Mumbai Court April 2014 Judgments
Assis J. Fernandes Vs. Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Caste Ce ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
1. Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4 and Mr. Dangui, learned Additional Government Advocate, on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 3. 2. Admit. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this application, the applicant seeks review of the judgment and order dated 04/07/2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 207 of 2013 and prays to dismiss the said writ petition. 4. Respondent no. 4 had filed the said Writ Petition for following reliefs: œ(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the order dated 08/01/2013 passed by respondent no.1; (b) Issue a direction to quash and set aside the Caste Certificate dated 11/04/2012 and Caste Validity Certificate in favour of respondent no.4 as belonging to OBC.? 5. The said writ petition was thereafter amended and following prayer clause (bb) w...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. Heard learned counsel for the Applicants and learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.1, finally. Respondent No.2 though served, remained absent. 2. Learned counsel for Applicants has submitted that offence was registered at Nehrunagar Police Station, Mumbai bearing Crime No.204 of 2013 under Sections 494, 498A, 420, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and for the same offence Respondent No.2 filed private complaint (M.A. No.9 of 2014) R.C.C. No.19 of 2014 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paranda for offence punishable under Section 494 read with 34 of I.P.C. against Applicants. Learned Counsel for Applicants submitted that F.I.R. filed by Respondent No.2 at Nehrunagar Police Station, Mumbai and private complaint filed at Paranda, are having similar allegations. It is argued that when F.I.R. was registered, such complaint could not have been filed. Counsel further submitted that the copy of Complaint at Exhibit E shows that the Magistrat...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Dhanbahadur Thapa Vs. the State of Goa, Through Anti Narcotic
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
1. Heard Mr. Khan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This appeal is filed by the accused of Special Criminal Case No. 12/2008 against the judgment, order and sentence dated 04-05/05/2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mapusa ('Trial Court') in the said case. The accused was tried for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act'). 3. Case of the prosecution was as under: Police Inspector Ashish Shirodkar (PW8), then attached to Anti Narcotic Cell Police Station, Panaji, Goa, on 05/02/2008, received an information to the effect that one male person of fair complexion, short height, strong built, wearing white coloured half sleeves shirt with brown strips and green coloured pant, aged about 30 to 35 years, will be coming near Petrol Pump Malpem, Pernem, Goa to deliver narcotic drugs i.e. charas to his pr...
Tag this Judgment!Assis J. Fernandes Vs. Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Caste Ce ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
1. Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4 and Mr. Dangui, learned Additional Government Advocate, on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 3. 2. Admit. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this application, the applicant seeks review of the judgment and order dated 04/07/2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 207 of 2013 and prays to dismiss the said writ petition. 4. Respondent no. 4 had filed the said Writ Petition for following reliefs: œ(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the order dated 08/01/2013 passed by respondent no.1; (b) Issue a direction to quash and set aside the Caste Certificate dated 11/04/2012 and Caste Validity Certificate in favour of respondent no.4 as belonging to OBC.? 5. The said writ petition was thereafter amended and following prayer clause (bb) w...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Dhudaku Ishi Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhule dated 29th November, 2011, in Sessions Case No.37 Of 2010 where-by the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the appellant (original accused) for the offence punishable U/Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. ( In short, the I.P.Code). The learned Sessions Judge sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- [ Rs. Two Thousand only] and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The detail narration of facts of the prosecution, as it could be gathered from First Information Report Exh.No.39 lodged by Sanjay Madhukar Gaikwad [ P.W.No.10] is as under:- (i) First informant - Sanjay [ P.W.No.10] is working as a Manager of one œMayur Lodge? situated at Santoshi Mata Square, Dhule, since last fourteen years. The said lodge is owned by one Dilip Baburao Kande. Said Mayur Lod...
Tag this Judgment!Sakharbai Haribhau Shelke, Since Deceased Through Her L.Rs. and Others ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
S.V. Gangapurwala, J. 1. The petitioner vide the present writ petition assails the notification issued U/Sec. 4 and the declaration U/Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred as to the "Act of 1894" for the sake of brevity) in respect of the property bearing Sy. No. 148/1 admeasuring 4H 59R.50 square meter situated at Shirdi, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. The land of the petitioner admeasuring 4H 59R . 50 square meter in land Sy. No. 148/1 is sought to be acquired for Shirdi Sansthan for construction of the Dharmashala. The notification U/Sec. 4 of the Act of 1894 is published in the news paper on 27.09.2000. The petitioner raised her objection to the said acquisition U/Sec. 5A of the Act of 1894. The said objection is rejected. Thereafter, declaration U/Sec. 6 of the Act of 1894 is published on 21.09.2001. This Court vide order dated 29.04.2002 admitted the petition and directed the parties to maintain status quo until further orders. 3. Mr. S. D. Kulkarni, the...
Tag this Judgment!Sarika Vs. Kusumlata and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
Oral Judgment: 1) Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is invoked against the order dated 20th March, 2013, passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai, by which order, the learned Judge has ruled that the said Court has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the Suit. 3) The Petitioner herein is the original Defendant No. 2 to the Suit in question. The Respondent No. 1 herein is the original Plaintiff, who is the mother-in-law of the Petitioner and the mother of the Defendant No. 1. The Defendant No. 1 is the husband of the Petitioner. The Suit in question being S. C. Suit No. 1560 of 2011 has been filed for the following relief:- œa) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a permanent order and injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants and/or any other p...
Tag this Judgment!Prashant and Others Vs. Ushabai and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal was admitted on 7.8.2007 on the following substantial question of law: 1. Whether the first Appellate Court was justified in reversing the decree passed by the trial Court mainly on the ground that the plaintiff had not complied with the provisions of Order VII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure by not describing the property sufficiently for the purpose of its identification, when the pleadings in the plaint pertaining to the description of the property and the plaint map was sufficient to disclose the identity of the same? 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: This Second Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Order dt.5.7.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pandharkawada in Regular Civil Appeal No.194 of 2002 whereby the learned first Appellate Judge was pleased to allow the appeal. In the result, the suit which was decreed by the trial Court came to be dismissed. The first Appeal arose from the Judgment and Order dt.11...
Tag this Judgment!ida Pereira and Others Vs. Village Panchayat of Merces, Through Its Se ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-24-2014
1. The original plaintiffs have filed this appeal challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge, FTC-I, Panaji in Civil Suit No.59/2005 on 30/11/2007, by which the civil suit filed by the plaintiffs praying for declaration, demolition and mandatory injunction is dismissed. 2. The relevant facts are: The plaintiffs filed the civil suit claiming that they are the co-owners of the property bearing survey no 143/1 of village Murda within the jurisdiction of Village Panchayat of Merces and that they are having their residential house bearing H. No. E-155 in the above mentioned land. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property along with the other properties was the subject matter of the Inventory proceedings registered as Case No.8/2000/B in which the order was passed on 1.2.2000 and the plaintiffs were allotted the area of 4266 square metres out of the property which was the subject matter of the Inventory Proceedings. According to the plaintiffs, the de...
Tag this Judgment!Sabino Tolentino Fernandes and Another Vs. Rohidas N. Naik and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-24-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Almeida, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, Mr. Keny, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 and Mr. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2. 2. Admit. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this Appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and award dated 06/07/2013 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Margao ('the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 60/2010. Respondent no.1 was the claimant; appellants were respondents no. 1 and 2, being rider and owner of the offending vehicle; and respondent no. 2, the insurance company, was respondent no. 3 in the said Claim Petition No. 60/2010. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the Claim Petition. 4. The claimant had filed the said petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Ac, 1988 ('M.V. Act' for short) for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- on the account grievous injuries sus...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »