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.
Shripad and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Sec ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
Common Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Respondent Rambhau Bapurao Mate has filed Regular Criminal Case No.166 of 2009 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kopargaon, Dist-Ahmednagar against in all 6 accused. Accused Nos.4 to 6 have filed these Writ Petitions, to quash process issued against them. 3. Perused the Writ Petitions and documents filed in support, as well as affidavit in reply of the Respondent Rambhau Mate (hereinafter referred to as "complainant") and affidavit in rejoinder filed in the Petitions. These Petitions are being disposed of by Common Judgment, as arising from same Complaint and as many of the facts are common, overlapping and documents being referred are also the same. 4. For the convenience of reference (unless mentioned otherwise), I am referring to the documents from record of Criminal Writ Petition No.130 of 2010. 5. The case of Complainant Rambh...
Appasaheb Malappa Gurav Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Gadkari, J.) 1. The Appellant / original accused has questioned the correctness of the judgment and order dated 28 November 2006 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadhinglaj, District Kolhapur, thereby convicting him for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The Learned Trial Court has further convicted the Appellant for an offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, thereby sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- , in default of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The facts in brief which emerged from the record and which are necessary for deciding the present Appeal can be summarized thus: i) P.W.8 -Assistant Sub-Inspector Vilas Dongare was then attached to Juna Rajwada Po...
Shripad and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Sec ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
Common Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Respondent Rambhau Bapurao Mate has filed Regular Criminal Case No.166 of 2009 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kopargaon, Dist-Ahmednagar against in all 6 accused. Accused Nos.4 to 6 have filed these Writ Petitions, to quash process issued against them. 3. Perused the Writ Petitions and documents filed in support, as well as affidavit in reply of the Respondent Rambhau Mate (hereinafter referred to as "complainant") and affidavit in rejoinder filed in the Petitions. These Petitions are being disposed of by Common Judgment, as arising from same Complaint and as many of the facts are common, overlapping and documents being referred are also the same. 4. For the convenience of reference (unless mentioned otherwise), I am referring to the documents from record of Criminal Writ Petition No.130 of 2010. 5. The case of Complainant Rambh...
M/S Soft-touch Computer Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
1. These Criminal Writ Petitions have been taken up for final hearing on admission stage with consent of counsel for petitioner and learned A.P.P. for State. (A) Criminal Writ Petition No.196/2014 is arising out of order dated 23.12.2013, passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 2nd Court, Jalgaon below Exhibits 66 and 68 in S.C.C. No. 1858/2006, which order has been maintained by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, vide judgment and order dated 9.1.2014, passed in Criminal Revision Application No.13/2014. (B) Criminal Writ Petition No.197/2014 is arising out of order dated 23.12.2013, passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 2nd Court, Jalgaon below Exhibits 67 and 69 in S.C.C. No. 1961/2006, which order has been maintained by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon vide order dated 9.1.2014, in Criminal Revision Application No.11/2014. (C) Criminal Writ Petition No.198/2014 is arising out of order dated 23.12.2013, passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 2nd Court, Jalgaon below...
Silvestre D' Souza and Another Vs. State of Goa, Through the Chief Sec ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mrs. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Shri E. Afonso, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Petition, inter alia, seeks to quash and set aside by a writ of certiorari the corrigendum no. 22/27/2003-RD dated 23.02.2005. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Petitioners with the consent of their mother in law, purchased part of A2 and no. A3 of the property bearing survey no. 7/2, wherein a dwelling house was located from Shri Nachinolkar and his wife. After the said purchase, an application came to be filed before the local Panchayat for a licence of construction of a compound wall around the said two parts bearing no. A2 and A3 purchased by the Petitioners. In the meanwhile, on 24.04.2003, the Respondent no. 1 issued a Notification dated 24.04.2003 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (herein after referred to as the 'said Act'), showing their intention to acquire prope...
Abhijeet Vs. Anwarkhan
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This Application is under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( "Cr.P.C." in brief). Admit. Heard learned counsel for Applicant and learned counsel for Respondent, finally. 2. This Application has been filed by original Accused, who is facing trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, being S.C.C. No.9 of 2011, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kalamnuri. In the matter, the oral evidence of the Complainant, present Respondent, was recorded. According to the Applicant, in cross-examination the Complainant deposed that handwriting on the cheque is of the Applicant-Accused and that Accused has written the same in presence of the Complainant. The Complainant denied the suggestion that handwriting of the cheque was not of the Accused. Applicant claims that he filed Exhibit 65 asking to send the cheque for opinion of the handwriting expert ashandwriting on the cheque was liable to be examined by the handwriting expert. 3. T...
Natvar Parikh and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
AnoopV. Mohta, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally. 2. The petitioner who is in business of construction and development of land has prayed to direct Respondent Nos.2 and 3 (the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and its Executive Engineer) to forthwith grant additional Transfer of Development Rights (for short TDR) / Development Right Certificate (for short, DRC) for the balance 75% area as set out in the Schedules annexed to the petition. Admittedly, the Respondents granted 25% TDR/DRC in lieu of the construction of the specified D.P. Road at village Borla, Dist. Ghatkopar Mankhurd Link Road, M/East Ward, Mumbai-400 003, on 11.7.2006 and 18.8.2007, mainly because there is no dispute and/or any challenge raised and/or made by the Respondents about the actual work done at the relevant time, in this regard. On the contrary, these facts are confirmed even by the Respondents in an affidavit dated 22.10.2010. 3. The Apex Court on 6.2.2009, in case of Godrej and Boyce Manu...
M/S Soft-touch Computer Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
1. These Criminal Writ Petitions have been taken up for final hearing on admission stage with consent of counsel for petitioner and learned A.P.P. for State. (A) Criminal Writ Petition No.196/2014 is arising out of order dated 23.12.2013, passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 2nd Court, Jalgaon below Exhibits 66 and 68 in S.C.C. No. 1858/2006, which order has been maintained by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, vide judgment and order dated 9.1.2014, passed in Criminal Revision Application No.13/2014. (B) Criminal Writ Petition No.197/2014 is arising out of order dated 23.12.2013, passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 2nd Court, Jalgaon below Exhibits 67 and 69 in S.C.C. No. 1961/2006, which order has been maintained by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon vide order dated 9.1.2014, in Criminal Revision Application No.11/2014. (C) Criminal Writ Petition No.198/2014 is arising out of order dated 23.12.2013, passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 2nd Court, Jalgaon below...
Indian Council of Investors Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
Oral Judgment: (CJ) This public interest litigation has been filed by the Indian Council of Investors essentially seeking the following directions to respondent no.2 “ Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI):- (a) to cease, desist and refrain from calling for Call Data Records (CDRs) and details of tower location from Telecom Service Providers (TSP); (b) to disclose the names of its officials who had called for such information from TSP and to take necessary action against such officials; and (c) to disclose on oath all investigation, adjudication, prosecution and other action that may have been taken and is being taken on the basis of CDRs collected. The petitioner Council has also alleged that the action of calling for CDRs from TSP by SEBI violates and infringes the fundamental right of privacy available to citizens of India. 2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 and claims to be promoting, protecting and safeguarding the...
M/S. Vascular Concepts Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the D ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.K. Menon, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks an appropriate Writ for quashing and setting aside decisions of the Purchase Committee of Respondents No.1 and 2 dated 12th June 2013 and 24th September 2013 as also impugned communications dated 27th June 2013 and 31st December 2013 from the said Respondents. The Petitioner also seeks a declaration that it is eligible to bid for and supply of Drug Eluting Stents (œStents?) approved by the Drugs Controller General of India (œDCGI?) to beneficiaries of Rajiv Gandhi Aryogya Yojana and other consequential reliefs. 3. The Petitioner company carries on business inter alia as manufacturers and importers of medical devices including coronary Stents which are used for relieving cardiac ailments. Respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra and Respondents No.2 is the Joint Director of Health Services of Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.3 is Union of India....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »