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.
Shriram Satwaji Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-26-2014
Oral Judgment: (S.S. Shinde, J.) 1. This Petition is filed praying therein to quash and set aside the First Information Report lodged by the respondent no.3 in C.R. No.85/2003 with Dharmabad Police Station registered under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code and the proceedings in pursuance of the same. 2. It appears that, this Court on 19th January, 2004 issued Rule and ad-interim relief was granted in terms of prayer clause (C). 3. It is case of the petitioner that, he is well educated and working as a lecturer in Lal Bahadur Shastri Mahavidyalaya, Dharmabad. He is also working as a member of the other Organization. On 20th May, 2003, the news item was published in daily Ekmat with reference to the shifting of liquor shop from Yatala to Dharmabad. The respondent no.3 i.e. original complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner. It was alleged in the said complaint that, prior to one month of appearing of the said news item, the petitioner herein approached to the complainant ...
Rajendra Ramhari Kokane Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2014
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. The appellant-original accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 9.3.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No.244 of 2011. By the said judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC for causing the murder of Sangita and sentenced him to RI for life and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default RI for 6 months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (i) Deceased Sangita was the wife of PW-6 Sadashiv @ Prakash Raut. Sadashiv is the complainant in the present case. Sadashiv resided with his wife Sangita at village Ketur, Karmala, District-Solapur. The appellant is related to Sadashiv. The appellant was residing next to the house of Sadashiv. The wife of the appellant was dead. The incident had took place on 8th June 2011. Sometime prior to the incident, the appellant had outraged the modesty of Sangita by holding...
Ramkrushna and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2014
1. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioners are questioning the correctness of the judgment and order, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Criminal Revision Application No.66 of 2010, dated 5.10.2011, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad was pleased to dismiss the Revision filed by the present petitioners. The petitioners are also questioning the order, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Osmanabad, dated 4.5.2010 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.83 of 2009, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Osmanabad was pleased to issue process against the present petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 191, 192, 417, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. According to the petitioners, petitioner no.1 is the Secretary and petitioner no.2 is the Joint Secretary of one Kamaleshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Pimpalgaon (K), District Osmanabad, which is a registered Trust. The said Tr...
Dinesh G. Chhabra Vs. Kishore Ghanmare
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-26-2014
Oral Judgment. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 2. The petitioner challenges order dated 21.3.2014, passed by learned Second Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur, below Exh.46, in Regular Civil Suit No.315 of 2011, whereby the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff (landlord) for amendment in the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was allowed. 3. The facts of the case are, thus: Regular Civil Suit No.315 of 2011 was initiated by the respondent/plaintiff (landlord) against the petitioner/defendant (tenant) under Section 16(g) and 16(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and also prayed for enquiry into mesne profits, arrears of rent etc. apart from the relief of possession. 4. I am informed that pursuant to order dated 21.3.2014 passed by the trial Court below Exh.46, the amendment granted has already been carried out in the plaint. According to the learned Counsel appear...
Vinayak Laxman Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2014
P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Vikram Chavan, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard Y.S. Shinde, learned APP for the State. 2. I have gone through the application, and a copy of the charge-sheet that is annexed thereto. 3. The broad case of the prosecution is that one Balasaheb Shankar Ghule (Accused No.1) and the other accused, hatched a conspiracy at the instance of the said Balasaheb Ghule and committed murder of one Arjun Ghule, due to political rivalry and enmity arising therefrom. 4. The applicant is said to be one of the assailants. 5. The case of the Investigating Agency itself is that the applicant has not taken actual part in the assault. The case is that he was present on the scene of the offence, and was loudly crying as 'mara, khalas kara', whereas the other assailants were assaulting Arjun Ghule. This is borne out from the statement of one Mahesh Shinde recorded on 6th July 2013 i.e. two days after the incident. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this witness to a cert...
Atlanta Limited, a public limited company having its Vs. Executive Eng ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2014
1. By this petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, petitioner seeks an order and injunction against the respondents from preventing the petitioner from collecting the toll on Mumbra Bypass under the present contract till 5th October, 2024.2. On 12th July, 2000, the respondent had awarded a contract to the petitioner for construction of Mumbra Bypass off Mumbai Pune Road National Highway No.4 on BOT Basis. There was a dispute between the parties regarding additional cost alleged to have been incurred by the petitioner which resulted in referring various disputes to arbitration.3. During the pendency of the contract, the petitioner made claims for extension of period for collection of toll. It is case of the petitioner that at various levels, the officers of the respondents recommended period of extension for a period of 24 years 9 months and 28 days to the government for approval.4. Before the arbitral tribunal, the petitioner made money claim as we...
Sagar Dattatraya Sakhare and Another Vs. Sanjay Waman Sathe and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2014
1. A short question which arises for consideration in the above Petition is, whether the forum of Appeal is to be determined on the basis of the value of the subject matter of the Suit as determined by the Trial Court in the decree or on the basis of the valuation of the suit as originally set out in the plaint. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. The above Petition is directed against the order dated 13/10/2010 passed by the learned District Judge-12, Pune by which order the Applications Exhibits 9 and 14 filed in Civil Appeal No.758 of 2008 by the Respondents herein came to be allowed and the Memo of Appeal was directed to be returned to the Petitioners herein for presentation before the appropriate forum. The Petitioners herein are the original Plaintiffs and the Respondents herein are the original Defendants. The parties would be referred to as per their status in the Trial Court. 3. The Plaintiffs had filed the suit in question being Regular Civil Suit No.1171 of 2006 against the Defendants for see...
Sachin @ Satish and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-25-2014
P.R. Bora, J. 1. Applicants have filed the present application for allowing them to compound the offense registered against them vide Crime No.15/2014, at Police Station, Wadvani, district Beed, for the offense under Sections 354-B, 295-A, 34 of IPC, 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as SC and ST Act) and under Sections 3 and 7 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and, consequently, for quashing further investigation in the said crime. Original complainant is applicant no.4 in the present application. 2. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the applicants. Learned Counsel submitted that with the intervention of elders, the matter between the present applicant Nos.1 to 3 and present applicant no.4 i.e. the original complainant has been settled and that applicant no.4 does not now want to pursue the matter further. Learned Counsel further submitted that applicant no.4, in her statement record...
Motanbai Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-25-2014
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This criminal appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 17/10/2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada in Sessions Case No. 36 of 1999 convicting the appellant therein, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellantaccused is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life, and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/, in default to payment of fine, she has to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. The appellantaccused is acquitted of an offence punishable under Section 498(A) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution can be briefly narrated as under :. Deceased Sangitabai was the daughter of PW3 Gambhir Chitte and was given in marriage to original accused No. 2 Ishwar Mahire resident of village Varul, Taluka Shahada, District Nandurbar. After marriage, Sangitabai came to her matrimonial house at Varul and started cohabiting with her husband. Original accused Nos. 1...
Shantabai Vs. Vasant and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-25-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. Considered the nature of the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Amravati in Regular Civil Suit No.98 of 2008 whereby the application for amendment of the plaint preferred under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected. The said suit was a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, partition and separate possession of the suit property filed by the writ petitioner (Original plaintiff) against her two step brothers. According to the plaintiff, she claimed declaration in respect of her 1/3rd share in the ancestral property. Her father Shamrao died in or about the year 1991. Shamrao had married twice during his life time. From the first wife, the petitioner was born out of the wedlock; while from the second wife, sons Vasanta and Ramesh were born. Thus, the writ petitioner is the elder daughter. However, it is alleged that her rights were suppressed by her step brothers V...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »