Mumbai Court June 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.
Dr. Dilip Vs. The Special Recovery Officer and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-17-2014
1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of parties. 3. The petitioners to the present petition, who are borrowers, have questioned the order dated 8th June, 2009, passed by respondent no.4 District Deputy Registrar, confirming the auction sale. The petitioners have also questioned the order dated 31st March, 2012, passed by respondent no.5 Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, in Revision Application No.R-149 of 2010, in addition to the validity of the auction Sale conducted by respondents no.1 and 2. 4. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are as under:- Petitioners claim the owner and possessor of 12 plots, bearing plot nos.1 to 5, 17 to 25 and 36, situated in Gat No.81/B/1, situated at Nimkhedi Shivar, Jalgaon. 5. Since petitioner no.1, who is a Medical Practitioner, has intention to provide latest medical facilities at Jalgaon, decided to construct a hospital and for said purpose he was in need of th...
Kawadu and Others Vs. Bhojram and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2014
Oral Judgment 1. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 29.11.1995 passed in Reg. C. S. No. 274/1992 by Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Sakoli and confirmed by judgment dated 31.08.2000 in Reg. C. A. No.176/1995 by Addl. District Judge, Bhandara, the present second appeal was preferred in this Court by original defendants. 2. The only question raised by Mr. Khapre, learned counsel for the appellants, in support of the appeal is that the courts below have omitted to qualify the decree with reference to the Wajibularz notified entries contemplated by Section 165 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. According to Mr. Khapre, the courts below ought to have made right of way granted subject to the terms and conditions notified in Wajibularz by the concerned Collector of District as contemplated by Section 165 (1) (a) of the MLR Code. No other contention has been raised by Mr. Khapre, except the above. 3. None present for the respondents, though served. Perused the impugned judgment and order. The...
Kawadu and Others Vs. Bhojram and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-17-2014
Oral Judgment 1. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 29.11.1995 passed in Reg. C. S. No. 274/1992 by Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Sakoli and confirmed by judgment dated 31.08.2000 in Reg. C. A. No.176/1995 by Addl. District Judge, Bhandara, the present second appeal was preferred in this Court by original defendants. 2. The only question raised by Mr. Khapre, learned counsel for the appellants, in support of the appeal is that the courts below have omitted to qualify the decree with reference to the Wajibularz notified entries contemplated by Section 165 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. According to Mr. Khapre, the courts below ought to have made right of way granted subject to the terms and conditions notified in Wajibularz by the concerned Collector of District as contemplated by Section 165 (1) (a) of the MLR Code. No other contention has been raised by Mr. Khapre, except the above. 3. None present for the respondents, though served. Perused the impugned judgment and order. The...
Vinod @ Raju Parmanand Jagda Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-2014
P.V. Hardas, J. 1. The Appellant, who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of which to undergo further imprisonment for six months, R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of which to undergo further R.I. for six months and R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of which to undergo further imprisonment for six months by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, by Judgment dated 23.8.2005, in Sessions Case No.195 of 2004, by this Appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts as are necessary for the decision of this Appeal may briefly be stated thus. PW-13 PSI Shivaji Shenoalkar, who, on 7.1.2004, was attached to Kashimira Police Station, was entrusted with the investigation. He accordingly visited the scene of the offence which was in Dwivedi Complex, Flat No.601. A dead body was...
Murli Industries Limited Company registered under the Companies Act ha ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-16-2014
S.B. Shukre, J. 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. Both these petitions are being disposed of by common judgment as they involve same parties, identical facts and common questions of law. 3. Petitioner No.1 is a company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and petitioner No.2 is its ChairmancumManaging Director and share holder. Respondent No.3 is government of India undertaking under the Ministry of Coal and respondent No.1 also a Government of India undertaking, is a subsidiary of respondent No.3. Respondent No.2 is Officer of respondent No.1, whose communications dated 27/11/2013 and 23/12/2013 have been impugned in these petitions. Respondents No. 1 and 3 being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and respondent No.2 being an officer of respondent No.1, are amenable to writ jurisdiction of this court. 4. Petitioner No.1company manufactures cement, paper and allied products for the purpose of which it has set up...
Sachin Jamanaprasad Mishra Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-2014
1. The Appellant stands convicted for the offences punishable under section 363, 376(2)(g) and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.300/- i.d. to suffer R.I. to one month; R.I. for ten years and fine of Rs.400/- i.d. to suffer R.I. for one month and R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.400/- i.d. to suffer R.I. for one month, respectively, by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai vide judgment and order dated 23/04/2010 passed in Sessions Case No.685 of 2009. The Appellant by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. Few facts, as are necessary to decide the said appeal are as under : PW8-PSI-Ravindra Muktaram Shinde was attached to the Vakola Police Station, Mumbai in July 2008. He has stated that on 28/07/2008 at about 1.00 a.m. Rafiqulla (PW2) had come to the police station and lodged a report that his daughter (PW1) was missing since 27/07/2008 from about 9.30 p.m. He has further ...
Mina Srinivasan Krishnan and Another Vs. Arun Bhaskar Adarkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-2014
Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 03rd April, 2012 on the Notice of Motion No.1548/2011 in Suit No.1173/2011. In this Notice of Motion bearing No.1548/2011 for interim relief filed in the Respondent/ Plaintiff's Suit, the Appellants/ original Defendants invoked Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as applicable to the State of Maharashtra and raised the issue of jurisdiction of this Court to entertain and try the Suit. 2. The main prayer in the Notice of Motion No.1548/2011 reads as under:- ( a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit, the Defendants, their servants and agents be restrained by temporary order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from entering upon or remaining on the Suit Flat viz. Flat No.5, Second Floor, Goolestan, 37, (East) Wing, Cuffe Parade, Bombay 400005 or any part thereof without the permission of the Plaintiff; 3. In term...
Madhav Balaji Dangare and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-2014
Oral Judgment: (V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. The appellants-original accused nos.1 and 2 have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 8.7.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Niphad, in Sessions Case No.34 of 2010. By the said judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted both the appellants under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default SI for 6 months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (i) The deceased Uttam Shinde was residing at village Kothure Shivar, Taluka-Niphad, District- Nashik. Uttam was the maternal uncle of PW-1 Dnyaneshwar who is the complainant in the present case. Both the appellants are brothers. There was dispute between the appellants and Uttam on account of title of the field. On 25.4.2010, at about 9 a.m., Dnyaneshwar went along with his uncle Uttam to the field of Uttam Shinde on motorcycle. Dnyaneshwar knew both the appellants i.e...
Village Panchayat, Antora Through its Member Vs. Wasudeo Ramchandraji ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-16-2014
1. Applicant-Village Panchayat, Antora, the original defendant in the Regular Civil Suit No. 2/2011 has put to challenge the order dated 22.09.2011 (below Exh.1) passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division Ashti, with a further prayer to dismiss the Suit as not maintainable. 2. The applicant-Village Panchayat Antora is governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act in short). The non-applicants filed RCS No.2/2011 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Dn. Ashti and challenged the letter dated 17.02.2011 and notice dated 26.04.2011 and resolution of Gram Sabha dated 25.04.2011 and 26.04.2011 as illegal, null and void, without jurisdiction and also sought permanent injunction from damaging/ demolishing the construction over the suit site. In the Suit, the non-applicants stated that Plot No. 127 in Ward No.2 village Antora admeasuring 45 x 45 is owned by them and they are in possession since 1962 with mutations in their name wit...
Anil Ramesh Bhusari Vs. Bhaskar Ramesh Bhusari and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-16-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The petition takes exception to the orders passed by the learned trial court rejecting the application filed by the petitioner (Exhibit 228) to issue witness summons to Shri Vithoba Rajaram Shelke and order rejecting the application (Exhibit 229) praying for recall of the order passed on Exhibit 228 and for permission to examine Sudam Umaji Jadhav as the witness. 4. It is undisputed that the petitioner/original plaintiff has not given the list of witnesses in the application (Exhibit 228). Prayer was made to issue witness summons to Shri Vithoba Shelke, however, no reason is given in the application pointing out the necessity of examining the said witness. In the application (Exhibit 229), the plaintiff prayed for recall of the order passed on application (Exhibit 228) and submitted that the plaintiff be permitted to examine Shri Sudam Umaji Jadhav. Again, the reason necess...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »