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.
Damodhar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-07-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 10/12.8.2004 passed by the Special Judge, Chandrapur in Special Case No.13/1994 by which appellant/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.300/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The appellant is also convicted for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the said Act and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.300/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Briefly, it is the case of the prosecution that on 21/2/1994, accused was working as Maintenance Surveyor at Mul, District Chandrapur. Complainant Baburao had contacted accused prior to the said date with regard to mutation of his plot when the accused is alleged to have demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/-...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd., having its Divisional office Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-07-2014
1) Admit. 2) Notice after admission made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides for final disposal. 3) The appeal is filed against the judgment and award of MACP No.256 of 2010 which was pending before the Claims Tribunal, Jalna. The petition filed by present respondent Nos.1 to 3 under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is allowed and the compensation of Rs.7.5 lakh with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is granted by the Tribunal and the Insurance Company is made liable jointly and severally to pay the amount of compensation along with the owner. 4) The petition was filed in respect of death of Shrimant Misal, who was husband of respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is minor son of deceased and respondent No.3 is widowed mother of the deceased. 5) It is the case of the claimants that the deceased and his two colleagues had taken a Toyoto Qualis jeep bearing No.MH-15-A-9349 on hire basis from the owner and they were proceeding to Jal...
Dr. Charusheela Devidas Doifode Vs. Suresh Daulatrao Virulkar
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-07-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. 2. Trial Court has rejected application (exhibit 87) of defendant to re-issue witness summons to the Deputy Human Resource Manager of Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited, Mumbai by order dated 9th December 2013. However, learned trial Court has marked document No.2 filed along with List of Documents (exhibit 78) as Exhibit 90. Petitioner (original plaintiff) is aggrieved by that part of the order and it is under challenge in this petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 4. Document No.2 below list of documents (exhibit 78) shows that defendant was present on duty on 16.11.2006 and 30.11.2006 from 08:07:00 hrs to 16:50:00 and 08:01:00 hrs to 16:50:00 hrs respectively. He wanted to prove those documents by examining Deputy Human Resource Manager (U) of the RCF. It appears that on earlier occasion witness was summoned, but he could not be examined and documents like attendance certificate, G/S Log ...
Sarubai and Others Vs. Surendrasing and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-07-2014
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and award of Claim Petition No. 93/2007 which was pending before the Claims Tribunal, Beed. The claim petition of the present appellants was partly allowed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not made the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation amount. The decision is challenged both on the point of quantum and on the point of liability of Insurance Company to pay first. Both the sides are heard. 2. The accident took place on 24.11.2006. The truck bearing No. MH-23/Q-7296 owned by original respondent No. 1 and insured with original respondent No. 2 met with an accident. The husband of the original claimant No. 1 died in the accident. It is the case of widow and other dependents of the deceased that the deceased was aged about 45 years and he was monthly earning Rs. 5,000/- by working in Engineering Division of one Cooperative Sugar Factory. The widow of the deceased was aged about 40 years and the widowed mother of the deceased was aged 80...
Komalsing Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-07-2014
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the accused) was charge sheeted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) for having committed murder of his wife Ujwala. He has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of fine, it has been directed that he will undergo R.I. for six months. The case of prosecution in brief is as follows: 2. The accused was married with Ujwala (hereinafter referred to as the victim) about 14 years before the incident, which took place in the night between 1st-2nd February 2011. A son namely Tejas was born out of the wedlock. Due to differences between the couple, the victim along with son Tejas went to live with her mother Induabi at village Satiche Vadgaon, Taluka Bhadgaon, District Jalgaon. Victim had initiated proceedings against the accused and litigations were pending. In spite of the separation and proceedings between the parties, the accused ...
Sayyed Khalil Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-07-2014
[1] The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order of conviction dated 3rd January, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 2, Nanded, in Sessions Case No.184 Of 2011, by which the learned court below was pleased to convict the appellant / accused for the offence punishable U/Section 376[1] of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [In short, the I.P.Code] and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- [Rs.Twenty Five Thousand only] and in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. The appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable U/Section 506 of the I.P.Code and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- [Rs.One Thousand only] and in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two months. The court below directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. The court below further directed that, if entire fine amount is deposited in the co...
Jaya and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Co-o ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-07-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Petitioners have assailed order 31st March 2001 passed by respondent no. 3 District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur under Section 102 (1) (c) (ii) (iv) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short the Act) winding all the affairs of Society viz. Samta Grahak Sahakari Sanstha of which petitioner no. 1 is Secretary and petitioner no. 2 is President. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner-Society submits that petitioner-Society is continuously doing its business and its accounts have been audited from time to time which are certified by auditors of the Department of Cooperation. He further submits that before passing order under Section 102 of the Act, it was obligatory for respondent no. 3 to hold enquiry as contemplated under Section 83 of the Act regarding constitution, working and financial conditions of the petitioner-Society. He also submits that respondent no. 3 either himself or through an authorized person on his own motion or on the ...
The Commissioner of Customs (C.S.I. Airport) Vs. Pankaj Kishore Jhunjh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2014
B P. Colabawalla J. 1. The present Appeal has been filed by the Commissioner of Customs (C.S.I. Airport), Mumbai challenging the order dated 6th March 2012 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as CESTAT) whereby the Appeals filed by the Respondents herein were allowed. Though the 2 Members of the CESTAT had a difference of opinion on certain aspects which have been referred to a Third Member, they were in agreement on some other aspects of the matter, and hence the present Appeal. 2. The facts stated briefly are that the Airport Intelligence Unit effected a seizure of USD 70,000/- from Respondent No.1 departing for Dubai from CSI Airport on 23rd February, 2004. During the course of investigations, it was revealed that Respondent Nos.2 to 4 were involved in the current case and also in five previous visits abroad wherein an amount of USD 3,50,000/- was stated to have been carried out of the country illegally ...
M/s. Girnar Residency Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (Proposed) and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2014
Oral Order: 1. The present suit is filed by the Plaintiffs for a permanent injunction against the Defendants restraining the Defendants from encroaching and / or trespassing upon the suit property or disturbing or obstructing use and occupation thereof of the Plaintiffs, and also for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from demolishing or damaging a wall enclosing the suit property or obstructing the Plaintiffs from repairing the same. The Notice of Motion is taken out for an interim injunction in terms of the permanent injunction sought. 2. Plaintiff No.1 is a proposed co-operative society of flat purchasers in a sale building Girnar Tower constructed as part of a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The building stands on a plot bearing CTS No.125. The said plot was originally occupied by a chawl and a slum. Defendant No.1 is a co-operative society of the rehabilitated tenants / occupants, who were original residents of the chawl existing on this plot. Defendant No.1 is a sub-le...
Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Twilight Mercantiles Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2014
1. The Plaintiffs are the proprietors of three registered trade marks, O2, OTWO and O2H used on pharmaceutical and medicinal products. In the suit, they allege infringement of these marks by the Defendants who, according to the Plaintiffs, are using rival marks O1B and O1B PLUS. The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants are passing off their products as those of the Plaintiffs. In the present Notice of Motion, the Plaintiffs seek interim reliefs restraining the Defendants from manufacturing, selling, advertising or exhibiting for sale any pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations under any mark that that infringes the Plaintiffs registered trade marks. 2. The Plaintiffs and the 1st Defendant are both manufacturers of medicinal and pharmaceutical products. The Plaintiffs are a reputed enterprise of some considerable standing. The 2nd Defendant is an entity that manufactures medicinal preparations for the 1st Defendant. 3. The Defendants have not appeared. I have, nonetheless, consi...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »