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.
Lahu Vs. Kailash Matasaran Gupta and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-24-2014
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.07.1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Amravati in Regular Civil Appeal No.294/1994 by which the learned lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the Suit of the respondent/plaintiff and instead decreed the Suit of the respondent/plaintiff for eviction of the appellant/ defendant from the shop premises, the defendant had filed the present Appeal in this Court. FACTS: 2. The respondent/plaintiffSau. Rupabai filed the Suit for possession and for recovery of damages from the appellant/defendant vide Special Civil Suit No.122/1991 for shop in Municipal House No.130/2, Ward No.43 on Nazul Plot No. 4/3; Sheet No. 68B within the local limits of Amravati Municipal Corporation, as owner of the shop premises, having become the owner under a sale deed from the former owner Matasaran executed on 29th December, 1988. Matasaran was the original landlord/ owner and the defendantLahu...
Javed Rizwan Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2014
Oral Judgment: (V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. Criminal Appeal 606 of 2012 has been preferred by Javed Shaikh, who is original accused No.2 and Criminal Appeal 1321 of 2012 has been preferred by Shabir Shaikh, original accused No.1. Both these Appeals are preferred against the judgment and order dated 21st February 2012 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.260 of 2008. By the said judgment and order the Learned Sessions Judge convicted both the Appellants under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month each. For the sake of convenience both the Appellants will be referred to as they were referred before the Trial Court i.e. Appellant Shabir Shaikh will be referred to as accused No.1 and Appellant Javed Shaikh will be referred to as accused No.2. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under: (i) Decease...
Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Vs. Reliance Energy L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2014
1. By this petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner seeks that the effect, implementation and/or operation of the board resolution dated 29/05/2014 passed by the respondent No.3 (Mumbai Metro One Pvt. Ltd.) be stayed and injunction restraining the respondents from revising/charging the amount higher than the initial fares agreed by the respondents as per terms of the concession agreement and notified by the Government of Maharashtra vide notification dated 03/09/2013. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. The Government of Maharashtra authorized the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority ( hereinafter referred to as MMRDA) as the project implementation agency for the implementation of a rail based Mass Rapid Transit System (MRTS) along the Versova-Andheri-Ghatkopar corridor through a concession on public private partnership format and approved the said project under the provis...
Mohammed Parvez @ Aftab Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2014
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) 1. The appellant, who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of which to undergo RI for one month and imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of which to undergo RI for one month, by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, by judgment dated 5/8/2005, in Sessions Case No.354 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 10 - PI Bajirao Bhosale, who, in April 2004, was attached to the Kashmira Police Station, was entrusted with the investigation of Crime No.68 of 2004, which had been registered under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC by PSI Dhamdhare on the basis of the report of one Mohammad Chaudhari. PW 10 - PI Bhosale, on being entrusted with the investigation, procee...
Ajay Suresh Alande Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) 1. The short issue that arises for consideration in this Criminal Writ Petition is whether the delay in deciding the representation made by the petitioner against the order of detention passed under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as, "the MPD Act", for short), vitiates the same. 2. The respondent No.2 - The District Magistrate, Jalgaon passed an order dated 21.4.2014 under provisions of Section 3(2) of the MPD Act detaining the petitioner in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the MPD Act. On being served with the aforesaid order of detention, the petitioner made a representation dated 8.5.2014 that was received by the State Government on 9.5.2014. The present Writ Petition has been filed on 8.5.2014 challenging the aforesaid order of detention on various grounds including sufficiency of...
Liladhar Latkan Sapkale Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-24-2014
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant, aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon on 8th December, 2011, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/, in default, to suffer further R.I. for two months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under: On 29.06.2010, deceased Suresh Eknath Sapkale returned to his house in the evening after finishing his agricultural work and thereafter he had his food. At about 10.30 p.m. he was lying over a Cot in the courtyard of the house and at that time, accused Liladhar Latkan Sapkale came there in drunken condition and assaulted the deceased with a sickle. He caught hold of the sickle and at that time, his palm also got injured. Pralhad Eknath Sapkale (PW4), Vasudeo Hari Sapkale and wife of deceased PW2 Latabai came there and took the sickle from the hand of th...
Ankush Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-24-2014
1. By this appeal, original accused No.1 takes exception to the judgment and order passed by 1st (Ad hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No.37 of 1997 dated 27th of December, 2001, whereby appellant came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for one month and for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. Prosecution case can briefly be stated as under - Deceased Rekha was daughter of complainant Smt.Laxmibai Raut and was married to appellant on 10/6/1996. After her marriage she was cohabiting with the appellant at his house. However, after residing for some days whenever she vi...
Richard John Lawrence Fernandes Vs. The Deputy Director of Administrat ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-24-2014
RanjitMore, J. 1. By this petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to quash and set aside the appointment order dated 13th December, 2006. The petitioner has also claimed a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents No.1 and 2 to appoint him as a Junior Engineer (Mechanical) with effect from December, 2006 with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner's case, in short, is as follows: In the year 2003, the respondents No.1 and 2 in order to fill up the existing vacancies for the post of Junior Engineer (Mech.) and other Junior Engineers, formulated a scheme to select suitable candidates, train them and then to employ them subsequently in the existing vacancies. The petitioner, accordingly, on recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, underwent one year apprenticeship training in the Public Works Department, Altinho, Panaji,Goa. An advertisement came to be published by respondents No.1 and 2 ...
Rohan M. Kapoor and Others Vs. Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2014
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. The petitioners have challenged an order dated 10.01.2011 passed by the arbitrator appointed by the Central Registrar, Co-operative Societies under section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (hereafter referred to as the said Act) conditionally attaching a flat originally owned by one Mahendra Kapoor. The impugned order provided that the attachment would stand automatically vacated if the petitioners deposited Rs.1,50,00,000/- with the first respondent bank within a period of eight seeks. The five petitioners are the legal heirs of the said Mahendra Kapoor. The petitioners among others, are opponents in the proceedings. 2. Respondent No.1 is the disputant in the arbitration case. Respondent No.1 had granted respondent No.2 - M/s.Jai Shanti Dye Prints Pvt. Ltd., a cash credit facility. Respondent No.3 M/s.Monitex Dye Prints is a partnership firm in which the deceased Mahendra Kapoor was a partner. Respondent Nos.4 to 9 are the partners of respo...
M/s Hitkari Hitech Fibres Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Central Ex ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Colabawalla, J.) 1. Admit. By consent of parties, made returnable forthwith and heard finally. This Appeal by the Assessee raises the following substantial question of law:- (A) Whether under the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned order passed by the CESTAT, holding that the loosely assembled fibre web in roll form emerging at a stage before the exempted finished jute carpet, is marketable and therefore liable to duty, without considering the relevant records and material submitted by the Appellants, is correct and sustainable in law ? 2. By this appeal filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act 1944, the Appellant seeks to challenge the order dated 6th November 2012 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the CESTAT) confirming the order passed by the Respondent dated 28th November, 2011 that there was an emergence of excisable goods at the intermediate stage of manufacture of jute carpets...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »