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.
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kashinath s/o Tikaram Baviskar (Ko ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-12-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned counsel for appearing parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the insurer-company against the order dated 11-06-2013 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Amalner, on Exhibit-6 in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.43 of 2010, raising a ground that the insurer was to bear the liability arising out of the accident only in case the tractor bearing No.MH-18-N-3884 which was insured with the appellant had been used for agricultural purpose and not otherwise. 3. In the present case, it appears that on 30-09-2009 at about 1.30 p.m., the deceased Jitendra was sitting on bonnet of the tractor bearing No.MH-18-N-3884 which was then stationary and he was chit-chatting with other persons. At the relevant time, said tractor was suddenly started to be driven and collided with stationary tractor bearing No.MH-19-AN-3258 and in the accident Jitendra had sustained injuries and had succumbed to the same. 4. The case of the appellant, as had been pl...
Sunil Damel Ghaikar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellant has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. He was tried along with two other accused. The accused Nos.1 and 3 were acquitted by the same judgment and order. The appellant who was accused No.2 has been convicted and has been sentenced to suffer RI for a period of two years. 2. It appears that after the judgment of trial Court, the appellant was taken into custody. He was released on bail by this Court. As such, he remained in custody after the judgment till his release on bail by this Court. It further appears from the record that he is in custody since last about seven months pursuant to the warrant issued by this Court. 3. The case of the prosecution against the appellant was that the complainant was his employer and he owed certain money to the appellant. The appellant instead of demanding his dues, had attempted to assault the complainant and during the said incident...
Far Pavilions Tours and Travels Private Limited through its Director, ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-11-2014
U V. Bakre, J. 1. This common judgment shall dispose of both the appeals since they involve common facts and questions of law. By consent of the parties, the present appeals are taken up for final adjudication at the stage of admission itself. 2. Heard Mr. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. These appeals are directed against the order dated 17/12/2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji (trial Court, for short) in Special Civil Suits No. 23/2010/B and 24/2010/B. 4. The appellants are the defendants whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in the said suits. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said suits. 5. The plaintiffs have filed the said suits for eviction of the defendants from the suit property respectively described in each suit; for recovery of arrears rent, damages, etc. The plaintiffs claim to be the owners of the...
Syeda Badar Jahan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-11-2014
Shinde, J.1. This application has been filed with the following main prayer:(C) This criminal application may kindly be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned F.I.R. bearing Crime No.I42/2014 dated 17/2/2014 registered with City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad for offences punishable under Section 420, 406, 468, 471, read with 34 of I.P.C.2. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing.3. This Court, by order dated 22nd August, 2014 referred the parties to the mediator on their willingness to settle the dispute before the mediator. It appears that the parties appeared before the mediator and agreed for settlement on certain terms and conditions. The mediator's report dated 4th December, 2014 with terms of compromise agreed between the parties and duly verified before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad has been placed on record.4. The respondent No.2 filed the affidavit-in-reply on 21st August, 2014. In pursuance to the compromise...
Ravindra Harshad Parmar Vs. Dimple Ravindra Parmar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2014
A.K. Menon, J. 1. By the present appeal, the appellant challenges the order dated 14th June, 2013 passed by the Family Court Pune in a petition filed by the Respondent-wife seeking divorce under the provisions of Section 13(1)(ia), 25 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act). The impugned order is passed on an application challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court, Pune to try the petition seeking divorce filed by the Respondent under section 13(1)(ia), 25 and 26 of the Act. While the main petition is filed by the Respondent-wife on 5th November, 2012, the present application is taken out on 22nd March, 2013 seeking framing of a preliminary issue of jurisdiction of the Family Court and dismissal of the petition for want of proper jurisdiction and in the alternative for return of the petition for filing before the appropriate Court in New Jersey, USA. 2. The facts in brief leading to the present application are:- The Appellant (original Respondent) immigrated t...
Maharashtra Rajya Veej Vitaran Company, through Executive Engineer and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-11-2014
Oral Judgment:1. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure takes exception to the judgment passed by the first appellate Court dismissing the appeal preferred by the original defendants and affirming the decree passed by the trial Court directing the defendants to handover vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs.2. The plaintiffs are the owners of plot bearing No. 3/8 situated at Malkapur, district Buldhana. According to plaintiffs the suit property was leased out to the Malkapur Electric Supply Company on annual rent of Rs. 275/- for a period of 50 years from 10.04.1938. There were various terms and conditions agreed between the parties as per the said lease deed. With passage of time, Malkapur Electric Supply Company merged in Maharashtra State Electricity Board and continued in occupation of the premises. According to plaintiffs rent was paid upto 1984-85. The period of lease came to an end on 09.04.1988 after which there was no extension. By issu...
Vasant Ganu Patil of Thane and Another Vs. The Chancellor and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2014
Anuja Prabhudessai, J. 1. Upon a difference of opinion between the Division Bench of this court, a reference under Clause 36 of Letters Patent has been made under order dated 11.5.2012 . The points of difference formulated by the referral Court are as follows: i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the decision of the Search committee to include the name of the respondent no.8 in the list of eligible candidates for the Office of Vice Chancellor of the University of Mumbai suffers from any non application of mind visavis condition no.3 when the Search Committee had recorded in the minutes of its meeting held on 12.6.2012 that the committee reviewed each and every application and prepared a list of 20 candidates (including respondent no.8) having all qualifications as mentioned in the statutory order dated 27.5.2009 issued by the Government of Maharashtra under Section 12(3A)(d) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. ii) If the answer to the above question is in the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax -12 Vs. DRM Enterprises
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2014
1. These Appeals of the Revenue question the correctness of the view taken by the Tribunal in its order dated 16th May, 2012 for the assessment years 2000-01 to 2002-03. 2. The brief facts in the backdrop of which a substantial question of law would arise for consideration and determination of this Court, according to the Revenue, are that the Assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.5,98,181/- on 30th October, 2000. The Assessee carries on business as Transport Contractors, Crane Operators, Crane Hiring, Forklift Hiring and Trailers Hiring etc. The Assessee follows the method of cash system of accounting. The original account was completed on a total income of Rs.28,05,930/-. The main addition to the total income was on account of unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the IT Act") at Rs.21,60,000/-. The matter went up to the level of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and it passed order on 6th December, 2006 restor...
Chief Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Ma ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-11-2014
Oral Judgment: (Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.) 1. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order of the Commissioner, Welfare of Disabled, Pune dated 9.10.2007, directing the petitioners to promote the respondent no.3 on the post of Senior Assistant. 2. The respondent no.3 was appointed by the petitioner - New India Assurance Company Limited as Office Assistant in the year 1989. The respondent no.3 completed 17 years of satisfactory service when the petitioner - company notified six posts of Senior Assistants. Of the six posts that were notified, five were earmarked for the open category and one was earmarked for the physically disabled. Admittedly, the respondent no.3 suffers from 80% physical disability inasmuch as she does not have the left arm. The respondent no.3 applied for the post of Senior Assistant. She was considered along with the other physically disabled candidates but the petitioner - company declined to grant promotion to the respondent no.3. Being aggrieved by the actio...
State of Goa Vs. M/s. Shivani Laboratories and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-11-2014
1. Heard Mrs. Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 5. 2. This is a State appeal against acquittal of respondents no. 1 and 5 above-named, vide judgment and order dated 24.01.2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Mapusa (J.M.F.C., for short) in O. A. Criminal Case No. 10/1997 (old) : O. A. Criminal Case No. 250/1999/D (new). 3. For convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Magistrate. 4. The State, through the Drugs Inspector namely Mr. Raghuvir D. Bhise, had lodged the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Mapusa against five accused persons for offences under Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 16(1)(a), sub-section (c) of Section 17 and subsection (d) of Section 17-B, punishable under Section 27(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ('the Act', for short), which came to be registered as...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »