Mumbai Court February 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.
Ganpatrao Vs. Rajiv
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Counsel Shri P. Gode for the applicant and Shri V.J. Dharkar for the nonapplicant. 2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The question, which has arisen for determination in the present application, is as to whether the change of Magistrate by itself will entail de novo trial in a case which is labelled as summary case. In ordinary course, if one goes by the provisions of law, the answer will be yes. But this issue has been discussed at length in various judgments and particularly in the judgment of this Court in Criminal Application (APL) No.671 of 2011. It is pertinent to note that this Court has taken into consideration the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NitinbhaiSaevatilal Shah Vs. Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal reported at AIR 2011 SC 3076. After having gone through the provisions of law and after having followed the crux of the judgment in Nitinbhai'scase, this Court had come to the concl...
Vasim Jafar Qureshi and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
Oral Order: These two applications can be conveniently disposed of by this common order, as though they have been filed in two different appeals, the questions involved are the same. 2. The applicants in both these applications have suffered conviction in respect of various offences including an offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with section 34 of IPC. Out of one and the same incident, two cross cases arose and the accused persons, in both the cases, were convicted of offences including one punishable under section 307 of IPC. The accused in both these cases have challenged their conviction and the sentences imposed upon them by the trial Court, by filing aforesaid two appeals, which have been admitted and are pending. Now by these applications, the appellants in both these appeals are seeking that the appeals be allowed on the basis of a compromise arrived at by and between them. It is submitted that the parties being neighbours have resolved the...
Shaikh Shakil Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary Home ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
Oral Judgment: Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of respondents. By consent, heard finally forthwith. 2. The petitioner is one of the accused in R.C.C. No. 93/2008 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udgir. There are total 14 accused in the said case, which is in respect of offences punishable under section 143 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), section 353 of IPC, section 341 of IPC, section 427 of IPC and section 332 of IPC and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The case was originally registered against about 75 to 100 unknown persons, but the Investigating Agency after investigation could file chargesheet only against 14 of them. Out of these 14 only the petitioner and two or three more are attending the Court. The chargesheet has been filed in the year 2008 and since then the petitioner has been remaining present before the Court on all the dates of hearing. However, as the other acc...
Reliance Broadcast Network Limited Vs. Raj Oil Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
G.S. Patel, J. I 1. The defence to this winding up petition turns on the interpretation of a set of endorsements made to the contract or agreement in question. Mr. Dwarkadas, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, contends that the endorsements are of no effect, since the respondent signed the contract and has, therefore, accepted it. Where there is an unconditional acceptance, the endorsement of an additional condition has no legal effect. It does not constitute a counter-offer, and it is impossible to hold that there is no valid contract because there is no acceptance of the offer as originally made. For his part, Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that where the condition is imposed at or before the acceptance of the original contract, then there are only two possibilities in law: either there is a contract as modified by the superadded condition, or there is no contract at all. The original contract, sans the condition, cannot be said to exist. 2. I heard Mr....
Escolastica Felicidade Carolina Menezes and Another Vs. Remygio D'Mell ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. By order dated 08/02/2013, this Court had directed issuance of notice to the respondents making it clear that the petition shall be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. In spite of that though all the respondents, more particularly respondent no.1, are served, the respondents are absent. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have taken exception to the order dated 20/12/2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao whereby the application filed by the present petitioners in Regular Civil suit No. 260/2010/A for recalling PW1 has been rejected. 4. Respondent no.1 has filed the said suit against the petitioners and respondents no. 2 to 10 for declaration, injunction and mesne profits. The petitioners as defendants no. 5 and 6 in that suit have filed their written statement and respondents no. 2 to 10 have also filed written statement, taking appropriate defence a...
Rubina Zahir Ansari Vs. Sharif Altaf Furniturewala and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and also heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the preliminary objection raised on behalf of respondent no.2 as to maintainability of the present application for cancellation of bail before this court. 2. Without going into much detail, facts leading to the filing of the present application for cancellation of bail are as under; This Court vide order dated 28.12.2013 rejected the bail application No. 2109 of 2013 filed by the present respondent nos. 1 and 2. By detailed order the bail application was rejected by this Court. That time apparently the investigation was continuing and charge-sheet was not then filed. Thereafter, the investigation was over and charge sheet was filed and fresh bail application bearing Nos. 12 and 13 of 2014 were preferred respectively by present respondent nos. 1 and 2. Said applications were preferred before learned 37th Addl. Chief M.M. Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. Said bail applications were allowed...
Hanumanta Vissu Arsekar and Others Vs. Upendra Narayan Katkar and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
1. The parties are landlord and tenant. 2. The landlord has leased his premises to the tenant under the deed of lease dated 11.5.1981. The parties agreed in writing inter alia that the lessee (tenant) agreed to "use the leased premises to run paint business as mentioned in clause (7) of the lease." 3. In clause 8 of the agreement, the parties agreed that if the lessee violates any of the clauses of the agreement, eviction would follow. 4. The tenant started the business of paint and later changed it to the business of toys. The landlord claimed to injunct the tenant from starting the business. He claimed that, without his written permission, the leased premises cannot be used for any other business because a specific business is shown in the agreement upon which the landlord has leased the premises to the tenant. He has obtained the necessary injunction. There are concurrent findings of fact. In fact, these are admitted facts. The only substantial question of law that is required to be...
Sakharam Shankar Garje Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
Oral Judgment: [S.S. Shinde, J.] 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11th March, 2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No.77/2010, the appellant / accused has preferred this criminal appeal. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the present appellant / accused and his wife Suman (referred to as the victim hereinafter) resided at Khilne Vasti Surudi, taluka Ashti, District Beed. On 16th February, 2010, the accused and the victim were at residence. At about 8 p.m. On that day, the accused poured kerosene on the person of the victim and set her on fire with the help of a burning lamp (chimani). It is the prosecution case that the accused quarreled with the victim to satisfy his need of money for drinking liquor since he was habitual to same. After the said incident, people from the locality including PW 1 Sakharabai arrived at the spot and the victim was taken to the hospital. Accused absconded from the spot after the incident. 3. On the basis of the ...
M/S. Joshi Bullion Gems and Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. M/S. K. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
G.S. Patel, J. 1. The petitioner claims that the respondent company, M/s. K A Malle Pharmaceuticals Limited. (œthe Company?), is indebted to it the petitioner in the amount of Rs.52,82,59,398/-. It contends that as the Company has neglected to pay this amount without just cause and despite the service of a statutory notice under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Company should be ordered to be wound up. 2. I have heard Mr. Khata, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sethna, learned senior counsel for the Company at some length. With their assistance I have gone through the record, the petition and the various affidavits filed. Having carefully considered the material and the rival arguments, I am not persuaded that this is a fit case for admission of this winding up petition against the Company. In my view the Company has a substantial and bona fide defence, not one that can be said to be illusory and spurious. Indeed, it is the petition itself that I fin...
Yeshodi Gauthankar and Others Vs. Telma De Souza Gonsalves
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. A. D'Silva, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. M. Viegas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law. 1. Whether both the Courts grossly erred in holding that the suit toilet is illegal despite of the right provided to the Mamlatdar to maintain, repair, improve or reconstruct the dwelling house and the explanation of the term 'improve' includes construction within the dwelling house like sump tank or overhead tank, water cistern, bathroom, toilet, septic tank, soak pit and the like subject to obtaining necessary permission from the concerned Authorities under Section 7 of Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975? 2. Whether the Courts below having framed the issue of maintainability of the suit exceeded their jurisdiction in determining the issue without first referring the same to the Mamlatdar under Section 32 of the Goa Mundka...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »