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.
Kalawatibai Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-24-2014
1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and award of M.A.C.P. No.583 of 2006, delivered by M.A.C.T. Nanded. Both sides are heard. 2. The Claims Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance company by holding that a private jeep was used for carrying goods, as transport vehicle and there has been breach of condition of policy. Only the owner of the vehicle has challenged the decision, as she is made liable to pay the compensation and Insurance company is not directed to indemnify the owner. 3. It is the case of the claimants that deceased Vijay was working as driver with respondent No.1. The accident took place on 17.6.2006. It is contended that deceased was driving tempo trax jeep bearing No.MH-38-918 and on that day he was discharging the duties as driver of respondent No.1. The vehicle left the road and gave a dash to a road side tree. The claim was made under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act 1988. 4. The Insurance Company took the defence that there was beach of condition of policy....
Vikas Suresh Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2014
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The Appellant / original accused has preferred the present Appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 12th March 2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon, District Raigad in Sessions case No.18 of 2011 thereby convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The Appellant has been further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The Trial Court has directed that the punishment awarded to the Appellant on both the counts to run concurrently. The Appellant by the present Appeal has questioned the correctness of his conviction and sentence. ...
Maharashtra Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Board of Truste ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule in all the Petitions, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above Writ Petitions arise out of the orders both dated 3rd February, 2014, passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Mumbai. 3. The above group of Petitions are divided in to two groups of Petitions. One group consisting of 10 matters being Writ Petition No.3181 of 2014 (lead matter) and others and the other group of 7 matters being Writ Petition No.3182 of 2014 (lead matter) and others. The group consisting of 10 matters concerns eviction proceedings being Case Nos.EO/E (49) (49A) (49B) (49C) in respect of premises being Godown No.1773 being Writ Petition No.3181 of 2014, Writ Petition Nos.3168 of 2014 to 3170 of 2014, Writ Petition No.3210 of 2014, Writ Petition No.3213 of 2014, and Writ Petition Nos.3186 of 2014 to Writ Petition No.3189 of 2014. The other group of 7 matters concerns eviction proceedings being Case Nos...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sarjubai and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-24-2014
1. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company of truck against the judgment and award of claim petition No.51 of 1990, which was pending before the Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad. The Tribunal has directed the Insurance company, present appellant to pay compensation jointly and severally with the owner. It is the case of the Insurance Company that it is not liable to pay anything in view of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and the terms of condition of the policy. Both sides are heard. 2. Accident took place on 20.9.1989. The deceased Ramgopal was travelling in the tempo and there was collision between the tempo and one a truck. Ramgopal Loya died on the spot in the accident. The claim was made by widow and issues of Ramgopal and also by other relatives. 3. It is the case of the claimants that deceased was travelling in the tempo. There is no specific contention with regard to the capacity in which the deceased was present in the tempo. 4. Respondent No.7, New India Assurance Compan...
Vinayak and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-24-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Appellant No.1 Vinayak Mahadeorao Bhoyar has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 and appellant No.2 Chirkut Chaituji Dhurve has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). 2. Appellant No.1 Vinayak Bhoyar was working as Forest Guard and appellant No.2 is his friend. Complainant Ishwar Pawar was resident of village Takali. He was allegedly involved in storing teak wood logs. It is alleged that appellant No.1 had demanded Rs.100/- from said Ishwar Pawar for not prosecuting him. It is alleged that the said amount of Rs.100/- was demanded on 20th March, 1991. After 2-3 days, the complainant was called by appellant No.1 at the house of Sudhakar Bandbail and had again demanded the amount in presence of Sudhakar Bandbail. The complainant did not want to pay the amount and therefore, he lodged report with Anti Corruption Bureau. The trap was laid ...
Murli Govendan Kurup Vs. City Estate Developers Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2014
P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This Writ Petition is preferred by original defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 19.03.2014 passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court in Revision Application No.37 of 2012 in Exh.22 in R.A.E. suit No.297/462 of 2007 rejecting the petitioner's application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for carrying out appropriate amendment in Written Statement. The Trial Court by its order dated 13.12.2011 partly allowed the petitioner's application for amendment permitting him to carry out amendment only in respect of date of Conveyance Deed i.e. in paragraph 3 of his Written Statement. 3. Few facts of the matter are as under: i) The respondent original plaintiff filed R.A.E. suit No.297/462 of 2007 in the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai against the petitioner for vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises i.e. Shop No.1, ground floor having the area admeasurin...
Dattaram Waman Kambli Since deceased through LRs. and Others Vs. Shant ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The trial Court passed a decree in the Regular Civil Suit No.45 of 1978 on 31.1.1984. The decree is that the plaintiff do recover the possession of the suit house of his share from the defendants. The defendants are granted two months time to vacate the suit house and they are perpetually restrained from obstructing plaintiff's vahiwat over his share in the suit house either by themselves or through any other person. The Civil Appeal No.42 of 1984 preferred by the defendants was dismissed by the appellate Court on 11.8.1989. Hence, both the defendants are before this Court. 2. The question involved before the Courts below was whether the plaintiff has any share in the suit house i.e., Gram Panchayat House No.768B standing on the Survey No.34/22 situated at Ubhadanda. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff has established his 1/3rd share in the suit house. On 16.10.1989, this Court passed an order as under: "Mr. Gokhale is heard. Admitted the substan...
State Vs. Melwyn Francis Fernandes
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-24-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this criminal appeal preferred by the appellant/State challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 15/12/2010 passed by JMFC, Mapusa in Criminal Case No.271/S/2002/F. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, the present respondent/accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Prior to discussing the rival submissions, the provisions of Section 468 and 471 are required to be looked into in order to ascertain as to whether the prosecution has established the ingredients of the said provisions and whether in the limited scope available to this Court in appeal against acquittal, any interference is warranted. Said Sections 468 and 471 read thus: 468. Forgery for purpose of cheating Whoever commits forgery, intending that the 1[document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term ...
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs. Soconord OCTG and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2014
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. These are cross-appeals filed against two orders passed by the learned Single Judge dated 8th February 2002 and 14th January 2011, in Arbitration Petition No.300 of 2000. M/s.Soconord OCTG, SA (the appellant in Appeal No.331 of 2011 and the first respondent in Appeal No.516 of 2002) is hereafter referred to as Soconord). The Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (the appellant in Appeal No.516 of 2002 and the first respondent in Appeal No.331 of 2011) is hereafter referred to as ONGC. 2. The parties had referred their disputes to the arbitration. As the arbitrators could not agree, they referred the disputes and differences to a retired Judge of the Supreme Court (V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.) as an Umpire. The learned Umpire by his award dated 20th December 1999, dismissed Soconord's claim and allowed ONGC's counter claim. The above petition was filed by Soconord against ONGC under section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to set aside the award. 3. Appeal No.516 of 2002 is filed...
Anil Dhondiba Rawade and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2014
AnujaPrabhudessai, J. 1. These appeals are directed against judgment dated 21st May 1993 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.636 of 1991. By this judgment, the appellants, who shall be herein after referred to as the accused, have been held guilty of the offences under Section 376(2)(g) and 451 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months in respect of offence under section 376(2)(g) and further to undergo imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- each in default simple imprisonment for one month in respect of offence under Section 451 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of prosecution in brief is as under: The prosecutrix (PW1), her husband, and daughter were residing near Dandekar Bridge, Pune. The husband of the prosecutrix was working as a wireman during daytime and plying a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »