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.
Tulsidas Atmaram Shirodkar Alias Narvekar, (Since Deceased) and Others ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Shri Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. The above Appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial question of law by Order dated 06.01.2010: i) Whether the learned First Appellate Judge District Judge-I, Panaji, erred in holding that the respondent/defendants had inherited the tenancy right in respect of suit shop as legal heirs of deceased late Sakharam Bhikaro Naik and as such could not be evicted from the suit premises on the basis of the pleadings of the defendants that they are tenants of the suit premises in their own right without spelling out the facts indicating the inheritance of the tenancy right? ii) Whether the first appellate Court misdirected itself in concluding that the tenancy was commercial on the basis of the facts that the premises were let out for business purpose and not on the basis of user of the said premises? 3. Briefly, the facts ...
Dipchand Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. The appellant, who was found guilty of committing uxoricide by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner by judgment and order, dated 16.3.2011, in Sessions Case No. 48 of 2010 and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months, has approached this court, thereby challenging the correctness of the said judgment. 2. The factual matrix, as unfolded during the course of the prosecution case, can conveniently be stated as under:- Dipchand, the appellant and his wife Kalpanabai were having marital life for last 26 years. The couple is having two sons and one daughter. PW1 Rakesh is younger than PW3 Sachin and Pavitra is the daughter of the couple. The appellant is a retired army person. After retirement from the army, he was working as Watchman at Devas in Madhya Pradesh. It appears that amongst the eight brothers of the appellant, there took partition in respect of their ance...
Ajay Ramesh Dhole and Another Vs. Deepak Shridhar Weginwar
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
Oral Judgment: 1) Learned counsel Mr.Raut is heard on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel Mr. Maheshwari is heard on behalf of the respondent. 2) Admit. Heard finally by consent. 3) This criminal writ petition impugns the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Criminal Revision Application No.97 of 2010. The petitioners are the accused in Criminal Case No.935 of 2009 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur. The respondent is the complainant in the said criminal case. The petitioners moved the trial Magistrate for dismissal of complaint on the ground that the Chandrapur Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the case. The said application was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Therefore, the revision application was filed before the Sessions Court, Chandrapur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge heard both the parties at length. The issue raised before the Additional Sessions Judge by the petitioners...
Kumari Sweta Suresh Thakur Vs. the State of Maharashtra Department of ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
RavindraV. Ghuge, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties. 2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 16.1.2009 passed by Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee invalidating the tribe claim of the Petitioner towards Thakur-Scheduled Tribe (Entry No.44). 3. Shri Golegaonkar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner “ Ku. Sweta d/o Suresh Thakur submits that the Petitioner was admitted to the B.G.P. Sahyadri Jr. College, Sangamner, when her claim was referred to Respondent No.2 Committee by the said College. By order dated 16.1.2009, which is impugned in this petition, her claim that she belonged to œThakur “ Scheduled Tribe?, was rejected. 4. The petitioner contends that on the basis of the marks secured in the MHT-CET 2006 examination, pursuant to the petitioner passing her XII standard examination held in March 2006, she secured admission in Respondent No.4 College,...
Alizar Pereira Vs. the State of Goa, Through the Police Inspector
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9/01/2012 passed by the President, Children's Court for State of Goa, thereby convicting the appellant/accused under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003. The learned President has sentenced the appellant/accused to undergo imprisonment of 6 months under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for 10 days and under Section 8(2) of the Act, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and pay statutory fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only), in default, to undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months. She also ordered that the fine imposed shall be paid as a compensation to the victim in terms of Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that victim was residing with her family consisting of her cousin, her father and was the n...
Aivy De Souza Faria and Others Vs. Alvaro De Souza Faria, Through His ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
Heard Mr. Almeida, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. M. B. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1. 2. Learned Counsel for both the parties submitted that the appellants and respondent no. 1 are the only contesting parties and that the respondents no. 2 and 3 were absent before the lower Courts. They submitted that the matter be disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have taken exception to the order dated 15/07/2013 passed by the District Judge“II, South Goa, Margao (First Appellate Court) in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 27/2010. 4. Facts relevant for disposal of the petition are as under: Inventory proceedings No. 19036/78/II were instituted in order to partition the inheritance of Amancio Sebastiao Aleixo Roque de Pilar de Souza and his wife Maria Josefina Aquavia Martinha Faria. These proceedings were initiated on 27/01/1978. Their daughter Maria Lira de ...
Shubangi Apa Dhuri, Daughter of Late Panduranga Moraskar, (Since Decea ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
1. The appellants sued for exercising their right of pre-emption against the respondents. The suit came to be dismissed, inter alia, on the ground that it was barred by the law of limitation. An appeal therefrom has been dismissed. In this second appeal, two substantial questions of law with regard to the period of limitation and implied repeal of the limitation, specifying period of limitation are framed, which are as under: a) Whether in a suit for pre-emption, the limitation period is governed by Article 1566 of Portuguese Civil Code or Article 97 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963? b) Whether in view of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 which applies to the State of Goa and prescribes a period of limitation for a suit to enforce the right of pre-emption that part of Article 1566 prescribing a shorter period of limitation stands repealed? The aforesaid questions may be considered together. The other issues, on facts, have resulted in concurrent findings of fact, which need not be gone into in...
Condor Maritime Dienstleistung Gmbh and Co. Kg and Another Vs. M.V. We ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
1. The notice of motion is taken out on behalf of defendant Nos.1 and 2 for return of security of Rs.65,71,141/- to the applicant together with interest accumulated thereon. 2. The applicant is seeking return of security on the basis that the suit was filed and security obtained for the plaintiff's claim in arbitration. It is the applicant's case that the defendant no.1 vessel and the vessel m.v. Eastern Light for which the plaintiff allegedly provided management services are not sister vessels and hence the first defendant vessel cannot be arrested. It is submitted that both these vessels are owned by different entities which are unconnected and assuming for the sake of argument both are part of the same group and have common beneficial ownership, still at best they could be considered as vessels owned by sister companies and not sister ships and for the Court to conclude that these are sister ships, the Court has to pierce the corporate veil. It is submitted that the plaintiff has no...
Vatsala and Others Vs. Divisional Railway Manager (Works), Central Rai ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This Second Appeal was admitted on 30.10.2001 on the substantial question of law as stated below: œWhether the Courts below failed to consider the admission in view of Order VIII, Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure? œ 2. This appeal arises out of the Judgment and Order dt.12.7.1999 passed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.192 of 1992, which was dismissed. The Regular Civil Appeal arose out of the Judgment and Order dt.24.2.1992 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.996 of 1987 whereby the suit was partly decreed granting refund of a sum of Rs.50,050/- along with interest @ 18 % p.a. from the date of deposit till realisation of the whole amount. 3. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: The original plaintiff namely Bhika s/o. Antu Kale had filed Regular Civil Suit No.996 of 1987 against the Railways for possession and perpetual injunction and costs of the suit. According to the plaintiff, he is a retir...
Milagrina Dias and Others Vs. the Sanguem Municipal Council
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
Oral Judgment:- 1. Heard Mr. T. Pereira, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. V. P. Thali, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted by order dated 02.07.2010 on the following substantial questions of law. (a) Whether on the basis of the admission of the respondent that the appellants have been granted an aforamento the consequences available for an aforamento as provided under the Portuguese Civil Code are available to the appellant? (b) Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the suit in toto though the appellants were held to be in lawful possession of the suit property? 3. Mr. T. Pereira, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the appellants have been granted an aforamento in the year 1932 for the purpose of cultivation and putting up a construction therein by the respondent and according to him the appellants are in possession of the said por...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »