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.
Telma Gonsalves Vs. Namdev Babuso Chodankar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-23-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri M.B. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. During the course of the hearing of the above Writ Petition, a point came for consideration as to whether the revision preferred by the Respondent which resulted in the impugned Order before the learned Administrative Tribunal, was itself maintainable in law. 3. The records reveal that it is not in dispute that the proceedings initiated by the Respondent was for registration of Mundkar in terms of Section 29 of the Goa Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The application for registration came to be allowed by the learned Mamlatdar. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the learned Addl. Dy. Collector in terms of Section 29(8) of the said Act. The Dy. Collector allowed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner by an Order date...
Mohanlal Ruchandmal Pahlajani Vs. Manoharlal Rewachand Hablani and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2014
Oral Judgment. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the petition by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties. 2. The writ petitioner/defendant in Special Civil Suit No.133 of 2013 pending before the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati, preferred this petition impugning the order passed by the trial Court permitting the respondents/plaintiffs to carry out the amendment in the plaint. 3. The facts of the case are, thus: Special Civil Suit No.133 of 2013 was instituted by the respondents/plaintiffs against the petitioner/defendant for sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as damages payable along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The suit was instituted on the ground that the respondents/plaintiffs are socially reputed persons with reputed business and social activities. They had progressed in their business and carried the business in the name and style as Aaradhana in Satidham Market, Amravati. 4. It is alleged that petitioner/defendant who is an...
Hari Bhaktabahadur Thapa Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-2014
Oral Judgment Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1 The appellant-original accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.490 of 2008. By the said judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to RI for life and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default RI for 3 months. 2 The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (i) The deceased Govind alias Rajesh Thapa was the husband of Nirmala. He along with his wife and two children were residing at Indrayani Darshan Colony, Dehu Road, District-Pune. Deceased Govind was serving as wireman in Military Engineering Services, Dehu Road. Appellant was the brother of deceased Govind. Appellant was jobless and was addicted to liquor. (ii) The incident had taken place on 3.4.2008. Deceased Govind came home at about 10 p.m. After completing dinner, Govind went out of his house as usu...
Ramesh Laxman Naik Mandrekar and Others Vs. State
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-20-2014
1. All the three Criminal Revision Applications are being disposed of by this common judgment and order as the issue involved in all the three revisions is same inasmuch as the revision petitioner/original accused nos.3,4 and 5 have asked for discharge from Special Case No.4/2003 pending before Special Court, North Goa, Panaji. All the three revision petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 25/06/2008 passed by learned Special Judge, North Goa, Panaji vide which charges were directed to be framed against the present petitioners along with other co-accused. 2. Heard learned Counsel for respective petitioners. Also heard learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent, State, through CBI, Panaji-Goa. Prior to appreciating the rival submissions on the aspect whether the petitioners can be discharged from the proceedings, certain earlier events and certain admitted position can be narrated in order to have proper perspective of the case. 3. On or about 25/10/1999...
Vasanta Mukundrao Bhokre Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-20-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. By this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused appellant Vasanta questions his conviction vide judgment dated 17.06.2011 in Sessions Trial No.127 of 2008 by Additional Sessions Judge Achalpur under Section 302 read with Section 506 of Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine Rs.3000/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for six months. For offence under Section 506 rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs.1000/-or in default further rigorous imprisonment of three months has been imposed. 2. Briefly stated prosecution alleges that Vasanta has murdered one Kishori Uike on 07.05.2008 at village Karajgaon. Said Kishori with his wife Ramuti Uike and her son Dinesh were present in their house. Kishori had consumed liquor and was sleeping on cot. At about 5 p. m. accused Vasanta pulled Kishori from cot and beat him severely with crowbar. Ramuti and her son tried to resist ...
BTP Structural (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Re ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-2014
1. By this application filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applicant seeks appointment of a retired judge of this Court as arbitrator to settle the disputes between the parties in respect of the purchase order dated 29th March, 2000 and subsequent change orders. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this application are as under:- 2. The respondent had issued a purchase order on 1st May, 1999 upon the petitioner. The arbitration clause forming part of the purchase order is extracted as under:- (a) Any disputes or difference of any nature whatsoever any claim, cross-claim, counter-claim or set off of the Corporation against the Contractor or regarding any right, liability, act, omission or account of any of the parties hereto arising out of or in relation to this agreement shall be referred to the Sole Arbitration of the Director (Marketing) of the Corporation or of some Officer of the Corporation who may be nominated by the Director ...
Digambar Shashikant Shinde Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-2014
Oral Judgment: (V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. The appellants-original accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.8.2011 passed by the learned Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Malshiras, Solapur, in Sessions Case No. 37 of 2010. By the said judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him for the said offence to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2500/-, in default RI for 1 month. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (i) Deceased Vijaya was the daughter of Vitthal Patil (PW-2). PW-2 Vitthal is also the complainant in the present case. The appellant-Digambar Shinde was husband of Vijaya. The marriage of the appellant and deceased Vijaya took place in the year 2000. One son and one daughter were born to the appellant and deceased, by name Pranav and Digvijaya (PW-3). The daughter was elder to the son Pranav. She was about seven years old at the time of the incident. It is t...
Vasanta Mukundrao Bhokre Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. By this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused appellant Vasanta questions his conviction vide judgment dated 17.06.2011 in Sessions Trial No.127 of 2008 by Additional Sessions Judge Achalpur under Section 302 read with Section 506 of Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine Rs.3000/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for six months. For offence under Section 506 rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs.1000/-or in default further rigorous imprisonment of three months has been imposed. 2. Briefly stated prosecution alleges that Vasanta has murdered one Kishori Uike on 07.05.2008 at village Karajgaon. Said Kishori with his wife Ramuti Uike and her son Dinesh were present in their house. Kishori had consumed liquor and was sleeping on cot. At about 5 p. m. accused Vasanta pulled Kishori from cot and beat him severely with crowbar. Ramuti and her son tried to resist ...
Mansoob Haider Vs. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-2014
P.C.: A. SUMMARY 1. The Plaintiff, a professional film script writer, and whose father wrote scripts and dialogue for notable films, is the author of the film script entitled ONCE. The entirety of this script is annexed to the plaint at Exhibit B. The Plaintiff claims that a recently released film, Dhoom 3, infringes the Plaintiffs copyright in his script ONCE. In the suit, the Plaintiff seeks an order that he be given credit in the titles of the film. 2. The Plaintiff claims that he had delivered this script to 1st Defendants office. Three years later, the film Dhoom 3 was released. The Plaintiff saw the film. He says he then realised that the film and his original script were so similar that the only possibility was that the 1st Defendant and, in particular, Defendant Nos.2 and 3, credited as co-authors of the film script for Dhoom 3 (the 3rd Defendant being the director of the film) had infringed the Plaintiffs copyright in his original work. The Plaintiff then filed the suit. I wil...
Kusuma Manguesh Tirodkar alias Kusuma Manguesh Pednekar and Others Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-20-2014
1. Heard Mr. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. The respondents, though duly served after admission, are absent. 2. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment, order and decree dated 18/02/2008 passed by the learned District Judge-II, South Goa Margao (First Appellate Court, for short) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 72 of 2007, by which the Judgment and Decree dated 25/09/2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vascoda-Gama (Trial Court, for short) in Regular Civil Suit No. 11/2006/B, has been confirmed. 3. The appellants were plaintiffs in the said suit whereas the respondents were the defendants no. 1 and 2. M/s Dempo Properties and Investment Pvt. Ltd., Dempo House, Campal, Panaji-Goa was the defendant no 3 but its name was struck off in terms of order dated 19/10/2006, passed by the Trial Court. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said suit. 4. The plaintiffs had filed the said sui...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »