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.
State of Maharashtra Vs. Ajay Jagdish Pande and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-2014
AbhayM. Thipsay, J. 1. These two Appeals can be conveniently disposed of by this common order as they take exception to the same order i.e. the order dated 7th October 2011 passed by the Judge of the Special Court under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (hereinafter referred to as "MCOC Act") for Greater Bombay in MCOC Special Case No.9 of 2011 which was pending before him. The respondents herein are the accused in the said case. 2. The respondent no.3 had filed an application (Exhibit21) before the Trial Court praying that the proceedings under the MCOC Act be dropped, and the case be sent for trial to the Court of Sessions. It was the contention of the respondent no.3 that since no offence punishable under the provisions of the MCOC Act was disclosed from the police report and accompanying documents, the said Special Court had no jurisdiction to try the offence in question. The learned Judge after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the offence allegedly com...
Harischandra Bhanudas Lande Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-25-2014
Oral Judgment [1] Present Writ Petition is filed by the husband. According to him, the learned Judicial Magistrate, [F.C.], Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar committed serious mistake in law in granting monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.200/- in favour of his wife [ Resp.No.2 ] vide Judgment and Order dated 19th December, 1997 passed in Cri.Misc.Appln.No.80/1994 and according to the husband, the learned Revisional Court further erred in confirming the said Judgment and Order, granting maintenance in favour of the wife, by his Judgment and Order dated 24th April, 2001, passed in Cri. Revn. Application No.11/1998. [2] I have heard Mr. L.B. Pallod, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. D.R. Jaybhar, learned counsel appearing for Resp.Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. D.B. Bhange, learned A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra. [3] Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were constrained to institute proceedings U/Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, [F.C.], Sh...
Mohamed Salman Noorani and Others Vs. Radhika Bhargava and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-2014
Oral Order. 1. Both these appeals are directed against order dated 13 March 2014 of the learned Trial Judge in the notice of motion taken out by the plaintiffs in a suit for setting aside the Deed of Apartment dated 29 October 2010 executed by the appellants in Appeal (L) No.275 of 2014 (defendants Nos. 1 and 2) in favour of the appellant in Appeal No.239 of 2014 (defendant No.10), transferring their right, title and interest as executors of the Will of the deceased and putting defendant No.10 in possession of the suit flat on the Napean Sea Road, Mumbai (the suit flat). 2. The executors (defendants Nos. 1 and 2) have propounded the Will of the deceased in probate petition filed on 10 February 2006. The suit flat was one of the properties left by the deceased. 3. According to plaintiffs, who have filed the petition for letters of administration on 19 June 2009, they have 20% share in the estate of the deceased and therefore also 20% share in the suit flat. In the petition for letters o...
Dada Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-25-2014
Shinde, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.11.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Sessions Case No.30 of 2011 thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. vide Section 235 of Cr.P.C., and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant / accused is in Jail from 30.11.2010. 2. The prosecution case as emerges from the record is, as under: The deceased Begambai was married with the accused. She had two sons out of the marriage. Both sons reside separate. Deceased and accused were residing at Sindhkheda. 3. Deceased had earned wages by labour work of plucking cotton. Accused was not doing any work and he was addicted to liquor. On 20.11.2010 at about 8 a.m., accused demanded money to the deceased for consuming liquor. Deceased r...
Savita Namdev Dethe and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-2014
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The appellants are the original accused nos.1 and 2 respectively. The learned Sessions Judge, Pandharpur by its impugned judgment and order dated 19th May 2007 in Sessions Case No.101 of 2006 convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default of the same to suffer RI for one month. The appellants have been further convicted under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of the same to suffer RI for one month. The learned Trial Court has directed that both sentences to run concurrently. The appellants have questioned the correctness of their conviction by the present appeal. 2. The appellants were original accused nos.1 and 2 before the leaned Trial Court and therefore they are described hereinafter as accused nos.1 and 2 res...
G.D.C. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. City and Industrial Development Corporat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) 1. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether a writ could be issued to a party to an agreement directing it not to insist upon a stipulation contained in such agreement? 2. Considering the limited nature of challenge, by order dated 14th February, 2014 the parties were put to notice that the writ petition could be disposed of at the stage of admission. Hence, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties we have heard them at length. Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. On 22nd February, 2008 one Abdul Kadar Abdul Mulla along with others who were the owners of the land in question that was acquired entered into an agreement with the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited ("CIDCO" for short). By said agreement the original owners of the land were permitted to use 1249.61 square meters land for constructing buildings to be used fo...
Neel Electro Techniques and Others Vs. Neelkanth Power Solution and An ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2014
1 This Notice of Motion, which is tagged with Notice of Motion No.294 of 2013 in Suit No.2574/2012 and Arbitration Petition Nos. 1260 of 2013 and 1347 of 2012, both under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Arbitration Petition No.148 of 2013 under Section 11 of that Act, seeks a temporary injunction against the Defendants from in any manner using, directly or indirectly, the mark Neel or Neelkanth or any other mark, domain name, device, logo, label etc. which is similar/deceptively similar to the registered mark of the Plaintiffs, namely, Neel. Learned Counsel for the parties chose to argue this Notice of Motion separately from the other matters, and hence, the same is being disposed of separately by this order. The suit is an infringement and passing off suit. The facts of the case may be briefly stated thus: 2 Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 are partnership firms carrying on business of manufacturing, marketing and selling Voltage Stabilizers and Isolation Transformer...
Sachin Ramchandra Arwade Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2014
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. The Appellant /original accused has preferred this Appeal against the judgment and order dated 29th March 2012 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai at Sewree in Sessions Case No.284 of 2011. By the said judgment and order the Learned Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under : Deceased Kunal, P.W.1 - Vijay Gupta, P.W.3 - Rahul Patil, Bala, Ramesh and the Appellant were labourers. They used to work wherever they got work during the day. In the evening, they used to sleep on the footpath near the bridge at Khadaparsi Chowk, Byculla. This place is near the Fire Brigade Office. They all used to consume liquor and eat food together almost all the time. On 4th December 2010, when they were sleeping, P.W.1 -Vijay heard a sound of big stone falling and he along with others woke up. ...
Radhika Jayaswal and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra through its Depa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2014
Oral Order: Anoop V. Mohta, J. Rule. Mr. S.K. Shinde, Government Pleader waives notice for the Respondents-State. 2 The Petitioners have challenged clause 4.6 of MHCET 2014 Information Brochure for admission to Health Science Courses in the State of Maharashtra issued by the Directorate of Medical Education and Research which reads as under: 4.6. Domicile of Maharashtra: Candidates seeking admission to Health Science Course should be Domicile of Maharashtra (Please refer 4.7, 4.8 Annexure C and Annexure E for exception.) 3 In view of the urgency expressed that on 25th June, 2014 a list of selected candidates will be published (first round), this order is being passed. 4 Both these Petitions revolve around the challenge to the Rule referred to above as the same is brought out by publishing the same in the Brochure in March, 2014. 5 Both the Petitioners, in view of migration of their parents from different States to the State of Maharashtra sometime in the year 2007, have taken education...
Narayan Ashok Ragde and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra. Through ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-24-2014
[1] Being dis-satisfied by the Judgment and Order of conviction dated 21st October, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 2, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.409 Of 2011, the appellants have preferred the present Criminal Appeal. The Court below convicted both the appellants for the offence punishable U/Section 376(g) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [ In short, the I.P.Code ] and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten [10] years and also directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- [ Rs.Ten Thousand only] each, and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment of nine [9] months. They were also convicted for the offence punishable U/Section 366(A) read with 34 of the I.P.Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five [5] years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- [ Rs. Five Thousand only ] each, and in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six [6] months. The appellants were also convicted for the offence punishable U/Sectio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »