Mumbai Court November 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.
Appa Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-24-2014
S.S. Shinde, J. 1] This appeal is filed by the accused, aggrieved by the Judgment and Order passed by the Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, on 26.09.2011, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IP Code. Appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2] The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: The marriage between the accused and deceased Jaya, daughter of one Mohan Baburao Walhekar, was solemnized on 29.03.2003. After marriage, she started cohabiting with accused at his house at Bhavadi and gave birth to a son. Accused, however, used to ill-treat her on very minor causes, and used to give threats to kill her. One year prior to the date of the incident, on 24.05.2010, there was quarrel between accused and Jaya. Accused beat Jaya and left her at her parents' house. He did not come to see Jaya and son and, therefore, Jay...
Supreme Industries Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-2014
1. At the request of the Counsel for both the sides, these three Petitions are being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 2. The challenge in these three Petitions is to a common order dated 13th September 2013 passed Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). By the impugned order, the Petitioner's applications to rectify the order dated 14th May, 2010 passed by the Tribunal on a rectification application was dismissed. The order dated 14th May, 2010 partly recalled the common order dated 18th January 2008 passed in respect of Assessment Years 1999-2000 to 2001-02 on the Petitioner's application for rectification. 3. The Petitioner had during three subject Assessment Years viz. Assessment Years 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02 claimed deduction under Section 80HHC and 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) while computing its income under Section 115JA/115JB of the Act. The Revenue did not accept the Petitioner's contention. This resulted in the Petitioner's filing an appea...
Usha Kiran Anand Narayan Kalwar and Others Vs. Shivprasad Shankarlal P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is directed against the order and judgment dated 1st February, 1994 delivered by the learned II Jt. Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Solapur dismissing the application for probate filed by the appellants. The appellants and the respondents were the original applicants and the respondents respectively in the proceedings before the trial court except the legal heirs who were brought on record in this proceedings. Some of the relevant facts for deciding this appeal are as under : 2. Appellant nos. 2 to 4 are sons of the appellant no. 1 and one Mr. Anand Narayan Talwar. The probate proceedings were filed in respect of the alleged will of the testator Mrs. Leelabai Badrinarayan Talwar who was owner of various properties (hereinafter referred to as the said deceased). The said deceased died issueless on 24th November, 1984. The husband of the said deceased died on 13th July, 1989. Mr. Jawaharlal Rajaram Talwar was father of the said deceased. The said deceased got var...
Vijay Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-24-2014
Shinde, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the appellant original accused, challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the I.P. Code, to suffer imprisonment for Life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year, as per provision of Section 235 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: A lady by name Surekha Vijay Chavan, wife of the accused, was found dead in the house at about 6.30 a.m. on 20th December, 2010. She was taken to the Rural Hospital, Jamkhed. However, after medical examination, she was found in dead condition. Initially, A.D.No. 68/2010 was registered at 9.30 a.m. The concerned Police Officer made an inquiry about the said A.D. An inquest panchanama was prepared. Post mortem examination was done. The Medical Officer submitted post mortem report mentioning therein that, the death was due to shock due to head injury due to assault by hard and blunt object. T...
Prabha Rajesh Singh Vs. The Chairman / Secretary The Rural Educational ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-2014
1. Rule. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties and at their request, Rule is heard finally. 2. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 29 October 2012 in Appeal No.6 of 2012 made by the Additional School Tribunal, Navi Mumbai (Tribunal) holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain appeals made by teachers of unaided schools not receiving any kind of aid or grants to meet its expenses from the appropriate Government or the local authority. 3. There is no necessity to advert to the facts in any great details. Suffice to state however, that there is no dispute that respondent Nos.1 and 2 represent a school, which is indeed unaided, that is not receiving any kind of aid or grants to meet its expenses from the appropriate Government or the local authority. 4. Mr. V. P. Patankar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this issue has been squarely answered in favour of the petitioner by the Division Bench of this Court in the case o...
Rupesh Rashmikant Shah Vs. M/s. Elegant Industries Pvt Ltd. and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-2014
1) Heard Mr. Tejpal S. Ingale, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Anita A. Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent no.2 at length. None appears for respondent No.1, though duly served. 2) By this Appeal, the original claimant has challenged the Judgment and Award dated 30.3.1990 passed by the learned Member, IIIrd Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for Gr. Bombay, (for short, 'Tribunal') in Application No. 565 of 1979 filed under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short `Act'). By that order, the Tribunal partly allowed the petition instituted by the appellant, hereinafter referred to as 'claimant', and held that he is entitled to recover from respondent no.1, (hereinafter referred to as opposite party), and respondent no.2, (hereinafter referred to as 'Insurer'), compensation of Rs.4,12,000/- together with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition until realization, among other directions. 3) The Petition was instituted by the claimant on 16...
Shaikh Siraj Ilias Vs. Vishwas Pandurang Ghadigaokar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-2014
Oral Order: 1. Heard Mr. Dhakephalkar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Thorat, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is filed assailing the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 6th September 2014 passed by the Additional Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai in Election Petition No.70 of 2012 whereby the election of the Petitioner as a Councillor from Ward No.30 of the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai, Malad (West) is declared as null and void and set aside under section 33(2) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 [for short "the MMC Act"] and Respondent No.1 is declared as duly elected as councilor from the said Ward. 2. The brief background of the case is that : the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 along with 17 others contested the elections to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation from Ward No.30. Elections were held on 16th February 2012...
Arunkumar Rameshchandra Verma Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-2014
P.C. 1. Heard arguments on this application for bail / suspension of substantive sentence during pendency of the Criminal Appeal preferred by the applicant/original accused No.1. 2. Initially, the applicant/accused No.1 was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to suffer RI for ten years and fine of Rs.1 Lakh each. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act and similar such sentence of imprisonment and fine was awarded. The other two co-accused were also convicted for the same offences but were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.50,000/- as apparently what was found from each co-accused was 750 grams of Hashish (Charas). What was found with the present applicant is 1.5 kgs of Hashish (Charas). Both the other co-accused also preferred separate appeals and during pendency of the appeals they were granted bail by this Cour...
Suresh R. Morajkar and Others Vs. Deputy Collector and S.D.O. and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-21-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Both the above appeals shall be disposed of by this common Judgment since both arises out of the same Judgment and Award dated 03/07/2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Panaji (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 75 of 2002. The appellant of First Appeal No. 292 of 2006 who is the respondent in First Appeal No. 294 of 2006 was the applicant in the said L.A.C. No. 75 of 2002 whereas the respondents of First Appeal No. 292 of 2006 who are the appellants in First Appeal No. 294 of 2006 were the respondents in the said case. Parties shall herein after be referred to as per their status in the said Land Acquisition Case. 3. Vide notification dated 08/01/1991 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( L. A. Act, for short) and published in the Official Gazette dated 25/01/1991, the Government had acquired land for the purpose of widening of two lanes and improvement of Geometrics betwee...
La Cast Metals and Components Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. M/s. Kajal Dev ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-2014
1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by the applicant for raising the attachment levied on the property of original respondents / award debtors being Gala No.12, SIA Industrial Estate, Sonawala Cross Road No.2, Goregaon (East), Mumbai 400 063. The applicant is a partner of the original respondent. The property of the applicant is attached in execution of the decree against the original respondents under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 50 (1) (b) of the CPC. 2. The attachment has been levied pursuant to the consent terms filed before the arbitrator in arbitration between the claimants and the respondents. The claimant was to be given possession of one Unit No.19 on or before 30th June, 2007. The claimant was already put in possession of Unit No.12 which is sought to be attached. The claimant would have to give back Unit No.12 upon obtaining the possession of Unit No.19. Consequently it will continue to occupy the Unit No.12 until possession is given. This was to be without payment of an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »