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.
Baburao Bhimrao Katkar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-2014
P.C. 1. The prayer for bail made by the applicant/accused charge-sheeted by Gokul Shirgaon M.I.D.C. Police Station, District Kolhapur for offence under Section 302 of the IPC is objected to by the learned APP on the ground that involvement of the applicant in the incident of scuffle with the deceased is borne out from the statements of three eye-witnesses. It is submitted that tangible material regarding involvement of the applicant being collected during the course of investigation, the prayer for bail may be negatived. The crime in question was registered from an inquiry of accidental death on 18-12-2012. Even perusal of the statements of the eye-witnesses pointed out by the learned APP, i.e., of the truck driver Suryakant, rickshaw driver Dhale and one Shobha in front of whose house the incident has taken place do not reveal any material other than a scuffle having occurred in between the applicant and the deceased who were working as hamals on a truck. Significantly enough, the sta...
Dattatray Uddhav Uplenchwar (Dead), Through Lrs. and Others Vs. State ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-28-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 23/01/1995 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 7 of 1994 by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yeotmal. The facts of the case may be stated in brief as under.: A piece of land admeasuring 0.25 H.R. from Gat No. 153 of mouza Both, owned by original applicant Dattatray Uplenchwar, was acquired by the State. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 07/11/1991. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of acquired land @ Rs.10,000/ per hectare. Since the acquired land had non agricultural potential, the original applicant felt that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was insufficient and, therefore, an application for referring the matter for consideration of enhancement of compensation came to be moved under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and it was referred to the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal. Upon reference of the appli...
Bhartiya Vidya Sabha Vs. Vidyavihar Palm-View Co-op. Housing Society L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-2014
Oral Order: (S.J. Vazifdar, J.) 1. This is an appeal against the order and judgment of the learned single Judge granting a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the suit for a declaration that an indenture of lease dated 19th April, 1989 executed by respondent No.3 Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA)/original defendant No.1 through its Chief Officer-respondent No.4/original defendant No.2 is valid, binding and subsisting and for a declaration that an indenture of lease dated 23rd May, 2003 executed by MHADA in favour of the appellant/original defendant No.3 is null and void and not binding upon respondent No.1 to the extent of allotment of an open plot of land admeasuring about 270 sq.mtrs. 2. The lease deed executed in favour of the respondent No.1 was in respect of CTS No.1268 (p). The lease deed executed in favour of the appellant is in respect of CTS No.464(p). Admittedly, the lease d...
Sarphraz @ Farukh Abdul Hamid Shaikh Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-2014
Oral Judgment: P.V. Hardas, J. 1. The Appellant who stands convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ in default of which to undergo further R.I. for six months by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune by Judgment dated 28th March 2008 in Sessions Case No.11 of 2007 by this Appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. Though the Appellant was convicted by the Judgment of the trial Court dated 28th March 2008, the Appellant had chosen not to file any Appeal and ultimately an Appeal came to be filed in this Court in the year 2014. The Division Bench of this Court while allowing the Application for expeditious hearing of the Appeal by an order dated 17th April, 2014 directed that since there was a delay of nearly 6 years in filing the Appeal and since the Appellant had undergone practically 9 years of imprisonment, the Appeal be listed for Final hearing from 28th A...
Matlub Ayub Qureshi Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-2014
P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant in this application for bail i.e. for suspension of the sentence awarded against him in Sessions Case No.93 of 2010 decided on 5th November, 2011. By the said judgment and order the present applicant/original accused No.3 along with other co-accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 489(B) and 489(C) of IPC. He was respectively sentenced to suffer one year RI and fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer R.I. for one month for the offence under section 120-B of IPC, and was sentenced to suffer RI for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer RI for one year for offence under section 489-B of IPC, and was sentenced to suffer RI for five years and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer RI for six months for offence punishable under Section 489-C of IPC. The appellant along with other co-accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 489-A of IPC. The substantive sentences were...
Abdul Salim Shaikh (Siddique) and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-2014
Oral Order: 1. These three applications can be conveniently disposed of by this common order, as the applicants in all these applications are the accused in one and the same case i.e. Special Case No.17 of 2013 arising out of C.R.No.I63 of 2011 registered at Shil Daighar Police Station, Thane. There are totally 23 accused who have been arrested in the said case. The applicants Abdul Salim Shaikh and Jamil Ahmed Jamahuddin Shaikh (in Bail Application No.850/14) were arrested on 6th April 2013. The applicant Hadisullah Raggibullah Chaudhary (in Bail Application No.179/14) was arrested on 11th April 2013, and the applicant Abdul Hakim Mohd.Naseer Chaudhari (in Bail Application No.236/14) was arrested on 15th April 2013. The applicants are in custody since the dates of their respective arrest. 2. The case relates to the collapse of a building that was being constructed illegally without permission from the Municipal Corporation of Thane, and with the connivance of the officers from the ...
Ramesh Babulal Chaudhari Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through Secreta ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-28-2014
P.R. Bora, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition with a prayer to quash and set aside the F.I.R. No. 3/2013, registered at Nandurbar City Police Station on 05.01.2013 and has also prayed for setting aside the charge sheet filed on the basis of the said F.I.R. in Regular Criminal Case No.23/2014 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nandurbar for the offences punishable under Sections 32B and 33 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the 1946 Act for short) and Sections 420 read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Though the petitioner was initially praying for setting aside the entire charge sheet, during the course of hearing of the present petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is restricting his petition only to the extent of prayer clause (D), which reads thus : (D) In the alternative the action/F.I.R. to the extent of Section 420/511 I.P.C. may be quashed with all steps inv...
Raghunath Nathoo Bari Vs. Union of India, Through, the General Manager ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2014
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta J.) 1. The matter is called out from the final hearing board. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner, who is 82 years old and physically unfit because of accident on duty, has challenged order dated 13 December 1996 in Original Application No. 802 of 1994 and order dated 16 September 1997 passed in Review Petition No. 43 of 1997 in OA No. 802 of 1994 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, CAT), mainly on the ground of delay and not on merits of the claim of pensionery benefits, so raised by the Petitioner. The Petition is pending since 1998. The Respondents, by reply resisted the claim of all grounds and placed on record the additional material to justify their defence that the Petitioner is not entitled for any benefits including pensionery benefits as prayed. 3. The requisite rules and regulations and the contentions so raised through the affidavit, as we have noted, not dealt with by the learned Tribunal, as the o...
Shah Vajeda Bano Bashir Shah Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-27-2014
Oral Judgment : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Heard finally with the consent of Shri Choudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kadu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner is continuing in employment as Shikshan Sewak. His caste claim as belonging to Chhaperband, Vimukta Jati (A), has been invalidated on 10.12.2013. This Court on 21.02.2014 has protected his employment. 3. Shri Choudhari, learned counsel has invited attention to the impugned order to urge that the validity given to a cousin has been discarded only by observing that the relationship with that person is not established. He contends that except for mentioning this conclusion, there are no reasons recorded as to why the relationship is not substantiated. Our attention is invited to the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell Authority on 20.06.2011 wherein the name of the said cousin or his father Atta Ulla Shah finds mention. The learned counsel submits that as the rela...
Tulsabai Mahadeorao Raghurte Vs. Gangubai Babanrao Sarve
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-27-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. In Regular Civil Suit No. 40/2000, the Small Causes Court at Nagpur, has passed a decree on 29th November, 2005, for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.1,28,012/ along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. Regular Civil Appeal No. 98/2006 has been dismissed by the learned Adhoc District Judge, Nagpur, on 30th September, 2006. Hence, the original defendant is before this Court challenging the findings recorded by both the Courts below. 2. In the plaint, the plaintiff has given the particulars of claim in para 6 as under:i]Arrears of rent w.e.f. 1st January, 1997 to 31st December 1999 @ Rs.1500/p. m.Rs.54,000/-ii]Arrears of rent Rs.500 + 300 respectively collected by the Defendant from the tenants from January 1997 to December 1999 @ Rs.500 + 300 amounting to Rs.800/-Rs.28,000/-iii]Interest @ Rs.18% per annum on the gross amount of Rs.82,800/- for 3 years interestRs.44,712/-iv]Notice ChargesRs. 500/-TotalR...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »