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.
Balaji Shivaji Choudhari Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2014
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant - original accused No.1 against the judgment and order dated 9.7.2004 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No.323 of 2003. By the said judgment and order, the learned Session Judge convicted the appellant - original accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 for causing the death of Chandrakant and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default simple imprisonment for one month. Further the appellant along with accused No.2 -Shivaji were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w 34 of IPC for causing evidence of the said offence to disappear and they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default simple imprisonment for one month. The learned Sessions Judge directed that the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 2....
Amit Vijay Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2014
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. The appellant, original accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 21st April, 2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibag in Sessions Case No.142/2010. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default RI for three months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: The appellant was married to deceased Nutan about one year prior to the incident. Nutan was the daughter of PW 9 Vijaya and PW2 Anant. After marriage, Nutan was residing with her husband and in-laws. Thereafter, Nutan and her husband i.e. the appellant started residing together at Pezari since July, 2009. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was addicted to liquor. He used to always demand money from Nutan for liquor. Nutan informed this fact to her parents. The incident took pla...
The Commissioner of Income Tax-8, Mumbai and Others Vs. M/s. Sulzer In ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2014
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. These Appeals by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the I.T. Act) challenge the order dated 7th September, 2012 (in ITXA/450/2013) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bench at Mumbai. The Tribunal dealt with two Appeals, one by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 8(III), Mumbai being Income Tax Appeal No.2871/Mum/2007 and another by the Assessee being Income Tax Appeal No.2944/Mum/2007. The assessment year is 2003-04. These were cross Appeals against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (XIX) dated 19th January, 2007. 2. Mr. Gupta, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the Appeals raise substantial questions of law and as formulated at page 8 of the paper book (ITXA/450/2013). In all fairness to him, he has also invited our attention to the orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.1777 of 2011, Income Tax Appeal No.2016 of 2011, Income Tax Appeal No.358 of 2012 and Incom...
Ravindra G. Kalangutkar (since deceased) represented by Roshan Ravindr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
1. Instant second appeal is presented by the original plaintiff, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Bicholim, in Regular Civil Suit No. 54/2002/A dated 3rd October, 2005, confirmed by the District Judge-2, Panaji in Regular Civil Appeal No.57/2006 on 9.8.2007. The appellant-original plaintiff presented a suit claiming decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants in respect of survey No. 260/4 of Village Mayem. According to the plaintiff, the possession of the property has been taken over by the plaintiff on the basis of a lease agreement from the family of one Silva Noronha. The said property, along with some other properties of Silva Noronha family, were declared as evacuee property. The name of the Government of Goa is recorded in the survey records in the occupant's column. It is the contention of the plaintiff that in recording the name of one Prabhakar Vittu Kalangutkar, an error was committed showing him as having rakhan of...
Sachin Bhimrao Suryawanshi Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of parties. 2. The Petitioner prays by invoking Article 226 of Constitution of India that she should be declared as qualified for appearing for the Examination for the Post of District Judge advertised by Press Advertisement No.A.5504/2014 dated 30 June 2014; and the qualification so declared be revoked and cancelled; and a liberty be granted to allow to appear and participate in the Examination process. 3. There is no dispute with regard to the duration of practice and the stages in which Petitioner practiced as an Advocate those are as under : "1) From 17-09-2001 to 05.04.2007 worked as Advocate before High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad and Nagpur. 2) From 05.04.2007 to 31.03.2009 worked as Legal officer in M.S.E.B. 3) From 02.04.2009 till today working as Assistant Public Prosecutor, Grade-A." 4. The eligibility criteria for the post in question is as under : "Applications...
Chandravati Sagun Ghadi and Others Vs. Anil Chopdekar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal arises out of the Judgment and Order dated 02/04/2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Margao (M.A.C.T., for short) in Claim Petition No. 65/2007. The appellants were the applicants in the said Claim Petition whereas the respondents were the respondents therein. Respondents no. 8(a) to 8(c) are the legal representatives of the deceased respondent no. 8. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the sad Claim Petition. 3. The applicants had filed the said Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M. V. Act, for short) for compensation of Rs. 4,40,000/- on account of death of Shri Sagun Ghadi, the husband of applicant no. 1 and father of applicants no. 2 to 5, in a Motor Vehicular Accident. 4. Case of the applicants, in short, was as under: On 23/10/2006, the deceased, husband of the applicant no. 1 and father of the applicants no. 2 to 5, was pillion rider on the motorcy...
New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Sarala Somnath Aherwar an ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal challenges the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 10th April, 2006, in Claim Petition No.644/2000. The award is for compensation of Rs.1,95,000/-, holding the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount together with future interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. 2. During the pendency of this appeal, no steps were taken to serve the respondent No.4 - Sheikh Ibrahim S/o. Kashim Sheikh, who was the owner of the vehicle in question. The matter stands dismissed as per the order dated 28.08.2014 against the owner of the vehicle. 3. In view of this, the decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot be modified exonerating the appellant Insurance Company from payment of compensation. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed and the amount deposited, if any, by the Insurance Company be permitted to be withdrawn by the respon...
Thakkar Kanji Morarjee Bhatia Niwas and Thakkar Vasanji Morarjee Chawl ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
1. The plaintiffs who are two trustees of a registered public trust have taken out this originating summons for putting up certain questions before this Court as affecting the rights of beneficiaries and arising in the administration of the estate of the plaintiffs' trust. The questions are rather unique. The plaintiff would want the Court to answer:(a) Whether the sanction to sale the trust property dated 13th November, 1979 issued by the Charity Commissioner stands complied.(b) Whether the execution of the conveyance without the simultaneous execution of the lease deed would amount to breach of the condition of sanction dated 13th November, 1979.(c) Whether such execution is valid and lawful.(d) Whether the breach of the order dated 13th November, 1979 can be remedied and rectified by execution of appropriate lease deed.(e) Whether or not the execution of the lease deed will invalidate conveyance. and(f) Whether the trustees are required to take legal proceedings to recover possessio...
Sofia Coutinho e Paes and Others Vs. The Honourable Minister for Munic ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
R.M. Borde, J. 1. In this batch of petitions, the petitioners are questioning constitutional validity of Section 184D of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which provides for a remedy of an appeal to the Government against an order of the Appellate Tribunal, made in an appeal under section 184 confirming, modifying or annulling an order made or notice issued under the Act. 2. All the petitioners were parties to the appeal proceedings presented under Section 184B to the Appellate Tribunal, wherein an order issued under Section 184 of the Act was subject-matter of challenge. On a decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 184B, a further appeal is provided under Section 184D of the Act which has been dealt with and disposed of by the Minister for Municipalities, Government of Goa. 3. An appeal against an order issued under Section 184 of the Act is entertainable by the Appellate Tribunal, as provided under Section 184B of the Act. Sub-Sec...
Kumar Rama Gowda Vs. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Home Depa ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
Oral Judgment: (S.S. Shinde, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Petition is filed for releasing the petitioner on personal bond by relaxing the condition of furnishing surety. 3. It appears that the Petitioner is undergoing sentence in Paithan Open Jail. The Petitioner applied for furlough leave. It further appears from perusal of Exhibit A, Page No.7 of the compilation of the Petition that the petitioner was directed to be released on furlough leave on executing personal bond for Rs.5000/- and surety from relative and second non-relative surety for Rs.5000/- each. However, the petitioner could not arrange for sureties. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner invited our attention to the unreported Judgment of this Court in the case of Dipak s/o Sudhakar Wakalekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others in Criminal Writ Petition No.848 of 2010 and connected Writ Petitions, dated 6th Jun...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »