Mumbai Court April 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.
Bhaskar Janu Khadme Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Gadkari, J.) 1. The appellant-original accused no.1 by the present appeal has questioned the correctness of the judgment and order dated 22 February 2005 passed by the learned Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad in Sessions Case No.239 of 2003, thereby convicting him for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The appellant has been further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. It has further been ordered that both the substantive sentences to run concurrently. The appellant along with original accused no.2 Smt.Ramibai Janu Khadme i.e. the mother of the appellant were charged with offence punishable ...
M/S. Haldyn Glass Limited Now Known as M/S. Haldyn Corporation Ltd. an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
In Chamber: 1. By all these Review Petitions (Except Review Petition (L) No. 40 of 2014 in Writ Petition No.1892 of 2008) the employer Haldyn Glass Pvt. Ltd. seeks review of judgment and order dated 20.02.2014, primarily on the following grounds, which according to Mr. Vaidya, the learned counsel appearing for the employer, constitute 'error apparent on face of record' : (A) In respect of 28 workmen referred to in paragraph 4 of the Review Petitions, the First Labour Court had already made separate Awards, which had not even been challenged either by the union or the concerned workmen. The impugned Awards made by the First Labour Court which form the subject matter of challenge before this Court, clearly did not include such 28 workmen. In as much as the judgment and order under review includes the said 28 workmen and once again grants relief to them, there is duplication and consequent 'error apparent on face of record'. (B) In respect of eight workmen referred to in paragraph 9 of th...
Kailash and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of both the sides. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. Perused the record as well as charge sheet which has been filed. 3. The petitioner No.1 is the husband of deceased Manjusha and petitioner No.2 and 3 are the parents-in-law. The marriage was performed on 14.3.2009. It is alleged that, Manjusha committed suicide by consuming poison on 16.1.2011. Father of Manjusha filed F.I.R. regarding ill-treatment and that due to the ill-treatement, Manjusha committed suicide. The police filed charge sheet under Section 304-B, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge passed following order below Exhibit 1 in Sessions Case No.38/2013. "The charge sheet is filed for offences punishable u/s. 304-B and 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased was wife of accused No.1 Kailash Vitthal Awale and she died unnatural death, within seven years of her marri...
Bhaskar Janu Khadme Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Gadkari, J.) 1. The appellant-original accused no.1 by the present appeal has questioned the correctness of the judgment and order dated 22 February 2005 passed by the learned Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad in Sessions Case No.239 of 2003, thereby convicting him for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The appellant has been further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. It has further been ordered that both the substantive sentences to run concurrently. The appellant along with original accused no.2 Smt.Ramibai Janu Khadme i.e. the mother of the appellant were charged with offence punishable ...
M/S. Haldyn Glass Works Private Limited Vs. Oriental Fire and General ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
G.S. Patel, J. 1. The final disposal of this suit has taken 28 years. By any measure, this is an extraordinary and unacceptable length of time for the disposal of any suit. This is also a suit in which a very considerable amount of evidence has been led. Five witnesses have been examined: three by the plaintiffs and two by the 1st defendant. There is an extraordinary amount of documentary evidence as well. This fills one entire trunk. It is spread over a dozen volumes or more. At the same time, the claim, substantial when it was first made in 1986, by todays standards, is no more than commonplace: for a decree in the sum of Rs.1,83,51,397/- against the 1st defendant. I PLEADINGS 2. The plaintiff, a private limited company, manufactures glass products, including amber and white glass bottles. The 1st defendant is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of insurance. Defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 are mortgagors of the plaintiffs prem...
Kanhu Vs. Badalshaha and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This second appeal is preferred against judgment and order dated 29.11.2006, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Gadchiroli, in Regular Civil Appeal No.14 of 2006, whereby the first appellate Court was pleased to allow the appeal partly and decree the suit for possession. The first appeal arose from judgment and order dated 17.12.2005, passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Gadchiroli, in Regular Suit No.87 of 1997, whereby the suit was dismissed and mesneprofits were disallowed. 2. This second appeal was admitted on 27.2.2007 on the following substantial question of law, thus: œWhether the appellate Court was justified in reversing the finding recorded by the trial Court without recording reasons therefor and without considering the evidence considered by the trial Court while recording the findings?? The answer is the negative for the following reasons:- 3. The trial Court, it appears that, had decided the suit for possession and ...
The Bank of New York Mellon Vs. Zenith Infotech Limited and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
1. The Chamber Summons is taken out by Defendant No.3 for revocation of the leave granted to the Plaintiff under Clause XII of the Letters Patent or in the alternative, deletion of Defendant No.3 from the array of parties to the suit. 2. The Plaintiff is a US national banking corporation engaged inter alia in the business of providing corporate trustee services. Defendant No.1 is a public company incorporated in India, listed on the Bombay and National Stock Exchanges. In 2006 and 2007, Defendant No.1 issued convertible bonds of US $ 33,000,000 due 2011 and US $ 50,000,000 due 2012 and entered into two separate trust deeds with the Plaintiff, under which the latter was appointed as trustee of bondholders. Under the trust deeds, Defendant No.1 inter alia covenanted to pay to the order of the Plaintiff in London in US dollars the principal amounts of the 2011 bonds and 2012 bonds, respectively, on the dates of the bonds becoming due for redemption together with the applicable premium. De...
Ramrao Nilkanthrao Patil (Died Through L.Rs.) and Others Vs. Dhondaji ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No. 239/1982 which was pending in the Court of 3rd Additional District Judge, Nanded. The judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No. 150/1979 filed by the present appellant for relief of partition and possession was partly decreed by the Trial Court, the Court from Degloor, and this decision is confirmed by the District Court in First Appeal. Both the sides are heard. 2. The suit was filed in respect of agricultural lands situated at village Aloor, Tahsil Degloor, District Nanded. The plaintiff/appellant had claimed 7/18th share in all the agricultural lands. The relief is given to the plaintiff in respect of few suit properties, but the Courts below have held that lands Gat Nos. 630, 643 and 96 belonge to defendant No. 5 and she is the absolute owner of these three lands. The Courts below have given 1/3rd share to the plaintiff in remaining lands. The decision only in respect of aforesaid three lands is chal...
Tatyarao Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned A.P.P. for Respondent, finally at the admission stage. 2. This Revision has been filed against the conviction and sentence for offence punishable under Section 279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short œI.P.C.?). The Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Court No.8), Aurangabad in S.C.C. No.3625 of 2001, convicted the present Applicant under Section 279 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and for offence under Section 337 of I.P.C. also to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused/Applicant was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to injured complainant, Dr. Babu Nathaji More. In Criminal Appeal No.95 of 2009 the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Aurangabad partly allowed the Appeal. Conviction of Applicant was maintained and direction regarding imprisonment was modified so a...
Nevada Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Alice Infrastructure Pvt. L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by the Plaintiff for deletion of Nutech Engineers and Power Systems Ltd. as Defendant No. 5 to the suit and implead the Respondents “ Nutech Engineering Technologies Ltd. and Nutech Enterprises “ as Defendant Nos. 5 and 5A in the Suit. 2. The Plaintiff is a private company promoted for acquiring commercial premises in the city of Mumbai. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, who are related to the promoter of the Plaintiff company, are promoters of Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 was also a director of the Plaintiff. It is the Plaintiff's case that Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 defrauded the Plaintiff and siphoned off its funds. The Suit is for recovery of a sum of about Rs. 13.58 crores which is claimed to have been illegally and fraudulently siphoned away by Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in collusion with various entities who are arraigned as other Defendants to the Suit. The Suit is based on forensic accounting studies by an accountant identifying transfer of f...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »