Messrs. Aadya Motor Car Company Private Limited Vs. The Municipal Comm ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-07-2014
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is coming with the following material prayers: [a] Admit this petition and rule be issued and entire papers and proceedings of the show cause notice dated 24.09.2012 annexed and marked Annexure-E and order dated 6.11.2012 Annexure-H as well as the final order dated 19th July, 2013 of the 1st Respondent Annexure-J, be called upon from the office of the First Respondent above named namely from the office of the Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur and be examined and verified to the extent of its genuineness, correctness and validity thereof. [b] Issue necessary writ of order quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 6.11.2012 and final order dated 19th July, 2013, passed by the First Respondent namely The Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur at ...
Ashok Dattatraya Kulkarni, (Chief Promoter Apna Ghar Co-operative Hous ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2014
STRUCTURE/OUTLINE A. INTRODUCTORY.......................................................... 12 B. THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND...................................15 C. RIVAL SUBMISSIONS and FINDINGS............................ 22 I. The 2004 Development Agreements ............................. 24 II. Membership of the 5th Defendant Society.......................31 III. Kulkarnis Role in Allotment and Transfer of the Land ................................................... 43 IV. The Frame of the Suit and the Reliefs Sought ................ 50 V. The Failure to Give Notice to Kulkarni..........................57 VI. Delay and laches......................................................... 60 VII. Bona fides ...................................................................61 D. CONCLUSION, ORDER and COSTS ............................... 65 A. INTRODUCTORY 1. This dispute pertains to a substantial tract of land admeasuring 94,861.30 sq.mts., roughly 23 acres, at Village Versova, Taluka Andheri...
Rafique Ahmed Ansari and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation for Greater ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2014
Oral Judgment: Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel heard finally. 2. The Petitioners have filed a suit in the year 2010 and challenged the redevelopment scheme at municipal property in question as illegal, bad in law. A prayer is also made for providing a permanent alternate accommodation and a transit accommodation with the amenities. The suit was filed by Petitioner No.1 only. Other Petitioners have not filed such suit. Ad interim relief is also sought against the developer, from demolishing and /or dispossessing the Plaintiff from his respective room. A statement is made that no interim relief as prayed by the Petitioners was granted and the Motion in fact was dismissed on 29th September 2014. 3. The Petitioners who are occupants of the Corporation building in question have filed the present Petition on 28th August 2014. Inspite of notice, the Petitioners have refused to vacate the premises, the proceedings under Section 105-B of ...
M/s. Shri Sowmiya Enterprises and Another Vs. Mineral Exploration Corp ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-07-2014
Common Judgment: 1. In Special Civil Suit No.568 of 1991 for recovery of Rs.22,76,673/ towards blast hole drilling works carried out by the appellant/plaintiff during the period from 26.11.1989 to 31.3.1990, the Trial Court has passed a decree on 12.7.1994, holding that the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to recover the total amount of Rs.1,03,811.20 from the respondent/defendant Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd., with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. The decree is based upon the rate of Rs.115/per meter as against the claim of the appellant/plaintiff at the rate of Rs.140/per meter. The appellant/plaintiff has, therefore, filed First Appeal No.429 of 1994 for enhancement of the claim, whereas the respondent/defendant Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited (MECL), the employer, has filed First Appeal No. 596/1994 challenging the decree passed by the Trial Court. 2. The appellant/plaintiff is a contractor whereas, the re...
Usha Rajesh Thapa and Others Vs. Kalpana Arun Hankar and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2014
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19th October, 2012 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in Application No. 229 of 2003 which was filed by the appellants herein directing only opposite party i.e. respondent no.1 herein to pay compensation of Rs.13.75 lacs to the appellants (original appellants) and rejecting the claim of compensation against the insurer i.e. M/s. National Insurance Company Limited. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under : 2. The appellant no.1 is widow, appellant no. 2 is the daughter of the deceased, appellant no. 3 is the mother of the appellant, appellant no. 4 is the handicapped sister of the deceased. On 30th December, 2002 at 8.30 p.m. deceased Rajesh Thapa was driving his motor cycle bearing registration No.MH-03-P-7481 through Aarey Colony for going to Saki Naka. It is the case of the appellants that in front of Picnic Point Chowky, Goregaon (E), Mumbai, a bus b...
Ishita Kunal Sangani Vs. Kunal Sudhir Sangani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2014
Oral Order: A.R. Joshi, J. 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this Appeal preferred by the present Petitioner-wife challenging the order below Exh. 1 dated 30.7.2014 by which the application Exh. 28 preferred by the present respondent-husband was granted by the Judge, Family Court No.5, Mumbai. At this juncture, it must be mentioned that the said application Exh. 28 was Interim Application No. 71 of 2014 presented by the present respondent-husband before the Family Court in the Petition No. A-685 of 2013. As the issue involved in the present Appeal is validity or otherwise of the order passed granting divorce to the parties, the present Appeal is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. Without going into much details as to on what basis the matrimonial dispute arose between the parties, suffice it to say that the present respondent-husband had filed a Marriage Petition bearing No. A- 685 of 2013 for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty as per Section 13(1)(i-a) o...
Shivsing and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-07-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 09/10/2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Buldana, thereby convicting the appellants of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under: The incident has occurred at about 8.30 to 9.00 a.m. on 18/5/1999 in the agricultural field of the complainant. At that time, Shamrao Solanki, the main injured person, and his two brothers Vithoba and Bhimrao were sitting under a common mango tree for having their breakfast when the appellants and two other accused person, who have been acquitted by the trial Court, namely accused No.5 Santosh Solanki and accused No.7 Navalsing Solanki, came there and started plucking mangos from the tree. Shamrao Solanki and his two brothers objected to this action of the accused persons, but they did not pay any heed to them and continued with plucking of mangos. A qua...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »