Mumbai Court March 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.
Deputy Collector (Dev) and Land Acquisition Officer and Another Vs. Za ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants, Mr. G. Agni, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 and Mr. Shivan Desai, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents no.9 to 13. 2. The above appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 16/11/2005 passed in Land acquisition Case No.30/1991 whereby a reference preferred by the respondents under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the œsaid Act?) was partly allowed and the compensation for the land acquired was fixed at the rate of Rs.306/- per square metre. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that: Pursuant to the Notification dated 18/2/1982 under Section 4 of the said Act, land belonging to the respondents was acquired admeasuring an area of 20210 sq.metres from property surveyed under nos. 132/3, 132/4, 135/1 and 141/2 situated at Miramar, Panaji City for the purpose of parks, recreation and development of ...
Sudarshan Ramchandra Shelake and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra a ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
Oral Judgment: (K.U. Chandiwal, J.) 1. Heard. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Both the applications are heard together as they raise common question of quashing FIR vide Crime No.I-29/2010, registered at Rahuri Police Station, district Ahmednagar. 2. Prashant, aged 22 years, was a student of IInd year L.L.B. Course (Three years' Law degree course after graduation) at Ferguson College Hostel. Unfortunate suicide of Prashant on 25th Jan., 2010, at his relative's place at Khadambe, Taluka Rahata, district Ahmednagar, made his father ( a police officer) to lodge FIR implicating the applicants who were studying in the College or were in the hostel at the relevant time. 3. In the FIR, complainant Bandu says that in December 2009, his son Prashant had been to abode but seen depressed; he informed his father that (1) Sudarshan Shelke, 2) Chetan Mahale, 3) Sharad Lande, 4) Rohan Belve and five / ten other students were torturing him on different pretext. He conveyed to his father that he desir...
Jagdish Lal Gupta, New Delhi Vs. Tara Industries Limited and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
G.S. Patel, J. 1. This is a company application filed by the appellant in an appeal under Section 10-F of the Companies Act, 1956. The appeal is directed against an order dated 24th January 2012 passed by the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The company application seeks that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. 2. The question is not whether a court can condone delay beyond the maximum period of 120 days specified in Section 10-F ” that a court cannot is now well-settled ” but from what date should that period be reckoned. Mr. Andhyarujina, learned counsel for the appellant, Jagdish Lal Gupta (œJagdish Gupta?), claims that his client had a right to receive a copy of the impugned order under Regulation 29(4) of the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991 (œCLB Regulations?). He was not given a copy. He chanced upon it much later, in August 2012, and since this appeal was filed on 22nd November 2012, it is within the extended period of 60 days (b...
State, (Through Cid Crime Branch, Panaji.) Vs. John Fernandes
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This is a State appeal against acquittal. 3. The respondent (accused) was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court- I, South Goa, Margao (Trial Court), in Sessions Case no. 11 of 2010, for offences punishable under Sections 354, 509, 504, 323, 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). The said Sessions Case No. 11 of 2010 was a culmination of charge sheet filed by Colva Police against accused. The charge was framed for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 201 I.P.C. only, and the substance of the charge was that at or about 02.30 hours on 02/12/2009, near Maria Hall, Benaulim and in the car (Captiva Black Colour) bearing No. GA-09/D-0001, the accused committed rape on the prosecutrix, a Russian National and thereafter caused the evidence connected with the of...
Lisa Rodrigues E Mendonca and Another Vs. Eugenio Rodrigues and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
1. Heard Mr. Pereira, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2. 2. Admit. 3. Heard forthwith by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the order dated 24/07/2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Vasco-da-Gama ('trial Court'), on the objections dated 27/07/2012 filed by the respondents no 1 and 2 herein, in Special Inventory Proceedings No. 11/2011/A. 5. Respondent no. 3 initiated the said Inventory Proceedings No.11/2011/A on account of the death of her parents namely Mr. Macario Rodrigues, who expired on 15/03/2009 and Mrs. Yolanda D'Silva Rodrigues, who expired on 08/03/2010. By order dated 13/01/2012, the said respondent no. 3 was appointed as Cabeca da Casal and she filed the list of assets dated 06/06/2012. Respondents no.1 and 2 filed their objections to the said list of assets thereby praying to exclude t...
Nana and Others Vs. Prabhakar
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
1) This proceeding is filed against the judgment and decree of Rent Suit No.8 of 2007 and Rent Appeal No.2 of 2012. The suit filed by the respondent, landlord, for eviction is decided in his favour by the trial court and that decision is confirmed by the District Court. Both sides are heard. 2) The suit was filed in respect of portion admeasuring 16 ft x 7 ft. and 6 ft x 5 ft. from the house property bearing No.4-4-13 situated at Mohalla Kumbharwada, Aurangabad. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is owner of the southern side portion of the house having size of 20 x 20 ft and he got this portion in family partition with his sons. The plaintiff has given hand sketch map of the portion belonging to him. He has also shown the portion which is in possession of the defendant. 3) It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was given to the present appellants/defendant on monthly rent of Rs.131/- for running Tradle Printing Press. It is contended that in view of development in...
Vinod Vijaypal Sharma and Others Vs. Mumbai Municipal Corporation and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for Respondent-State waives service. Heard finally, by consent of the parties, in view of urgency shown. 2. As the common issues are involved and as the submissions are based upon the common order passed by the Respondent-Officer, we are inclined to dispose of the present Petitions by common judgment. 3. The Petitioners are the transporters of the goods. They are owner of the vehicles in question, but not the owner of the goods involved. For the same vehicles and the goods, this is a second round of litigation and whereby they have prayed to direct the Respondent-Corporation to release the vehicles and the seized goods. 4. Based upon earlier order passed by this Court dated 21 October 2013, the Respondent-Corporation heard the Petitioners, basically on the issue of release of vehicles, as well as, the goods and by a common speaking order dated 26 November 2013, before concluding issues, directed to furni...
Suman Vs. Mahavir and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This Application is under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C."). Notice to Respondent Nos.10 and 11. The learned A.P.P. waives notice for Respondent Nos.10 and 11. Finally heard at admission stage. 2. Present Application has been filed in view of orders passed under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. dated 16th December, 2013 vide which Judicial Magistrate(First Class) Court No.7, Ahmednagar has dismissed the complaint filed by the Applicant. 3. Learned counsel for Applicant submits that between the complainant-wife and Respondent Nos. 1 to 9 husband and in-laws, there were various proceedings pending and on 31st March, 2009 after attending the Court proceedings in Criminal Misc. Application No.757 of 2007 at Ahmednagar, the Applicant-wife was proceeding from near Hoshing Hospital towards S.T. Stand, when the incident took place. Her husband-Accused No.1 called out to her to wait and Accused Nos.2 to 9 came there and the accused persons abu...
Mahesh Vs. Rahul K. Durugkar and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
Oral Judgment : 1. Heard learned Counsel Shri O.S. Harwani for the appellant, learned Counsel Shri A.J. Thakkar for respondent No.1 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri T.A. Mirza for respondent No.2. 2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur in Criminal Complaint Case No. 10677/2010 dismissing the complaint of the appellant and acquitting the accused/respondent No.1 of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code runs as under:- œ256. Non-appearance or death of complainant “ (1) If the summons has been issued on complaint, and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit t...
M/S. Commonwealth Developers Cd Fountainhead, Represented by Its Partn ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
F.M. Reis, J. The above appeal was fixed for final disposal on the following substantial questions of law by order dated 23.01.2014. 1. Whether the rear courtyard inclosed by walls of a residential unit could be included as built-up area of the residential unit ? 2. Whether the learned Tribunal can inquire into and get measured the courtyard which was not included in the built-up area and which is not the lis between the parties ? 2. We have heard Mr. Chythanya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. A. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant/assessee submitted its return of income declaring a total income of Rs.53,620/- on 30.10.2006. An order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 21.11.2008 on the returned income of Rs.53,620/-. Thereafter, CIT invoked its jurisdiction under Section 263 and set aside the order passed under Section 143(3) vide order dated 30.3.2011 with a direction to...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »