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.
North Western Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, represented by the ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-02-2014
1. Heard Mr. Kantak, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Afonso, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 5. None present on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 4, though duly served after admission. In view of order dated 17.11.2011, appeal stands dismissed against respondent no. 6 for want of prosecution. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.03.2008, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao (M.A.C.T., for short), in Claim Petition No. 294/2005. 3. The appellant was respondent no. 2 in the said petition. The respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 were the applicants and respondents no. 4, 5 and 6 were respondents no. 3, 4 and 1 respectively in the said claim petition. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said claim petition. 4. The applicants had filed the said claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M. V. Act, for short) for grant of total...
Syed Jabbar Syed Musa Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-02-2014
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. None for the applicant. Heard, Mr. S.M. Ukey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. With his able assistance, I have gone through the record and proceedings. Initially, along with the applicant, three others namely sisters and mother of the applicant, were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No.69/96. 2. The learned Second Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Pusad, on 9th August, 2001 after full dressed trial, convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and on that count he was directed to suffer two years' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer three years' simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to suffe...
North Western Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, represented by the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-2014
1. Heard Mr. Kantak, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Afonso, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 5. None present on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 4, though duly served after admission. In view of order dated 17.11.2011, appeal stands dismissed against respondent no. 6 for want of prosecution. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.03.2008, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao (M.A.C.T., for short), in Claim Petition No. 294/2005. 3. The appellant was respondent no. 2 in the said petition. The respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 were the applicants and respondents no. 4, 5 and 6 were respondents no. 3, 4 and 1 respectively in the said claim petition. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said claim petition. 4. The applicants had filed the said claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M. V. Act, for short) for grant of total...
Satyabhash Yeshwant Salgaonkar Vs. Ravindra Madhukar Sawant and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-2014
1. The petitioner is the original complainant. He had filed a complaint alleging commission of offences punishable under section 500 of the IPC and 501 of the IPC read with section 34 of the IPC against the respondent nos.1 to 12 herein. The learned Magistrate, after examining the petitioner on oath, as contemplated under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, issued process against the respondent nos.1 to 12, requiring them to appear and answer to the charge of an punishable under section 500 IPC and 501 IPC read with section 34 of the IPC.2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the petitioner shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the complainant' and respondent nos.1 to 12 as 'the accused'.3. Being aggrieved by the order issuing process, the accused approached the Court of Sessions at Mumbai by filing an application for revision. The learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the Revision Application, allowed it and set aside the order passed by the Magistrate, iss...
Ambika Mahila Matsyavyavasayik Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Vs. The State of ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-02-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri M.V. Samarth, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Smt. Rashi Deshpande, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 5, Ms. Tajwar Khan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Shri A.R. Patil, learned Advocate for the respondent No.6. 2. The petitioner-Society is formed exclusively by women who are predominantly from fishermen community. According to the petitioner-Society, it has 52 women members. The petitioner-Society is registered with the District Fisheries Development Officer, Yavatmal and according to the petitioner-Society, it is the only Society formed exclusively by women members. 3. It is undisputed that the petitioner-Society was given the contract of fishing rights in respect of Waghadi Project from 01-6-2006 till 30-6-2011. According to the petitioner-Society, considering its exemplary work, the National Fisheries Development Board, Hyderabad selected it for implementation of the scheme fo...
Sanjay Wamanrao Gawande and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-02-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. By the present revision, original accused Nos.1 and 5 are taking exception to their conviction, as ordered by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akot in Regular Criminal Case No.71 of 2004 dated 05.08.2005 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code which is confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akot in Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2005 on 22.06.2006. 2. None for the applicants. I have heard Shri Mehroz Pathan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. With his able assistance, I have gone through the record and proceedings placed before this Court. 3. On 17.03.2005 the learned Magistrate framed a charge in Regular Criminal Case No.71 of 2004 against the present applicants and Sau. Padma, Waman and Sau. Charushila for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A read with 34 and 506(II) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate after full dressed trial recorded a finding of guilt aga...
Anurath and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-02-2014
1. The revision is admitted. Notice after admission. It is waived by learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Heard both the sides for final disposal. 2. The revision is filed against the judgment and order of Criminal Appeal No.6/2011 which was pending in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Osmanabad. The appeal was filed by the present petitioners against the judgment and order of Regular Criminal Case No.154/ 2006 which was pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad. The case was filed as a private complaint and the present petitioners are convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under section 379 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and maximum sentence of imprisonment of two years is given. The other accused Nos.4 to 8 are also convicted for said offence but instead of sentencing them they are given benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act and they are released on executing bond of good behaviour for the period of two y...
Sahebrao Vithoba Pawar (M/s. Skylab Bar and Restaurant) and Others Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, petitions are taken up for final hearing. 2. In all these petitions, common question of fact and law is involved, therefore, all these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 3. By these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging the order dated 2nd/4th August 2014 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Thane and the order dated 6th September 2014 passed by the appellate authority, namely, the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra whereby the eating house licence, the public entertainment licence and the premises and performance licence in respect of the Petitioners' establishment are suspended for an indefinite period under the provisions of section 33(wa) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 read with Rule 222(2) of the Rules for Licencing and Controlling Places of Public Am...
The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary Co-operation, Marketing an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2014
N.M. Jamdar, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of both parties, petition taken up for final disposal. 1. By this petition, the State of Maharashtra has challenged the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 13 December 2014, allowing the Original Application filed by the Respondent and setting aside the order dated 4 September 2014 suspending the Respondent from service. 2. The Respondent, Dr.Subhash Dhondiram Mane, is working as a Director of Marketing, which is a senior level post. He is due to retire on superannuation shortly, on 31 December 2014. 3. The Respondent, entered the services of State of Maharashtra on 19 January 1983 as a Deputy Registrar, Class-I. Thereafter he worked in various capacities and was promoted as an Additional Registrar, Class-I post in July, 2009. He was sent on deputation as Managing Director, Maharashtra State Power-loom Corporation. He was posted as an Administrator, Maharashtra State, Cooperation and Agricultural...
Sandip Shankarlal Kedia Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2014
P.C. V.M. Kanade, J. 1. By this Petition which is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the impugned order of proclamation dated 03/03/2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 66th Court, Andheri in C.R. No.263 of 2012 alongwith warrants; bailable and non-bailable which have been issued by the learned Magistrate and also for appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned lookout Notice/Circular/Order which has been issued by the police in connection with C.R. No.263 of 2012. 2. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this Writ Petition are as under:- 3. The Petitioner, who is a resident of Dubai, has filed this Petition for quashing the order of proclamation which has been issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, wh...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »