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.
Wasudeo Vs. Pramod and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-04-2014
Oral Judgment 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter by consent of learned Counsel appearing for both the parties. 2. By this petition the petitioner/plaintiff challenges orders dated 23.1.2014 and 30.1.2014, passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Patur, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for issuance of summons to witness Shri Mahadeo Ghonge was rejected by order passed below Exh.32 and right to adduce evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff was forfeited by order passed below Exh.1. 3. The respondents/defendants have filed their caveat application to oppose this petition. 4. The grievance of the petitioner/plaintiff is that witness on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff named Shri Mahadev Ghonge filed his affidavit in support of the petitioner/plaintiff on 10.1.2014 and he was to attend the Court for cross-examination on 16.1.2014, but witness Shri Ghonge remained absent on the ground that there was sudden sickness of his grand-son an...
M/s. Sadanand Garage, a Partnership Firm Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2014
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. The Petitioners/tenants have essentially challenged the acquisition of land acquired for Respondent No.2 Shree Siddhivinayak Ganpati Mandir Trust (for short, the Siddhivinayak Trust), constituted under the provisions of Shree Siddhi Vinayak Ganpati Temple Trust (Prabhadevi) Act, 1980 (for short, Siddhi Vinayak Trust Act), though the owner has never challenged the acquisition till this date. 2. It is the case of the Petitioners that they are tenants of Plot No.901 admeasuring 769 sq. yards: 642.98 sq. meters. According to the Petitioners they were occupying a garage building of 2500 sq. ft, a mezzanine of 800 sq. ft. on the plot and an open area of the plot. Respondent No.2 Siddhivinayak Trust owns plot No.904 and has constructed a temple structure of ground + 5 upper floors thereon. Plot No.902 is adjacent to the Temple Plot No.904. Respondent No.3the then owner had entered into Agreement of Sale in respect of Plot No.901 with Century Developers Private Limited, w...
Suresh and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-04-2014
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. The appellants were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No.78/1994 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur. By a judgment and order dated 28.7.1999, the appellants came to be convicted for the offence as charged and have been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have come up in appeal. 2. The prosecution case may be briefly stated thus : Appellant nos.3 and 4 are husband and wife, while appellant nos.1 and 2 are their sons. Vimal is the daughter of appellant nos.3 and 4 and she was married with now deceased Arjun Rathod. Both the appellants and the deceased were staying in the same locality at Sarfabad (Hayapur). It is said that the marriage of Arjun with Vimal was his third marriage and there were certain disputes between them which had led Vim...
Ashok and Another Vs. Mahila Vikas Mandal
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-04-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter by consent of learned Counsel appearing for both the parties. 2. By this petition the petitioners challenge order dated 17.4.2014, passed by learned District Judge-2, Chandrapur, below Exh.1, in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.110 of 2013, whereby the application filed by the petitioners/applicants under Section 41 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, (for short, the said Act) for grant of permission to give abandoned female child, was rejected. 3. The facts of the case are, thus: The petitioners/applicants claim that they are married to each other on 7.6.1994, while respondent/Mahila Vikas Mandal, Chandrapur, is Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, licensed agency under the Juvenile Justice Act. According to the petitioners/applicants, girl child by name Puja was given in Foster Care of the petitioners/applicants ...
Mahammad Shabbir Akbar Shaikh Vs. The State of Maharashtra At The Inst ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2014
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The appellant, original accused, has questioned the correctness of his conviction and sentence by the present appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 5th July 2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigad Alibag in Sessions Case No. 87 of 2010 thereby convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. The learned Sessions Judge, Raigad Alibag has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts which can be enumerated from the record, may briefly be stated thus: (i) PW1 Shivnath Jairam Bhoir was at his house at about 7 p.m. when he came to know that the dead bodies of a woman and a boy are lying at Bhoirwadi Bus stop. He immediately along with a member of Grampanchayat Shri Anil Bhoir went...
Suresh Kakodkar Vs. Vinayak Gopinath Naik Karmali (Since deceased) and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-04-2014
1. The above two appeals can be conveniently disposed of by common judgment as they pertain to the same subject-matter. 2. Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. None present for the respondents, though they have been duly served after admission, in both the appeals. 3. The Second Appeal No.3/05 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17/09/2004 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge, FTC-II in Regular Civil Appeal No.21/2004. The said Regular Civil Appeal No.21 of 2004 was filed against the judgment and decree dated 29/01/2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Quepem (Trial Court, for short) in Regular Civil Suit No.211/2000. The respondents were plaintiffs and the appellants were defendants in the said Civil Suit. 4. The Second Appeal No.9/09 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16/10/2008 passed by the learned District Judge- 4, South Goa, Margao (First Appellate Court, for short) in Regu...
M/s. Sadanand Garage, a Partnership Firm Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2014
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. The Petitioners/tenants have essentially challenged the acquisition of land acquired for Respondent No.2 Shree Siddhivinayak Ganpati Mandir Trust (for short, the Siddhivinayak Trust), constituted under the provisions of Shree Siddhi Vinayak Ganpati Temple Trust (Prabhadevi) Act, 1980 (for short, Siddhi Vinayak Trust Act), though the owner has never challenged the acquisition till this date. 2. It is the case of the Petitioners that they are tenants of Plot No.901 admeasuring 769 sq. yards: 642.98 sq. meters. According to the Petitioners they were occupying a garage building of 2500 sq. ft, a mezzanine of 800 sq. ft. on the plot and an open area of the plot. Respondent No.2 Siddhivinayak Trust owns plot No.904 and has constructed a temple structure of ground + 5 upper floors thereon. Plot No.902 is adjacent to the Temple Plot No.904. Respondent No.3the then owner had entered into Agreement of Sale in respect of Plot No.901 with Century Developers Private Limited, w...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Laxmilal Shankarlal Trivedi
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-04-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. This appeal against acquittal is filed by State Government under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, challenging the judgment and order passed on 21.12.1998 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur in Regular Criminal Case No.125 of 1995 acquitting respondent of offence punishable under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code. Case of prosecution is that from 01.04.1983 till 17.05.1983 respondent was on medical leave and there was a seal on godown with his signature. He had not handed over charge to any body. As day to day work was being hampered, on 28.05.1983 as per orders of Head Office seal was removed and panchanama of finished goods in the godown was prepared. Available goods were found short and loss was worked out at Rs.54,256/-. Audit also confirmed the shortage. Police complaint was then filed by Managing Director Shri Barahate. 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jachak submits that total 10 witnesses were examined and P. W. 2 ...
Ananta Tukaram Chaudhary Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2014
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The appellant, original accused, has questioned the correctness of his conviction and sentence by the present appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 27th April 2011 passed by the learned District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar in Sessions Case No.72 of 2009 thereby convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months. The appellant has also been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months. The appellant has further been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment...
Raju Kachru Adangale Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2014
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) 1. The appellant, who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life, by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Nashik, by judgment dated 28/07/2008, in Sessions Case No.98 of 2007, by this appeal challenges his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this appeal may briefly be stated thus:- PW 6 - Police Head Constable Nanasaheb Pimpalse, who was attached to the Nashik Road Police Station, received a message about admission of lady in the Bytco Hospital, Nashik Road on account of burns. On receipt of the said information, Police Head Constable Pimpalse proceeded to the hospital on 14/2/2007 at about 11.30 to 11.45 a.m. He submitted a requisition to the Medical Officer for ascertaining the condition of the injured. The said requisition is at Exh. 34. The Medical Officer, on examining injured Sharda, opined that she was in a fit conditio...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »