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.
Sharad Bhaskar Rajnor Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) 1. The 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.2,000/- in default of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, by judgment dated 22 December 2010, in Sessions Case No.38 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 be stated thus: P.W.6 “ P.I. Jainarayan Ghule who at the time of the incident was attached to the Malegaon Taluka Police Station, was entrusted with the investigation of Crime No.17 of 2005 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which had been registered by A.S.I. Sonawane on the basis of the report of P.W.1 “ Vatsalabai at Exhibit 20. On being entrusted with the investigation, P.W.6 P.I. Ghule proceeded to the scene of incident and in t...
M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Others Vs. Sau. Nivedita ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Second Appeal No.340 of 1999 was filed by the Petroleum Company M/s. Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., while Second Appeal No. 356 of 1999 was filed by M/s. Greenland Agencies [defendant no.2] and M/s. Onkarmal Rungta and Sons [defendant no.3]. The defendant no.2 is the sister concern of defendant no.3 and defendant no.2 is running a tea stall in the portion of the suit land owned by the respondent-landlady Sau. Nivedita Jain. 2. The original owner of the suit plot Rukhminibai Goenka executed a Registered Lease-Deed [Exh.82] on 15th July, 1964 in favour of M/s. Caltex [India] Ltd., for a period of ten years beginning from 1st October, 1962 to 30th September, 1972. On 16th October, 1965 [Exh.85], she gifted the suit property to Mrs. Nivedita Jain the respondent landlady herein. On 9th August, 1978, a quit notice [Exh.90] was issued by her to the appellant Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., terminating the tenancy by the end of 30th September, 1978. But, accord...
Dadu Rama Patil and Others Vs. Bapu Krishna Kurane, Since Deceased Thr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties taken up for hearing forthwith. 2. The revisionary jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 24/8/2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ichalkaranji by which order the Trial Court has decided the preliminary issue by holding that it has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. 3. The Applicants herein are the original Defendant Nos.10, 11,13 and 15 to the suit in question being Regular Civil Suit No.247 of 2005. In the context of the challenge which has been raised in the above Civil Revision Application it would be apposite to refer to the reliefs claimed in the said suit. "HIND?" English translation of which is as under:- 12) Plaintiff therefore prays that:- (a) To declare that the Plaintiff become owner by adverse possession; (b) Order dated 29.11.2001 vide Desk 1512 Rehabilitation RR 3867/2001 Vashi-916/ 2001, Letter of Tahasildar Dt. 7/12/2001 vide...
Shamkalabai and Others Vs. Bhikamsing
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
JUDGMENT: 1) This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.196 of 1985 which was pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge Beed. The appeal filed by the respondent “ defendant against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No.43 of 1980 is allowed by the First Appellate Court. The trial Court had given judgment and decree of permanent injunction in favour of appellant/ plaintiff and that decision is set aside by the First Appellate Court. Both the sides are heard. 2) The plaintiff is wife of brother of the defendant. The suit was filed in respect of agricultural land bearing Sy. No.114 situated at Beed and admeasuring 7 acres. It is also in respect of one half share in the water of well situated in Survey No.114. 3) It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was purchased by her from the funds given by her father, under registered sale dated 19-1-1975. It is her case that from the date of purchase she has been in po...
Damodar Prasad Maheshwari (Somani) and Another Vs. Sagar Onkardas Nyat ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned A.P.P. for respondent No.2/State finally. 2. In this matter, the respondent No.1- complainant filed R.C.C. No.239/2012 against the present applicants (original accused Nos.1 and 3). The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon did not issue process against accused No.2 Mrs. Trivenidevi observing that her contribution behind this offence is not well founded and she could not be arrayed as accused. Against the order of issue of process against applicants, the present application has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants is relying on the case of National Bank of Oman Vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz and anr., reported in (2013) 2 SCC 488. He submits that, perusal of the complaint shows that the accused persons were not residents of the local jurisdiction of the Court and in view of the amendment to Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short), it was incumbent ...
Reliance Industries Limited Vs. Ntpc Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
PC: 1) In this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent the order dated 20 February 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Chamber Summons No.201 of 2010 has been challenged. The Chamber Summons was taken out by the appellant defendant seeking an order against the plaintiff for discovery and inspection of documents as indicated and enumerated in Annexure to the chamber summons. 2) The respondent-plaintiff has filed the above suit in December 2005 for specific performance of contract for supply of 132 trillion BTU of Natural Gas for a period of 17 years on the basis of certain documents executed in 2004. The appellant-defendant filed its written statement on 31 October 2007 contending that there was no concluded contract between the parties and parties were merely at the stage of negotiation. This according to the appellant-defendant was evident in view of meetings between officers of the appellant-defendant and respondent-plaintiff. 3) Thereafter the respondent-pl...
Goldstar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. J.V. and Brothers
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
P.B. Joshi, Judicial Member: [1] Complainant is a co-operative housing society formed by the purchasers of the respective flats in the building constructed by the opposite party. The complainant society is duly registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and is a housing society formed for the purpose of protecting the common interests of its members and maintenance, upkeep and for the common ownership of the property and the building where the members reside, having its registered office at Kandivali west, Mumbai. Secretary of the complainant society has filed the present complaint as authorized by the society. [2] Opposite party is a partnership firm engaged in business of development of land and constructing thereon building structures for residential and other uses. In the year 1979 to 1980, the opposite party has entered into agreements with 46 flat purchasers agreeing and undertaking to form a co-operative society of the flat purchasers and conveying the said bu...
Baburao and Others Vs. Tukaram and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-19-2014
1. This Appeal from Order is by the appellants/ original plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs). Regular Civil Suit No.100/2000 filed by the plaintiffs against respondents (original defendants) was for declaration and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, respondent Nos.4 and 5 (hereinafter referred to as the "subsequent purchasers") purchased part of suit property and thus, they were added in the suit as defendants No.4 and 5. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed on 2.9.2013. The plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Appeal No.298/2013 before the District Judge, Ahmednagar. In the appeal, plaintiffs filed application for injunction pending the appeal. The application came to be rejected on 18.11.2013 and hence, the present Appeal from Impugned Order against rejection of Temporary Injunction application. 2. Original plaintiff No.1 Baburao Namdeo Nalwade expired during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives are on record. Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 a...
Baburao and Others Vs. Tukaram and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-2014
1. This Appeal from Order is by the appellants/ original plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs). Regular Civil Suit No.100/2000 filed by the plaintiffs against respondents (original defendants) was for declaration and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, respondent Nos.4 and 5 (hereinafter referred to as the "subsequent purchasers") purchased part of suit property and thus, they were added in the suit as defendants No.4 and 5. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed on 2.9.2013. The plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Appeal No.298/2013 before the District Judge, Ahmednagar. In the appeal, plaintiffs filed application for injunction pending the appeal. The application came to be rejected on 18.11.2013 and hence, the present Appeal from Impugned Order against rejection of Temporary Injunction application. 2. Original plaintiff No.1 Baburao Namdeo Nalwade expired during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives are on record. Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 a...
Navbharat International Ltd. Vs. Cargo Onboard M.V. Amitees (at Kandla ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-2014
1. Notice of Motion No. 2853 of 2010 is taken out on behalf of Defendant No. 2 and Notice of Motion No. 3649 of 2010 is taken out on behalf of Defendant No. 3. Both the parties have taken out their respective Notices of Motion as parties to whom prejudice was caused by the ex-parte order dated 12th January, 2010 obtained by the Plaintiff for arrest of Defendant No. 1 viz. 13,000/- MT of rice on board m.v. Amitees, when she was at Kandla. 2. I have already held by a judgment pronounced on 20-02-2014 that the two notices of motion do not fall under the expression 'Suit' occurring in sub-section 1 of Section 22 of Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 (SICA). 3. To decide on the merits of the two notices of motion some facts have to be recalled. On 12th January, 2010, the Plaintiff Gauri Gaekwad filed the above Admiralty Suit No. 19 of 2010 against the Defendant No. 1 and also against the 2nd Defendant. On the same date, based on the averments made by the Plaintiff in the plaint, the Plaint...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »