Mumbai Court July 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.
Francisco Xavier @ Mickky Pacheco Vs. State of Goa, by the Public Pros ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-17-2014
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties both the writ petitions are taken for final hearing and disposed at the admission stage itself. 2. Heard learned Amicus Curiae Senior Counsel Shri S.D. Lotlikar, appointed by this Court to assist the Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.1/2013. Also heard learned Senior Counsel Shri S.G. Dessai in Writ Petition No.101/2013, representing the writ petitioner, the original accused. Also heard Prosecutors representing the State in both the writ petitions. 3. At the threshold, it must be mentioned that the Writ Petition No.1/2013 is a Suo Motu Writ Petition taken up by this Court by giving suitable directions vide order dated 24/01/2013 (Coram : F.M. Reis, J.). Said directions were given in two proceedings filed before this Court, one being Criminal Revision Application No.49/2012 and another one being Criminal Writ Petition No.9/2013. In both these proceedings filed by the private individuals, not concerned with the matter, p...
Maria Beatriz De Souza Daughter of late Arnaldo de Souza Vs. Agnelo Jo ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-17-2014
Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Lobo, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 07/04/2012 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, North Goa at Panaji (Appellate Court) in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.66 of 2011 and has prayed to quash and set aside the same and to restore the order dated 30/04/2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji (Trial Court) in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.80/2009/A. 3. By order dated 13/06/2012, Rule was issued in the matter and it was directed that interim custody of the child which was already with the petitioner would continue to remain with her until the final disposal of the petition. 4. The petitioner and respondent were married in Goa on 08/05/2007 and the marriage was registered before the Civil Registrar of Ilhas under Registration No.424/2007. Out of the said we...
Jitendra Nanalal Trivedi Vs. Ramesh Nanalal Shah and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-2014
1. By this chamber summons applicant seeks permission for impleadment as a party and seeks deletion of defendant nos. 2(a) to 2(c), 3(a) to 3(e) and 7 and seeks permission to carry out amendment to the execution applicatoin, Judges Order No.58 of 2012, Judges Order No.59 of 2012 as per schedule annexed to the chamber summons. 2. Application for amendment is filed on the basis of the deed of assignment in favour of the applicant entered into between defendant nos.2(a) to 2(c) vide deed of assignment, dated 5th July, 2012, between defendant no.7 and applicant vide deed of assignment dated 5th July, 2012, by defendant nos. 3(a) to 3(e) vide deed of assignment dated 16th July, 2012 and by defendant no.10 vide deed of assignment dated 21st March, 2014. All these assignors under the said four deeds of assignment are parties to the suit or are brought on record in view of the demise of the original defendants. 3. In response to this chamber summons, learned counsel appearing for all these ass...
Dhanraj Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-16-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the appellant and the victim girl are residents of one and the same village and they are neighbours. On 27-11-2010 victim Rita, who was studying in 4th Standard, had returned from school at about 11-00 a.m. She was playing in the open place at about 5-00 p.m. The appellant had taken the victim girl in his house on the pretext of providing her a chocolate. It is alleged that the appellant removed her clothes and committed sexual intercourse with the victim girl. The victim girl reported the matter to her mother and police complaint was lodged on next date. The victim girl was sent for medical examination. The Medical Officer was not able to give any definite opi...
Shrikant @ Balasaheb M. Chaudhari Vs. State of Maharashtra, through it ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-16-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. Pursuant to order dt.15.7.2014 passed by this Court, this petition is heard finally in view of urgency pleaded. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order issued by the Collector, Yavatmal dt.31.12.2013 deleting the name of the petitioner from the post of 'Gat Neta' i.e. Group Leader and substituting the name of respondent no.4 Jafar Sadik Gilani, the co-opted Councilor of Municipal Council, Yavatmal instead of Shrikant @ Balasaheb M. Chaudhari. Hence, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the said order dt.31.12.2013 issued by the Collector, Yavatmal communicating the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Yavatmal referring to the letter dated 31st December, 2013 from Wamanrao Kasawar, President, Indian National Congress Party, Yavatmal District. Thus, Office of the Collector, Yavatmal informed the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council, Yavatmal about the communica...
Sukhdeo Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-16-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The appellant was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed murder of his son. However, after conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court has convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case before the learned trial Court in brief was that the applicant was earlier married to one Sunita. He had divorced Sunita and was having live-in relationship with Revati from village Kokadi. She was being treated as second wife of the appellant. The appellant had two issues from the said second wedlock. The deceased Vishal was one of them. The other issue is Master Chhotu. It was also the c...
Sachin Bansilal Ghaiwal and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-2014
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The present Appeals have been filed by the Appellants, who are as per the final report submitted by the police before the Special Court under the MCOC Act, Pune, accused Nos.3 and 9 respectively. These Appeals have been preferred by the Appellants under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act 1999 ('MCOC Act' for brevity) challenging the order dated 10th February 2013 passed below Exhibit 192 and the order dated 18th February 2013 passed below Exhibit 204 respectively in MCOC Special Case No.3 of 2010 thereby rejecting the applications preferred by the Appellants under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for their discharge from the case. The Appellants have questioned the correctness of the said orders dated 10th February 2013 and 18th February 2013 passed below Exhibits 192 and 204 respectively. 2. Both these Appeals are decided by this common judgment as they are arising out of the same crime number, have similar set of witnesses /fac...
Bhalchandra and Another Vs. Shardabai and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-15-2014
1. Both the appeals are filed against judgment and award of Claim Petition No.96/2003 which was pending before the Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 from the two appeals were claimants and the claim was filed under section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act'). The Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 9,50,180/- with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of petition. The owner of the offending vehicle has filed First Appeal No. 439/2007 and the Insurance Company has filed First Appeal No.927/2007. All the sides are heard. 2. According to the claimants, the accident took place on 11.6.2003 on Ambad Charphula-Mantha Road at about 9.30 p.m. and the spot is situated near Revgaon, in Jalna city. 3. It is the case of claimants that the deceased Manohar Ugale was present as pillion rider on motorcycle and the motor cycle was being driven by one Laxman Gangadhare. It is their case that Laxman drove the motorcycle bearing No.MH-21/B-4005 rashly and neglig...
Mandar Narhari Parab Vs. Union on India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2014
Oral Order: (Chief Justice) 1. In this petition purporting to be public interest litigation, the petitioner, claiming to be a journalist, has challenged the decision of respondent No.3Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) to award the contract for construction of 4th Container Terminal at JNPT on DBFOT basis to respondent No.4 [PSA International Pte. Ltd (PSA)]. Apart from such challenge, the petitioner has also prayed for a direction to JNPT to blacklist respondent No.4 from submitting any bid for any tender or contract floated by the Government or any agency or instrumentality of the Government for any purpose whatsoever. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to JNPT to initiate legal proceedings against respondent No.4 and such other entities as may be necessary to recover the losses incurred by JNPT on account of failure of respondent No.4 by itself and its consortium controlled by it to perform their obligation under the tender floated by respondent No.3 in 2010 for the afor...
Bayer Corporation United States of America Vs. Union of India through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2014
C.A.V. Judgment: M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 4 March 2013 passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (Tribunal). By the impugned order the Tribunal upheld the order dated 9 March 2012 passed by the Controller of Patents (Controller) granting Compulsory License to M/s. Natco Pharmaceuticals Limited (Natco) under Section 84 of the Patent Act 1970 (the Act). This compulsory licence was in respect of the petitioner's patented invented drug Sorafenib Tosylate (compound of Carboxyaryl Substituted Diphenyl Ureas) sold under brand name Nexavar (patented drug). 2) This petition arises out of orders granting a compulsory license of the patented drug owned by the petitioner to Natco on application of the provisions of Chapter XVI and in particular Section 84 of the Act. The challenge of the petitioner is to the allowing of the application of Natco for compulsory licence and to the manner in which Chapter XV...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »