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.
Antonio Ferdino Varela Vs. thereza Maria Angela Varela
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and correctness of the order passed on 06.01.2014 by the learned District Judge-2, Panaji partly allowing the application for amendment of the petitioner so as to add one additional ground and partly refusing leave to incorporate another additional ground for divorce. 3. After hearing both the sides, the question that arises for my consideration is: œWhether the discretion exercised by the learned District Judge-2 in refusing leave to amend the petition by incorporating additional ground for divorce based on Article 4(8) of the Law of Divorce is arbitrary and un-reasonable ?? 4. It is seen from the impugned order that the one of the grounds on which the learned District Judge refused permission to incorporate the additional ground for divorce based on Article 4(8) of the Law of Divorce was that the application for incorporat...
Vasant Dilip Londe Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) 1. Appellant who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of which to undergo RI for 2 months, and RI for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of which to undergo RI for one month, with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, by judgment dated 22.3.2005, by this appeal challenges his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts as are necessary for the decision of this appeal may briefly be stated thus: (i) PW-8 API Balkrishna Ambure who in February 2004 was attached to Vishrambag police station, Sangli and was on duty on 25.2.2004 was informed at about 10.50 pm by the police station officer about the receipt of information that one B.S. Mohan was seriously injured and had been admitted in the civil hospital at Sangli. PW-8 API Ambure on being informe...
Valentino S. I. F. Rebello and Another Vs. the State of Goa, Represent ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
1. The Appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree passed by the Adhoc District Judge, FTC-I, South Goa, Margao, in Civil Suit No. 160 of 2004 on 30.08.2007, by which the Suit filed by the original Plaintiff/Respondent, is decreed. 2. The relevant facts are as follows: The Appellants/Original Defendants had initiated proceedings under Article 14 (3) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Land Revenue Code, 1968'), before the Deputy Collector, praying that the holding under Survey no. 56/2 of Village Velim be re-surveyed and additional area admeasuring 227 square metres be amalgamated in the said survey holding and the area of the said holding be increased to 477 square metres. The learned Deputy Collector by the Order dated 24.10.2002, allowed the application filed by the Appellants/Original Defendants. 3. The Respondent/Original Plaintiff, challenged the above mentioned Order passed by the Deputy Collector by filing the Civil Suit as provi...
Rasul AmIn Mujawar and Others Vs. Shriniwas Construction Co., Miraj, T ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
Usha S. Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The Complainants have filed present complaint u/sec 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by alleging deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Opponents. 2. The Complainant Nos.1 and 2 are the real brothers. Complainant Nos.3 and 4 are their sisters. Property bearing C.T.S. No.5050/A-1 (Old CTS No.5051 and 5051-A/1) admeasuring 224.5 sq.meters situated in municipal limits of Sangli Miraj and Kupwad City Municipal Corporation at Peer Nalsaheb Chowk, is the ancestral property of the Complainants. Opponent No.1 is construction company while the Opponent Nos.2 to 4 are its partners. The Opponent No.1 Company is engaged mainly in the building construction and development of residential apartments and trade complexes. In the month of January, 1995, Opponent Nos.2 to 4 made enquiry about the ancestral property of the Complainants. The Opponents gave proposal of development of the property. The Opponents assured to give reasonable con...
Ryan Manuel Braganza and Others Vs. State of Goa, Through Its Chief Se ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
Oral Order: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The above Public Interest Litigation, came to be filed by the Petitioners, inter alia, on the ground that they are affected by the noise pollution caused by the Respondent nos. 7 to 12 at their respective premises at the addresses mentioned in the cause title. It is their case that the said Respondents are carrying on their business of Bar and Restaurant in the premises at St. Michael Vaddo in Anjuna. It is further their case that the activities are unauthorised and that they are carrying out business from the shacks located therein which are owned by them and are illegally constructed in contravention of the CRZ Notification. It is further their case that there are late night loud music parties organised in the said premises thereby the residences in the vicinity of the said premises and the Senior Citizens and families are affected on account of the loud nerve wrecking and horrific music played unabated al...
Allahabad Bank Vs. M/S Shivganga Tube Well and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
1. This first appeal is admitted on 12th March, 1998. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. Appellant Banks suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.27,76,137/- and for preliminary decree for sale of the mortgaged property for recovery of the said amount was decreed against the borrower original defendant No.1, but was dismissed against the guarantors i.e. defendants No.2 to 6. Hence, this first appeal against the guarantors. 3. The case of the appellant/plaintiff, in short, is as under: That, the original defendant No.1 has availed a loan of Rs.10 (ten) lacs on 12.02.1988 and 10.03.1988 for the purposes of purchase of a truck with bore-well Rig, Machine, Screw Compressor, Drilling Rig, etc. The original defendant No.1 the borrower hypothecated the said machinery and its accessories with the plaintiff Bank. At the same time, the defendants No.2 to 6 i.e. present respondents No.2 to 6 agreed to stand as continuing guarantors for the original defendant No.1 in repaym...
M/S. Reliance Enterprises, Represented by Its Sole Proprietor, Shri Si ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
1. Oral Judgment: Heard 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. This petition challenges the order passed on 30.11.2013 in Special Civil Suit No. 137/2006 by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao, thereby allowing the application filed by the respondents for amendment of their written statement. 5. The case of the petitioner is that the amendment application filed by the respondents on 19.3.2013 seeking to set up a plea of set-off against the demand of the plaintiff in a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the money against the respondents was grossly belated and did not at all satisfy the requirements of Order 8, Rule 6 of the CPC. It is also the case of the petitioner that the amendment of the written statement was only another method of getting over order of rejection of counter claim passed earlier by same Court whereby the counter claim made by the respondents was not accepted by the trial Court on the ground that it was barred by limitation. 6. The a...
Vidarbha Vikas Mahila Bal Kalyan Shikshan Sanstha and Another Vs. Stat ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. By consent, petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. Rule. 3. This petition challenges the decision taken by the respondent No.3-Academic Council, Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, Amravati under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (in short, œthe Act?) withdrawing affiliation of a particular course started by petitioner No.2-College. 4. The petitioner No.1 is an education society, it runs petitioner No.2-College at Akola. In this College there are several courses conducted. One of the courses was B.A. (Social Work), it started in 2010. Before starting this course, the petitioners sought affiliation of respondent No.2-University. Having regard to the provisions of Section 81 of the Act the University gave affiliation. After getting affiliation the petitioner No.2 started admitting students for this course and the course continued. It was a course of three years. At the end of the course a students would get degree of Bachelor of Social Work...
M/S. Shree Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Union ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
Oral Judgment: (S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) 1. The petitioner assails the order passed by the respondent No. 2 thereby dismissing the appeal filed against the order passed by the respondent No. 3, so also the show cause notices. 2. Mr. Kolte, the learned counsel submits that, the petitioner was issued with various show cause notices with regard to payment of excise duty upon molasses for a period from 1994 to 1997. The respondents withdrew all the show cause notices except the show cause notice issued for a period of January and February 1995. According to the learned counsel the show cause notices are issued only on the sole basis that nearby sugar factory i. e. Shirpur Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana, Shirpur (hereafter referred as to the "Shirpur S. S. K.") had sold molasses at the rate of Rs. 1310/- per metric tonne, whereas the petitioner has shown the value of molasses at the rate of Rs. 850/- per metric tonne. The petitioner uses the said molasses for captive consumption. According to the le...
Laxman Wamanrao Nagapure Vs. Shankar Haribhau Adhau and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This second appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 6.8.2012, passed by the learned District Judge-I, Akot, in Regular Civil Appeal No.25 of 2009, whereby the appeal was dismissed, which arose from judgment and order dated 18.6.2007, passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Telhara, in Regular Civil Suit No.73 of 2005, whereby the suit was decreed for possession of alleged encroachment portion of 25R land out of Survey No.47/7-A admeasuring about 2.64R claimed as belonging to the plaintiff. The agricultural land is situated at village Telhara (Bk.), Taluka Telhara, District Akola. 2. The substantial question of law is to be decided, "Whether the Courts below were right in not directing re-measurement of the suit field and the adjoining lands, by following due procedure governing the measurements? 3. The grievance of Shri A.B. Mirza, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, is that in the trial Court the plaint did not describe the dispu...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »