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.
Kalleshwar Nagari Bigar Shetisahakari Patsanstha Ltd. Vs. the State of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Leave granted. Appeal admitted. 2. Appeal be registered. 3. By consent heard finally at the stage of admission. 4. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.12.2012, of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurundwad,whereby he acquitted the Respondent No.2 accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 5. The appellant original complainant is a co-operative society registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The appellant society is having business of accepting deposits and giving loans to the members and is in the business of finance. The respondent No.2 was working as a Secretary of the said society nearly for a period of six years prior to 2008. He was aware of day-today affairs of the society. So also aware of disbursement of the loans and gold loan by the society. It is the case of appellant that the respondent No.2 without taking into confidence the Chairman, Vice Chairman or other...
Mukti Films, a Firm and Another Vs. Naresh Keshrimal Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
1. By this Notice of Motion the Petitioner prays that delay of 382 days in taking out the Notice of Motion for restoration of Petition which was dismissed on 30 October 2012 for non-compliance of office objections, be condoned and the petition be restored to file. 2. Affidavit has been filed initially by the concerned Advocate and it has been ratified by the Applicant subsequently. When an Advocate files an affidavit placing on record that there was some difficulty because of which matter went unattended, normally this Court would not take a harsh view of the matter and restore the petition so that it can be heard on merits. However, the discretion of the Court has to be used in facts and circumstances of each case and keeping in mind the nature of the proceedings. These are arbitration proceedings. The legislature has provided specific non extendable limitation for challenging the award. Underlying legislative policy being expeditious disposal of the arbitration proceedings. The legis...
Mr. M Vs. Mrs. M
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
A.S. Oka, J. 1. By this Family Court Appeal, the Appellant husband has taken an exception to the judgment and decree dated 5th April 2006 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Pune. We have blocked the names of the parties for the benefit of the parties considering the rival allegations. 2. The Appellant husband filed a Petition for seeking a decree of divorce under Clause (ia) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The marriage was solemnized on 3rd July 1998. The divorce was sought on the ground of cruelty. The ground of cruelty is based on the allegation that a false prosecution was initiated at the instance of the Respondent against the Appellant and his family members for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. In the Petition for divorce, the Appellant has set out various details and has alleged that the manner in which the prosecution was conducted caused enormous mental cruelty to him and to his family members. I...
Madhukar Deu Raut and Others Vs. Ramabai Soma Raut and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
1. This second appeal is filed by the original plaintiff who sued for injunction to protect his possession in the suit property. There has been concurrent findings of possession of the plaintiff. In this Second Appeal the appellants/original defendants contend that title of the plaintiff is perversely considered. 2. Three substantial questions of law have been framed as follows: (a) Whether the finding of the Courts below that the Respondents had title to the Suit property was perverse for reasons that the title based on documents produced by Respondents at Exh.PW1 E Colly (Sale Deed and Deed of Declaration) was at variance with the pleadings? (b) Whether the finding that the Appellants had not proved their title to the property "Panas" listed at Item No.3 in the Inventory Proceeding was vitiated as it was based on an erroneous legal concept that allotment in Inventory Proceedings is not a document of title? (c) Whether the finding of possession in favour of the Appellants, based on en...
Mr. M Vs. Mrs. M
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
A.S. Oka, J. 1. By this Family Court Appeal, the Appellant husband has taken an exception to the judgment and decree dated 5th April 2006 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Pune. We have blocked the names of the parties for the benefit of the parties considering the rival allegations. 2. The Appellant husband filed a Petition for seeking a decree of divorce under Clause (ia) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The marriage was solemnized on 3rd July 1998. The divorce was sought on the ground of cruelty. The ground of cruelty is based on the allegation that a false prosecution was initiated at the instance of the Respondent against the Appellant and his family members for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. In the Petition for divorce, the Appellant has set out various details and has alleged that the manner in which the prosecution was conducted caused enormous mental cruelty to him and to his family members. I...
Dattu Dagadu Bhagat and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J ) 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned AGP for the Respondents. 2. The Petitioners were the owners of certain lands which were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short œthe said Act?). In the year 1988, an award was made under Section 11 of the said Act in relation to the lands of the petitioners. 3. In the year 1999, the present Petitioners filed an Application under Sub-section (1) of Section 28A of the said Act praying for redetermination of compensation on the basis of a common Judgment and Award made by the District Court on 31st December 1998 in Land Acquisition Reference No.282 of 1991 and other connected Land Acquisition References. It appears that the State Government challenged the said common Judgment and Award by preferring First Appeals in this Court and the First Appeals are pending. 4. The grievance made in the Petition is that only on the ground of pendency of the Appeals in this Court, ...
The Pachora Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. the Employees Provident Fund ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
Oral Judgment: (Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.) 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, the petitioner Pachora Peoples Co..op. Bank Ltd., impugns the order dated 28.9.2010 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance), S.R.O. Nashik (A.P.F.C.) and the order dated 20.5.2011 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (Respondent herein) in A.T.A. No.727 (9) of 2010. 3. The submissions of Shri A.A.Shelke h/f P.D.Suryawanshi, learned Advocate for the petitioner are summarized as follows: a. The petitioner is a Co. Operative Bank registered under the provisions of The Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the rules framed there under. b. The petitioner is covered by the EmployeesŸ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. c. The business of the petitio...
Anand Shyamkundar Jaisingh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anothe ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
Narendra Kawde, Member: (1) Complainant is engaged in carrying the business of Jet Printing. Said printing machine was insured under the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy issued by the opponent no.1-The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as opponent insurer). The policy was subscribed jointly by the opponent no.2-Union Bank of India with the complainant for a sum of Rs.1,15,09,462/- for a period commencing from 06/07/2005 to 05/07/2006. The machine was hypothecated against the loan with opponent no.2. Therefore, joint policy to secure insurance cover was availed. Due to unprecedented rains and sudden floods on 26/07/2005 in and around city of Mumbai, the insured machine sustained irreparable loss. The complainant lodged the claim under the insurance policy. The opponent appointed the surveyor who could not carry out exhaustive technical survey about the damage to the machine. However, the surveyor quantified the damage to the machinery due to inundation prima-f...
Harilal Mevalal Gupta Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 29 July 2004 passed by the IInd Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan in Sessions Case No.23 of 2003, thereby convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of which to suffer simple imprisonment of 6 months. By this appeal, the appellant questions the correctness of the said conviction and sentence. 2. The facts, as enumerated from the record, are as under: (i) PW-4 PSI Ganesh Joshi who was then attached to Ulhasnagar Police Station was on patrolling duty on 16.10.2002. He received a wireless message at about 2.50am that one woman has been burned at Azadnagar, Ulhasnagar. Accordingly, PSI Joshi went to Azadnagar when it was informed to him that burnt lady, namely, Smt. Pramila has been shifted to Central Hospital, Ulhasnagar. On visiting to the said hospital at Ulhasn...
Mohandas Balkrishna Jadhav Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
Oral Judgment (Per P.V. Hardas, J): 1. The appellant who stand convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of which to undergo further RI for 6 months, by the Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri, by judgment dated 07.06.2007, in Sessions Case No. 54 of 2006, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. The facts in brief, as are necessary for the decision of this appeal, may briefly be stated thus: (i) PW-8 PSI Deepak Madhale who on 14.8.2006 was attached to Ratnagiri City Police Station, was entrusted with the papers for inquiry in respect of accidental death registered by the police station officer regarding the death of Manjusha, wife of the appellant. Accordingly, on the same day he went to the civil hospital at Ratnagiri. He drew inquest panchanama of the dead body of Manjusha, at Exhibit-16. He thereafter proceeded to the scene of the incident ...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »