Mumbai Court April 2014 Judgments
Maximo Antonio Viegas Since Deceased Through His Heirs: and Others Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. Heard finally by consent. 3. Mr. R. Noronha, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondents. 4. The only point which arises for my determination is:- Whether the impugned order dated 29.10.2013, is so illegal and arbitrary as to warrant interference by this Court? 5. Upon hearing both sides, it can be seen that the learned Civil Judge has refused to exercise the jurisdiction which he has in respect of the proceedings initiated in execution of a decree. 6. The decree of the trial Court dated 5.8.2008 has been modified by the First Appellate Court by its judgment and decree passed on 16.8.2010. As per modified decree, the judgment debtors are required, amongst others, to hand over peaceful possession of the suit portion to the plaintiffs/decree holders and also to keep the door at the stair case in question open so as to facilitate to decree holders ingress to and egress from the suit premises. Since vacant possession was not d...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector Vs. Rajaram Jaywant ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. Respondents are accused facing prosecution under Sections 302, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the State, as application Exh.312, filed by the State in the Sessions Case No.44/2011 before Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar to recall P.W.14 Kisan Abaji Shelke was rejected by order dated 6.12.2013, The witness was examined by the prosecutor on 1.10.2013 and in the course of the evidence, the witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the State. On 1.10.2013, the cross-examination was deferred due to grant of application Exh.281. On next date of 9.10.2013, for some of the accused the Court ordered No Cross and rest declined cross-examination. By another application filed by the accused, vide Exh.310, recalling of same witness was allowed by th...
Tag this Judgment!Anthony Fernandes Vs. State, Rep. by Public Prosecutor
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Gomes e Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This petition, which was admitted on 01/02/2012, is filed against the judgment and order dated 09/11/2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Goa at Margao ('Sessions Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 34/2011, by which the Judgment and Order dated 31/03/2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao (J.M.F.C.) in Criminal Case no. 50/S/2006/E, has been upheld, with slight modification. The petitioner was the accused in said Criminal Case No. 50/S/2006/E and shall, hereinafter, be referred to as the accused. 3. A charge sheet was filed by Colva Police against the accused before the learned J.M.F.C. for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) alleging that on 01/08/2005 at 15.20 hours, the accused drove Mahindra Pick-up bearing re...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Ashish Subhash Bodhade and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, Throug ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
Oral Judgment: (Vasanti A. Naik, J.) Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is identical and they arise from a common order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur dated 30/03/2012, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1255 of 2013 has secured a M.D.S. degree in the subject of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, whereas the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1284 of 2013 has secured a M.D.S. degree in the subject of Periodontics. Also, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1311 of 2013 has secured a M.D.S. degree in the subject of Oral Pathology and Microbiology. It is not in dispute that while securing admission to the post graduate course in dental education, the petitioners were required to sign a bond to serve the Government for a period of two years, failing which they were required ...
Tag this Judgment!Himanshu @ Hemant Rajendra Bhatt Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
P.C. 1. The applicant/accused has moved an application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of Cr. P.C. against the order of issuance of non-bailable warrant passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai in C.C. 1105/S/2005 in the cases where the offence is registered against the applicant/accused under section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881. Earlier the application for anticipatory bail challenging the said order preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay is rejected on 4th March, 2014 and four weeks time was granted to enable him to approach the Metropolitan Magistrate Court to apply for cancellation of warrant to grant fresh bail. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that the applicant/accused is facing charges under section 138 of N.I. Act and though it is bailable, the learned Magistrate has issued non-bailable warrant without ascertaining the genuine reasons of the absence of the applicant/accused before th...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Shaffi Usmansaheb Kokani and Others Vs. Nashik Municipal Corp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
A.S. Oka, J. 1. Parties have been put to notice that the Petition will be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 2. The Petitioners are claiming to be the owners of the land more particularly described in paragraph 1 of the Petition. The first Respondent Nashik Municipal Corporation has been constituted under the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. The first Respondent Corporation is the Planning Authority within the meaning of Section 2(19) the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short œthe MRTP Act?). A Development Plan for the City of Nashik was sanctioned on 28th May, 1993 by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 31 of the MRTP Act. The land described in paragraph 1 of the Petition (for short œthe said land?) was shown reserved in the sanctioned Development Plan for a garden under a Reservation bearing No.358-C. As no steps were taken for acquisition of the said land by the first Respondent, on 16t...
Tag this Judgment!Amit Anand Pai Raikar @ Amit Pai Vs. the State of Goa, Through Public ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
Oral Order: 1. Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents and Mr. De Sa, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the intervener. 2. The applicant, who has been arrested on 22/11/2013 in Crime No.168 of 2013 registered with Porvorim Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 420, 465, 467, 468, 472, 474, 475, 409 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), has filed the above Criminal Application (Bail) No. 84 of 2014 for bail, whereas the complainant M/s. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation Private Limited through its Director, at whose instance the said Crime No. 168 of 2013 has been registered, has filed the above Stamp Number (Application) No. 1262 of 2014 praying for leave to intervene in the bail application. 3. A reply resisting the application for bail has been filed by the Investigating Officer. The intervenor has also resisted ...
Tag this Judgment!Samarth Krupa Co.Op. Hsg. Society Ltd. Vs. Samartha Erectors and Devel ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
P.B. Joshi, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Complainant Society has filed this complaint against the Opponents with the contention that they as promoters and owners of the property bearing Survey No.163/A(pt.) admeasuring about 6330.89 sq.meters at Village Akurli in Registration Sub-District of Mumbai Suburban, Mumbai 400 001 on which the building known as Samartha Krupa was constructed by the Opponent. Opponent sold the flats and entered into agreement with the purchasers on ownership basis and put them in possession of their respective flats on or about February, 2007 after receiving entire consideration. One of the agreements is filed by the Complainant along with the complaint and it is dated 29.12.2006 which was entered into between the Opponent No.1 and Ms.Neema SohansSingh Rajpurohit and Sohansingh K. Rajpurohit. As per the Complainant Opponents failed and neglected to comply the statutory obligations to form the Society even after taking money for the same from all the flat purch...
Tag this Judgment!Uma Vithal Jhaveri and Another Vs. Nikhil Vithal Jhaveri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
1. By this petition, petitioners seek that the probate granted by this court on 30th December, 1996 in Probate Petition No. 214 of 1994 of the deceased Vithal Shyamdas Jhaveri be revoked. Respondent at the outset raised issue of limitation in filing this Misc. Petition. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding issue of limitation raised by the petitioners are as under:- 2. The respondent is claiming to be the sole executor viz. in the Will and testament dated 12th October, 1992. Respondent had filed a petition bearing Petition No.214 of 1994 in this court inter alia praying for the last Will and Testament of the said deceased. It is case of the petitioner no.1 that petitioner no.1 is a daughter of the said deceased and petitioner no.2 is the widow of the said deceased. Mr.Akhil Vithal Jhaveri is claiming to be son of the said deceased. It is the case of the petitioners that though the petitioners were the legal heirs of the said deceased, the citation was not served upon ...
Tag this Judgment!Nagpur Improvement Trust, Through the Chairman, Civil Lines Vs. Kishor ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/Nagpur Improvement Trust (Original Defendant)(hereinafter for brevity referred to as œ the NIT?), against the Judgment and Order, dated 16.1.2006 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 111 of 1999, which was disposed of on the ground that it became infructuous. The said appeal arose from the Judgment and Order, dated 19.12.1998 passed by the Joint Civil Judge(J.D.), Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No.1699 of 1996. The suit was decreed for declaration that the notice No. DO (West)251, dated 18.6.1996 and notice No.DO (west) 252, dated 4.7.1996 issued by the defendants to the plaintiff are illegal, null and void. 2. Brief facts are: That the respondent/plaintiff claimed that he is owner of the ground floor of the two storied house no. 569, Nazul plot no.106/5, City Survey no. 405/1 in ward no.3, Joshiwadi, Sitabuldi, Nagpur. The plaintiff also claimed that he was in possession of the first...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »