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.
Shreeprakash Ramganesh Dube and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra T ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
Oral Judgment: [V.M. Kanade, J.] 1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of parties, the writ petitions are taken up for final hearing. 2. The PIL has been filed by an Association and the writ petition also is filed by a person, who claims to be a social worker. Both the Petitioners are challenging the consent terms which were filed before the Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3104 of 2013 as well as the minutes of order which were filed in the said consent terms. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Unit Trust of India (for Respondent Nos.5 and 6 in WP No.3 of 2013 and for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in PIL No. 27 of 2013) regarding maintainability of the petitions. It is submitted that by these petitions, the Petitioners are challenging the order, which was passed by this Court in a writ petition, which was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel...
Datta Rao and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through the Secreta ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
RavindraV. Ghuge, J. 1. Heard the respective advocates. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. This petition is filed by 3 petitioners who are agriculturists, under Article 226, 227, 300A, 31 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950 for challenging an order dated 30.6.2011 passed by respondent No.2 / Land Acquisition Officer, Nanded. By the impugned order dated 30.6.2011, the application of the petitioners filed u/s 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came to be rejected. 3. The submissions of the petitioners can be summarized as follows: a. The agricultural lands of the petitioners were sought to be acquired for the construction of Upper Paneganga Project (Canal). b. Compensation at the rate ranging between Rs.5,500/- to Rs. 6,000/- per hectre was granted. An award dated 2.3.1981 was passed granting compensation at the rate of Rs.5,500/- to Rs. 6,000/- per hectre by an award dated 2.3.1981. c. One agriculturist, Sambharao Tukaram Deshmukh, being aggrieved ...
Parvati Co-operative Industrial Estate Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The Petitioner is a Co-operative Society formed by the owners of various industrial plots. The Petitioner Society has 325 members who have admittedly erected independent factories on their respective plots. On 22nd September 2009, an agreement purporting to be an agreement under Section 125 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short œthe said Act?) was entered into between the Petitioner-Society and the Village Panchayat which is the fourth Respondent in this Petition. The said agreement was executed on the basis of a Resolution passed by the Managing Committee of the Petitioner on 31st May 2009. The agreement entered into was purportedly for payment of a lump sum contribution by various members of the Petitioner Society who have erected factories in lieu of property taxes levied by the Village Panchayat fourth Respondent for the years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. 2. On 10th July 2007...
Raju Waman Salve Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) 1. Appellant who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of which to undergo further R-I for 1 month, by 10th Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai, by judgment dated 17.7.2008 in Sessions Case No.567 of 2007, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts in brief, as are necessary for the decision of this appeal, may briefly be stated thus: (i) PW-1 ASI Shridhar Salunkhe who was attached to Cuffe Parade Police Station and who was present on 27.3.2007 in the police station, was given patrolling duty at the World Trade Centre, Sadhu T.L. Waswani Marg, near Makers Tower. At about 1.40 to 1.45 pm while he was standing at gate no.4, he had heard the cries of some persons who were shouting as œcatch catch?. On hearing the cries PW-1 ASI Salunkhe went towards them and the persons ass...
SachIn Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
1) This writ petition is filed to challenge the order made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ardhapur in Misc. Criminal Application No.63 of 2013. The petitioner had filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class and he had requested the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class to send the matter to police under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (œthe Code") for registering crime and for making investigation. After hearing the counsel of the petitioner and after going through the documents, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class held that it would not be proper to direct investigation under section 156(3) of the Code. Learned Judicial Magistrate has kept the matter for recording verification and thus has indicated that he will take cognizance of the matter. The petitioner has a grievance that the matter is not sent for investigation under section 156(3) of the Code. Both the sides are heard. 2) Before the Judicial Magistrat...
Ashok Sudam Dhonge Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Malegaon Polic ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) 1. Appellant who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of which to undergo further RI for 2 years and RI for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default of which to undergo further RI for 1 year for an offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC, with a direction that the substantive sentence shall run concurrently, by 2nd Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, District-Nashik, by judgment dated 30.12.2005 in Sessions Case No.11 of 2005, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts in brief, as are necessary for the decision of this appeal, may briefly be stated thus: (i) PW-7 API Jainarayan Ghule who on 26.6.2003 attached to Malegaon Police Station, received information from the police patil on 28.9.2004 on the basis of which A.D. No.62 of 2004 was registered. The said A.D. Was reg...
Farzana Ansari Vs. Abid Ali Ansari
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
Oral Judgment: Rule. With the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith. 2. This Criminal revision is directed against the Judgment and order dated 19/11/2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, South Goa, Margao in Criminal Revision Application No. 29/2012 . The applicant/wife has filed application under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Judicial Magistrate First Class for maintenance bearing No.2/M/2011/C. The said maintenance application was allowed after recording the evidence of the applicant/wife and her father and the respondent was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month on or before every 7th day of every month. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent/husband filed criminal revision before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge allowed the said revision and quashed and set aside the order of maintenance passed by the learned JMFC. Hence, this criminal revision application. 3. The marriage between...
T. Veeruswami Vs. M/S. Ramsons Casting Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
Oral Judgment: 1) Learned counsel Mr.Ghanwat is heard on behalf of the applicant. Learned counsel Mr.Joshi is heard on behalf of the respondent. 2) Admit. Heard finally by consent. 3) The applicant is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge“7, Nagpur. The applicant was accused in Criminal Case No.16057 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He has been convicted for the said offence and has been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and to pay Rs.15,00,000/- by way of compensation to the non-applicant-original complainant. 4) The appeal has been admitted. However, while suspending the sentence imposed by the trial Court, the appellate Court directed that the applicant should deposit Rs.5,00,000/- in the appellate Court. This amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is directed to be deposited keeping in view the amount of compensation ordered to be paid by the applicant to the non-applicant. 5) The learned...
Vilas Ganpat Ghorpade Vs. Shree Sai Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
Narendra Kawde, Member: [1] Complainant executed a registered agreement with opponent, M/s.Shree Sai Developers Pvt.Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as opponent builder/developer) on 25/10/2005 for purchase of flat bearing No.903 admeasuring 945 sq.ft. built-up area on 9th floor in D building, in Golden Park Tower a project developed by the opponent builder/developer for agreed consideration was Rs. 20,79,000/-. Possession of the flat was to be delivered on or before 30/06/2007. Complainant paid an amount of Rs. 5,40,540/- against the agreed consideration. Opponent builder/developer sent demand notice for amount of Rs. 3,95,010/- outside the purview of terms and conditions of the agreement as alleged. Therefore, dispute arose at this point. Present consumer complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service against the opponent builder/developer praying for direction to hand over peaceful possession of flat, alternatively for compensation of Rs. 49,75,000/- together with cost of liti...
Akhil Bhartiya Dhamma Sena and Another Vs. Union of India, Through Its ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
Z.A. Haq, J. 1. Heard Mr. J.M. Shamkuwar with Mr. M.A. Khobragade, Advocates for the petitioners, Mr. S.V. Manohar, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.P. Kariya, Advocate for respondent no.3 and Mrs. B.H. Dangre, officiating Government Pleader for respondent no.4. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. This writ petition is filed praying for restraint orders against the respondent no.3 “ producer of a movie from exhibiting a movie titled as œKhairlanjiChya Mathyawar?. The challenge is raised by a social organization, which claims to be working at national level to spread the Bouddhism in the Indian Territory and claims to be fighting for social justice. The petitioner no.2 is a person who claims to be directly affected by the scenes shown in the movie as it is claimed that the movie is based on true story/events which happened in the life of the petitioner no.2 and according to the petitioner no.2 some scenes shown in the movie are not correct and will tarnish his and his d...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »