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.
Dr. Krishna Appaya Patil and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
P.C.: 1. The applicant-accused has filed the application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The Complainant Dr.Manjusha Subash Mulavane, Joint Director of Higher Education, Mumbai, has filed this complaint against the applicant/accused. Pursuant to the said information, the offence was registered at Special Case No.7 of 2013 under section 7 of The Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1987 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The applicant/accused was working as a Principal of Siddharth College of Commerce and Economics (for short, hereinafter referred to as `College'). It is the case of the prosecution that when the applicant/accused was holding the post of the Principal of the College, he demanded and collected fee for the year 2012-2013 illegally exceeding the scheduled fee under the Act. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant/accused has collected an excess amount of Rs.2,970/- from each student. Thus, ...
Balaji Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
V.M. Deshpande, J. The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur dated 20th August, 2011 in Sessions Case No.16 Of 2010, by which the Court below convicted the appellant/accused for the offence punishable U/Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short, the I.P.Code) and directed that the appellant should suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five months. 2. The facts giving rise to the prosecution case can be narrated conveniently as under:- (i) P.W. 3 Ramkisan Waghmare is resident of village Dhor-Sangavi, Dist. Latur. His family is joint family. Ranjana was one of his sister. Marriage of Ranjana was performed with the present appellant about 3 to 4 years prior to the incident. Original accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of the appellant. Original accused Nos. 4 and 5 a...
Techno Precision Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. M/S. Western Coal ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner no.1 a Private Limited Company and petitioner no.2 “ R.S. Gupta, one of its Director pray for quashing of a communication dated 19.12.2013, issued by respondent no.2, banning petitioner no.1 from participating in any business with the said respondent for a period of three years i.e. upto 17.07.2016. There is also a prayer to stay the operation and effect of the said communication. This Court has issued notice in the matter on 17.01.2014 and made it returnable on 27.01.2014. On that date matter came to be adjourned to 30.01.2014, and thereafter to 31.01.2014. Respondents have filed their reply on 29.01.2014. Looking to the nature of nature of controversy, we thought it fit to hear the matter finally at the stage of admission. Accordingly, matter is heard with consent of the parties by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. 2. Shri M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel ...
Hemraj and Others Vs. Suryabhan
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. Admit on the following substantial question of law: Whether it is essential to get agreed map in respect of the disputed agricultural lands and if parties cannot agree, whether it is necessary to appoint Court Commissioner preferably Cadestral Surveyor so as to draw such map in respect of disputed agricultural lands for just and proper decision of the real controversy between the parties? 3. My answer to the above question is in the affirmative as in the cases where dispute is as to boundaries or boundary-marks of the immovable property and when parties do not agree to any map produced on the record, it becomes essential for the trial Court or the first Appellate Court as final Court on finding of facts to ensure that a competent Cadestral Surveyor is appointed as the Court Commissioner to prepare measurement map in respect of the suit properties so that after receiving authentic map or plan from the competent O...
Riyana Ishaque Kazi and Others Vs. Pushpa R. Sheva and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
1. Admit. By Consent of the parties, the appeal is taken for final hearing. 2. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 15th June, 2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai in M.A.C.P. No. 2554 of 1995 filed under section 163A of Motor Vehicle Act. The appellant is the original claimant, who has filed an appeal against the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dismissing his application on the ground that the victim himself was negligent and the defence of wrongful act and neglect on the part of the victim adopted by the insurance company was fully accepted by the learned Member, Tribunal. Thus, the question involved in this appeal is whether the defence of fault liability of the victim/claimant is available to the insurance company or owner in the proceedings filed under Section 163A of the M.V. Act or not? 3. There is no dispute that the principle of no fault liability is in favour of the applicant against the owner/driver of the offending vehi...
Basantilal and Another Vs. Ramashankar and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
1. Second Appeal No.164 of 2002 is filed by Basantilal Motilal Tiwari and Second Appeal No.198 of 2002 filed by Ramashankar Kantaprasad Tiwari are directed against Judgment and order dated 10-12-2001 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.283 of 2000 which was partly allowed allowing one-third share to the Ramashankar (Original Plaintiff) and one-third share each to Basantilal (Ori. Defendant No.1) and Umashankar (Ori. Defendant No.2). Both the appeals arose out of the Judgment and order dated 14-01-2000 passed by the 5th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division at Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No.692 of 1988 whereby the suit was dismissed by the trial Court. 2. Second Appeal No 164 of 2002 was admitted by this Court on 2nd May 2005 on the following substantial Questions of law:- i) Whether the suit was not tenable and was liable to be dismissed for misjoinder of causes of action? ii) Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in declaring the shares of...
Datta Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
Oral Judgment:(V.M. Deshpande, J.) Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of conviction passed by the learned Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur dated 25th July, 2011 in Sessions Case No.92 Of 2010, by which the Court below convicted the appellant for the offence punishable U/Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( In short, the I.P.Code) and directed that the appellant should suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- and in default payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, the appellant has approached before this Court. 2. The prosecution case is in very narrow compass and the same is given as under:- The appellant is a mechanic by profession. Deceased Kavita was his wife. The date of incidence is 10th May, 2010 at 2.00 p.m. Their marriage took place prior to two years of the incident. The couple was residing as a tenant in the house of one Devidas Lahubande, which is situated at Balaji Nagar, Latur. The de...
Rambhau Mhatarba Fud, Deceased, Through L.Rs. and Others Vs. the Fores ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.P. for respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally. 2. I will refer to parties as arrayed in Trial Court. It is the case of appellants-plaintiff that the suit property agricultural land Gat No.151 (Old Survey No.125/1) from village Darewadi, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar was admittedly forest land and original plaintiff claimed that 25 acres land shown as per map annexed with the plaint, was in cultivating possession of the original plaintiff from 1950. Plaintiff claimed that he developed the land since 1957 and had been in continuous, uninterrupted adverse possession for more than 30 years and perfected the title. On 13.2.1996, possession of the plaintiff was obstructed by employees of the respondents-defendants and thus he brought the suit for declaration and ownership by adverse possession and for injunction. Respondent-defendant No.2 Forest Range Officer, Division ...
Lalit Kumar Modi Vs. Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement Gove ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
Oral Judgment: (S.J. Vazifdar, J.) 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the Special Director and the Assistant Director respectively of the Directorate of Enforcement. 3. Mr. Setalvad, the learned Additional Solicitor General, stated that the respondents did not wish to file an affidavit in reply. He reiterated the statement even during the course of the hearing. 4. The petition in effect challenges the opinion of respondent No.1 under rule 4 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000 (hereafter referred to as the œAdjudication Rules?) to hold an inquiry as to whether the petitioner has contravened the provisions of section 13 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (hereafter referred to as œthe Act?). The œopinion? is referred to in a letter dated 21.03.2013 which is also challenged. In view of a judgment of the Supreme Court and a ju...
Dr. Hari A. Nagpal (H.U.F.) Vs. Mohini Shelters Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
Usha S. Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member: (1) The complainant has filed present complaint u/s.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent as he failed to hand over the flat to him as per agreement. (2) The complainant is a doctor who is senior citizen and resident of Mumbai. He claims himself to be a consumer and the opponent as a service provider. The opponent is a builder who undertook the task of re-development of flats and to hand over to the original members of the society. (3) According to the complainant, the opponent had impressed upon the complainant and other members/owners of New Shri Ram Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Concerning re-development of complainants society. The opponent assured the complainant and offered additional area to be given upon surrendering the entire area in respect of each flat. The opponent also assured to the complainant and members/owners that on payment of sum of Rs.1960/- per sq.ft....
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »