Mumbai Court December 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 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vidya Barad and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-10-2014
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The above First Appeal and cross-objection are directed against the Judgment and Award dated 11/03/2008 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for Taluka of Salcete at Margao (M.A.C.T., for short) in Claim Petition No. 93/2000. The appellant was the respondent no. 3 (Insurance Company) in the said Claim Petition whereas respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 (Cross Objectors) were the Claimants therein. Respondents no. 4 and 5 were respectively the driver and owner of Mini Bus No. GA-02/T- 4348 which was insured with the appellant. Parties shall herein after be referred to as per their status in the said Claim Petition. 3. The claimants had filed the said petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act, for short) for grant of total compensation of Rs. 26,10,000/- on account of death of the husband of claimant no.1 and father of claimants no. 2 and 3, in a motor vehicular accident. 4. Case of the c...
Dnyaneshwar @ Bandu @ Lakhya Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-09-2014
S.S.Shinde, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the Appellant original accused, challenging the Judgment and Order dated 08.11.2011, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Sessions Trial No.52/2011, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the I.P. Code and sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- [Rs.Ten Thousand only], in default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo further S.I. For the period of six (6) months and also for the offence punishable under Section 201 of I.P. Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three (3) Years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- [Rs. Five Thousand only], in default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for the period of three (3) months. 2. Relevant facts as are necessary for the adjudication of the instant Appeal can be summarized as follows: The deceased Raiwata d/o. Uttam Shelke, R/o. Shelke wadi, Taluka Purna, District ...
Land Acquisition Officer, P.W.D. (Cell), Altinho and Another Vs. Joao ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-09-2014
Oral Judgment:1. Heard Ms. Kholkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Diniz, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 30/04/2009 passed by the learned District Judge-I, South Goa, Margao (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 25/2007. The respondent was the applicant and the appellants were the respondents. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said case.3. Vide notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L. A. Act, for short) and published in the Official Gazette dated 20/11/2003, the Government acquired land for construction and B/T of road at Pulwado, Mandowado, Pequeno Pedda to Domximod and Bhirondi, in Village Panchayat of Benaulim, Salcete-Goa. This acquisition included a portion of land admeasuring 1650 square metres from Survey No. 65/1 situated at Benaulim village, belonging to the applicant. By award dated 29/...
Chandrakant Baburao Gondhali Vs. Dy. Director of Social Welfare, (Hand ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-2014
A.P. Bhangale, J.1. Heard submissions at the bar. Perused affidavit on record. The Petitioner questions the legality and propriety of the order dated 04-05-1998 passed by the Dy Director of the Social welfare (Handicapped Division), Pune on behalf of the State on the ground that the Petitioner did not complete the training within five years and was not eligible for promotion as trained special teacher and that Respondent No.5 Shri Tambe was senior as trained graduate teacher, the Petitioner was refused the promotional post as trained graduate special teacher.2. Facts pleaded for the Petitioner are:The Petitioner having educational qualification as graduate at the relevant time of his appointment, was appointed on 01-10-1987 as 'Special Teacher'. According to the Petitioner the training course for the visually handicapped teachers was introduced by the State of Maharashtra in the year 1990-91. The Petitioner completed the Diploma course in teaching the visually handicapped during the pe...
Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Vs. Saurabh ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-09-2014
Oral Judgment:1. Heard Shri D.N. Kukday, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Dr. Anjan De, the learned Advocate for the respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 is appellate authority, appearance on its behalf is waived.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.3. The petitioner-Corporation has challenged the order passed by the State Information Commission, on the application filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2005). By the impugned order, the State Information Commission has directed the petitioner-Corporation to supply the photocopies of the documents as demanded by the respondent No.1 after inspecting the records as per the order passed by the State Information Commission on 08-11-2012. The State Information Commission has further directed that the Joint Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation shall cause conducting of enquiry by the competent officer in respect of the grievance of the...
Kavita Krishnamurthy and Another Vs. K.N. Krishnamurthy and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) 1. On the earlier date, the parties were put to notice that this Appeal will be taken up for final disposal. 2. The Appellant wife has taken an exception to the order dated 8th November, 2012 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court at Mumbai by which a Petition being Petition No.A-1464 of 2008 filed by her was dismissed by the learned Judge of the Family Court in exercise of powers under Rule 11 of Order XXXIX of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short the said Code). By the same order, the defence of the Appellant wife in a Petition being Petition No.D-60 of 2009 filed by the Respondent husband was ordered to be struck out in exercise of powers under Rule 11 of Order XXXIX of the said Code. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant wife has taken us through the averments made in the application at Exhibit 98 filed by the Respondent husband and the reply thereto. He has also invited our attention to the order dated 13th March, 2012 passe...
The State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Ramesh Jibeba Lahane and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-08-2014
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. On reference being made by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, the present Confirmation Case bearing Criminal Confirmation Case No.1/2014 arises for confirming the capital punishment awarded by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No.51/2012 to condemned prisonerRamesh Jijeba Lahane. Ramesh Lahane has also independently challenged the said judgment by presenting Criminal Appeal No.301/2014. According to him, not only the capital punishment is excessive but the very finding of the learned Judge of the Court below holding him guilty of committing murder of Vishwanath Lahane, is unsustainable. (I) FACTUAL MATRIX The prosecution case as it is unfolded during the course of the trial, is narrated as below:- Namdeo Wamnrao Rathod (PW 10) on 11.2.2012 was discharging his duties as Police Station Officer of Police Station, Washim (Rural). On 11.2.2012 Atmaram Ukanda Kalbande, Police Patil of village Zakalwadi came to Police Station, Washim (Rural)....
Hindal Co Industries Limited Vs. The Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2014
1. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), West Zonal Bench, dated 19th August, 2014. That is an order passed by a larger Bench of the said Tribunal. 3. The Petitioner has also challenged two Circulars dated 28th October, 2009 and 14th February, 2011. The Petitioner submits that it is engaged in the activity of melting aluminium ingots to obtain rolled products like sheets, foils etc. During melting process, some quantity of aluminium ingots get oxidised resulting in emergence of dross and skimming. Since inception, the Petitioners has been clearing aluminium dross and skimming for a price, without payment of excise duty. 4. The matter has a checkered history. According to the Department, the Petitioner is engaged in the manufacturing of aluminum sheets, foils falling under Chapter sub -headi...
Swaran Salaria and Associates, represented by Swaran Salaria Vs. Himal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2014
1. By this notice of motion, the plaintiff has prayed for injunction against the defendants, their servants, agents and persons claiming through them from transferring and/or alienating and/or creating third party rights and/or any encumbrances in respect of 52 % shares in the 1st defendant company and for other reliefs. The plaintiff has filed this suit inter alia praying for specific performance of the agreement dated 22nd November, 2007. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this notice of motion are as under:- 2. Defendant no.1 has been operating as Air Taxi Operator. Defendant no.2 holds 100% shareholding of defendant no.1. Defendant nos. 3 and 4 are the directors of the 1st and 2nd defendants each having 50% holding. The 1st defendant runs helicopter services to and from Shri Mata Vaishnovdevi Shrine. The trust of the said Shri Mata Vaishnovdevi Shrine issued a tender on 18th October, 2007 for three years commencing from 1st January 2008. 3. On 22nd November 2007...
Kailash Rajaram Kote Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard both sides. 2. The present appellant, who is convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon for the offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, has filed the present appeal. 3. Accused no.2 i.e. his sister-in-law is acquitted from the said offence. In fact, both the accused were acquitted of the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but the present appellant was convicted, as detailed supra. 4. The prosecution case in short is as under:- That deceased Pramila the sister of P.W.1 Ramnath had married to the present appellant in May, 1996. She was originally resident of Dorhale, while the appellant is resident of Shirdi. Therefore, the couple started residing there. The marriage expenses were borne by P.W.1-Ramnath. As per the F.I.R., after a period of five months, both the accused started treating ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »