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.
David Vs. Audhut and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-20-2014
Oral Order: 1. This First Appeal is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 2. Heard rival arguments for sometime. This First Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Mapusa dated 6/3/2013. By the said Judgment and Award the claim petition was dismissed with costs. 3. The claim for Rs.4,00,000/- was filed by the present appellant/claimant for the injuries sustained by him mainly on his legs and knees causing fractures and also injuries to his ribs caused in a motor vehicular accident while he was driving his Omni van bearing no.GA-01-Z-6879 and when it dashed with another vehicle a motor jeep bearing registration No.GA-01-S-4845 being driven by present respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3. The main issue as to whether the claimant proved that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent no.2 was answered in the negative by the learned member M.A.C.T. This is rightly...
Jeevan Kashinath Patil and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra through Sec ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-2014
M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. These group of three petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the refusal of the State of Maharashtra in granting to its employees i.e. the petitioner who have resigned after over 10 years of service, the benefit of gratuity as well as the benefit of earned leave standing to their credit in excess of half of such leave beyond the period of 150 days. This refusal of the State Government to grant gratuity is on the basis of Rule 46(1) of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules 1982 (Pension Rules 1982) which entails forfeiture of past services on resignation. So far as the benefit of accumulated leave is concerned, the State Government has relied upon Rule 67(3) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1981 (Leave Rules 1981) which allows encashment of accumulated leave to the extent of half of such leave subject to a cap of 150 days. Writ Petition Nos.2668 of 2002 and 1541 of 2008 have been filed directly in this Court ...
Brizo Reality Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-2014
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. The Petitioner seeks a writ to quash an order of provisional attachment dated 31.01.2014, passed by Respondent No.2 - Directorate of Enforcement, of its property, a show cause notice dated 29.04.2014 issued by Respondent No.3 Adjudicating Authority constituted under Money Laundering Act, 2002 and a public notice dated 26.11.2013, issued by Respondent No.4 Senior Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing. Alternatively, the Petitioner seeks to have the said order and notices quashed upon it creating a charge in favour of this court over the said premises (No.1102, Peninsula Business Park, Lower Parel, Bombay 400 013) over and above the charge of Respondent No.1 and to the extent of Rs.6.5 crores. The alternative relief cannot even be considered as Respondent No.1 is not agreeable to the same. 2. The main contention is that the show cause notice dated 29.04.2014, issued to the Petitioner does not contain any reason for the Adjudicating Authority to believe that th...
Sou. Parvatibai @ Laxmibai Vs. Baburao Ganu Kanade Since deceased thro ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-2014
P. C. : 1. The Regular Civil Suit No.85 of 1979 filed by the Appellant - original Plaintiff for partition and separate possession of half share in the suit property was dismissed by the trial Court by its judgment and order dated 2nd May 1987. The Regular Civil Appeal No.155 of 1987 filed by the Plaintiff was partly allowed on 22nd July 1991 by the learned Additional District Judge, Kolhapur declaring that the Appellant-Plaintiff is having 1/2 share in the suit property at serial No.1(A), namely Block No. 795 and the Collector is directed to effect partition. The Defendant does not challenge the decree passed by the appellate Court but it is the Plaintiff who has come before this Court in the second appeal. 2. One Santu, common ancestor had three sons Vithu, Ganu and Hari and the suit property was a coparcenery property in the hands of these coparceners. It is the case of the Plaintiff as well as the Defendants that Dattu, son of Vithu had separated himself by taking away his share. G...
Narayan Babu Velip and Another Vs. Dhillan Sada Dessai
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-19-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Dukle, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in the both the appeals. 2. This common judgment shall dispose of the above Second Appeals, since both the appeals pertain to the same suit property and facts are also similar. 3. Second Appeal No.69 of 2008 arises out of the judgment, order and decree dated 25/01/2008 passed by the learned District Judge-I, South Goa, Margao ('First Appellate Court', for short) in Regular Civil Appeal No.64/2007 by which the judgment and decree dated 29/08/2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Canacona ('Trial Court', for short) in Regular Civil Suit No.45/2003 has been quashed and set aside. Second Appeal No.96/2008 arises out the judgment, order and decree dated 05/06/2008 passed by the learned District Judge-3, South Goa, Margao ('First Appellate Court') in Regular Civil appeal No.73/2007 by which the judgment and decre...
Govind Pandurang Kadale Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-2014
1. Appellant herein is convicted for offence punishable under section 376 r/w 511 of Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and 6 months by Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik vide Judgment and Order dated 04/11/2011 in Sessions Case No.183 of 2011. Hence this appeal. 2. Such of the facts which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows. 3. On 16/6/2010, Kavita wife of Chotu Shergil lodged report at Panchavati Police Station alleging therein that on that day, i.e. on 16/6/2010, at about 9.00 am, she along with her husband had left for work. They returned home in the evening. On their way, they had been to the house of her sister-in-law at Mary Colony, Panchavati. While they were there at about 8.00 pm, her brother-in-law, Ketan informed them telephonically that their daughter (victim) had been for play. She was picked up by the present appellant, who was working as watchman on the construction site of row houses. He had den...
Dwarkabai and Others Vs. Sambhaji Raosaheb Vetal and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-19-2014
[1] By the present Criminal Revision Application, the Applicants are challenging the Judgment and Order dated 30th September, 2000 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Cri.Revn.Appln.No.31 Of 2000, by which the learned Revisional Court was pleased to partly allowed the Cri.Revision filed on behalf of the present respondent / husband and denied the maintenance to present Applicant No.1 Dwarkabai / wife. [2] Applicant No.1 - Dwarkabai and Respondent Sambhaji are the wife and husband. Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are their children. In the year 1998, the present Applicants were required to approach in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, [F.C.], Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar U/Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of monthly maintenance allowance; since the Respondent refused and neglected to maintain them. They claimed maintenance allowance @ Rs.500/- per month for Applicant No.1 Dwarkabai and @ Rs.200/- per month for Applicant Nos. 2 and 3. Said Ap...
Sumanbai Ramesh Garje and Another Vs. Ramesh Dagadu Garje
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-19-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The concurrent findings recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, [F.C.], Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar dated 13th October, 1998 in Criminal Misc. Application No.88 Of 1994 together with the Judgment and order passed by the learned Joint District Judge and Addl.Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar dated 12th July, 2000 in Cri. Revn. Appln. No.229 of 1998 are questioned before this Court by invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts leading to the present Writ Petition can be stated as under:- [i] Petitioner No.1 - Sumanbai is the wife of Respondent -Ramesh. Petitioner No.2 - Priyanka is their daughter. In the year 1994, the petitioners approached to the court of the Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar by moving an application U/Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [In short, the Code]. By the said Application, it was alleged on behalf of the petitioners that marriage of...
Tejendra Bhaskar Ahire Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-2014
1. The appellant herein is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506(II) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years on both the counts by Adhoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai, vide judgment and order dated 28.4.2011 in Sessions Case No.99 of 2010. Hence, this appeal. 2. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows :- On 22.5.2010, Nitin Kharat accompanied by his younger sister (hereinafter referred as the victim), approached the Charkop Police Station and lodged a report alleging therein that his elder sister was married to the present appellant. That he had noticed that his younger sister was crying and she was under tremendous stress and, therefore, he enquired with the cause of her stress. She thereafter informed him that since October, 2009, her brother-in-law i.e. the husband of her elder sister Sheela had ravished her on more than two occasions. The first informant had questi...
Sikandar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-19-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Daga for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Bangadkar for the respondent State. 2. The appellant was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur. At the conclusion of trial, he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code. 3. The incident in question had occurred at the bus stand of village Junona, within the jurisdiction of Ballarshah Police Station. The appellant was holding a gun and was accompanied by his wife at the time of incident. The deceased was an auto-rickshaw driver. He had come to Junona bus stand with some passengers. The passengers alighted from the auto-rickshaw and they were in process of paying fare to the deceased Raju. The appellant wanted the deceased to take him to Chandrapur in Auto Rickshaw. The deceased refused to oblige the appellant. There was quarrel between the deceas...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »