Mumbai Court February 2014 Judgments
Vijay Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
1. Heard Mrs. M.N. Ghanekar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard Mr. P.N. Muley, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioner is the accused no.1 in Sessions Case No. 172/2010, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Aurangabad. There are three other accused in the said case, which is in respect of offences punishable under Sections 302 of the IPC, and 498A of the IPC, read with Sections 107 of the IPC and 34 of the IPC. The trial is in progress. After one witness for the defence had been examined, the petitioner made an application (Exhibit 73) praying that two witnesses, whose evidence, according to him, was necessary for a just decision of the case, be summoned by the Court as per the powers vested in it, by Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [For short, "the Code"]. This application was opposed by the Additional Public Prosecutor in-charge of the matter. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by an order dated 20-12-2013, re...
Tag this Judgment!Motesma D'Silva and Others Vs. Clemente Fernandes and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 and 2. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith by consent of the parties. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 04/08/2012, thereby closing the defence evidence and the order dated 31/10/2012 thereby rejecting the application for re-opening the evidence of the defence, both passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao (Trial Court) in Regular Civil Suit No. 111/2004/A. 4. The petitioners and the respondents no. 3 to 7 are the defendants before the Trial Court in the said Regular Civil Suit whereas respondents no. 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said suit. 5. After the plaintiffs closed their evidence on 21/01/2012, the matter was posted for defence evidence and after few...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Rhea Distilleries Vs. the Commissioner of Excise and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
1. Heard Mr. Nadkarni, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has taken exception to the order dated 31/01/2013 passed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Goa in Appeal No. 16/2011 and has prayed to allow the application dated 31/10/2011 for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner. 4. On 24/04/2000, licence for manufacturing of Malt Spirit, Cain Spirit, Grain Spirit and Grape Spirit was issued by respondent no. 1 to the petitioner. On 01/07/2009, Superintendent of Excise directed the Excise Inspector to inform the petitioner to pay separate licence fees on manufacturing of grain spirit for the year 2009-2010 and also to collect the licence fees on manufacture of grain spirit with effect from 2001-2002 to 2008-2009. R...
Tag this Judgment!Indiabulls Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Treasure World Developers Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
G.S. Patel, J. 1. The respondent-company, Treasure World Developers Pvt. Ltd (œTreasure World?) took premises on leave and license from the petitioning-creditor, Indiabulls Properties Pvt. Ltd. (œIndiabulls?). The leave and license agreement has what is commonly known as a lock-in period, a contractually agreed minimum tenure. Treasure World vacated the premises before the end of that lock-in period. Indiabulls claims it is entitled to claim the license fee for the remainder of that lock-in term. It says this is a debt within the meaning of Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. Treasure World contends that it is not; that the claim, if there is one, is only in damages; that, therefore, needs adjudication, absent which there can be said to be no debt due to Indiabulls from Treasure World. This is the matter in issue. 2. The facts are largely undisputed. Indiabulls owns a substantial property of some 39,000 and odd sq mts in Lower Parel, now a significant business ...
Tag this Judgment!Shrikrushna Narayan Tupkari Vs. Mahadeo and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-27-2014
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the rival parties. 2. By means of present petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the order dated 19.5.2013 passed by learned District Judge-2, Akola (below Exh. 23) in Regular Civil Appeal No.31/2013, by which the said Application (Exh.23) filed by the present petitioner, was rejected. 3. In support of the Writ Petition Mr. A.S. Mehadia, learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice to the suit property and he came to know about pendency of the Appeal against the judgment and decree for specific performance of contract that was passed by the learned trial Judge in RCS No.388/2012 and, therefore, in order to save his interest, filed Application (Exh.23) in the pending Appeal. The lower Appellate Court rejected the Application (Exh.23) only on the ground that the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser and is a stranger to...
Tag this Judgment!Capt. P.C. Acharya Vs. the Official Liquidator as the Liquidator of M/ ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Colabawalla J.) 1. Admit. By consent of parties, the Appeal is heard finally. 2. In the present appeal, exception is taken to the order of the learned single Judge dated 5th December 2013 confirming the sale of a vessel M.V. Crown 1 belonging to the Company in liquidation (respondent No.1) in favour of Respondent No.2 whose bid of Rs.1.5 crores was the highest. The appellant was a Master on the said vessel. According to him, the said vessel cannot be sold before his wages are paid in view of section 42(2A) read with section 148 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (said Act). 3. The question that falls for consideration is whether the provisions of section 42(2A) apply to the sale of a vessel, conducted by a Court. 4. The facts stated briefly are as follows:- The Company, M/s Crown Maritime Co.(India) Pvt. Ltd. is the owner of the said vessel. The appellant contends that he was the Master of the said vessel since 11th June 2009. The company was ordered to be wound up...
Tag this Judgment!Antonio Francisco Ligorio Fernandes and Others Vs. Inacio Filipe Ferna ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-27-2014
1. Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 3 to 8. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment, order and decree dated 07/01/2013 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-2, FTC-II, Margao (First Appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 135/2012 and against the judgment, order and decree dated 31/07/2012 passed by the learned Adhoc Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao ('trial Court') in Regular Civil Suit No. 208/2001/I. 3. The appellants are the plaintiffs, whereas the respondents are the defendants in the said Regular Civil Suit No. 208/2001/I. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said suit. 4. The plaintiffs had filed the said suit for division and demarcation of the suit property and for fixation of separate boundary line in between the southern half and northern half of the suit property including the respective residential portions ...
Tag this Judgment!Kisan Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-27-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1) The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 6/4/2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No. 57/2008, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. 2) The prosecution case, in brief, is as under: Accused Kisan and deceased Ramratan were residents of village Chandpur. Their houses were situated at the distance of about 200 feet from each other. Prior to occurrence of the incident, there was a Gram Panchayat election. Deceased Ramratan was supporting Munna Raut and Ranjana Raut whereas accused was supporting Jaswant Hinge and Benubai Lanje. During the course of election, quarrel took place between accused and deceased Ramratan. At that time, accused had given a threat to deceased Ramr...
Tag this Judgment!Avinash Vs. Ganpat and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-27-2014
1. This Appeal under Section 72 (4) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (now 'Maharashtra Act' instead of Bombay Act) is arising from the Judgment and order dated 10-08-2009 passed by the District Judge, Nagpur rejecting Change Report and Regular Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2009. 2. Heard the submissions at the bar. 3. This second appeal was admitted on 15-06-2012 by this Court on the following substantial questions of law:- i) Could the finding recorded by the Joint charity Commissioner and then confirmed by the District Judge upholding disqualification of the Members admitted to the Trust as was held by the Assistant Charity Commissioner is the result of the misinterpretation of clause (6) of the scheme of the Trust and thus, the finding of the Courts below is wholly unwarranted and unsustainable in law? ii) Whether the learned District Judge and Learned Joint commissioner were right in upholding the finding that the members of the Trust were rightly disqualified when the opportunity of ...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Menon Vs. Purvee and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-27-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Counsel Shri H.G. Katekar for the applicant, learned Counsel Shri Vinay Dahat for non-applicant No.1 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri A.K. Bangadkar for nonapplicant No.2. 2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The applicant is accused No.5 in Criminal Complaint Case No. 8288/2010 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur and is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant had filed the revision application before the Sessions Court challenging the order of issuance of process against him on the ground that the applicant was not Director of the Company at the time of commission of the alleged offence. The revision application has been dismissed. 4. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the applicant was no more Director of the Company and therefore, he cannot be held vicariously liable for any...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »