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.
Mukesh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-22-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard finally by consent of both sides. 3. By this application, applicant/original accused has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 19.4.2014 to the extent of imposing condition upon the applicant to deposit amount of Rs.6,50,000/- passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.1, Akola in Summary Criminal Case No.2396 of 2009 and further to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2014 so far as it relates to imposing condition to deposit part amount of Rs.6,50,000/- which comes to Rs.4,70,000/-. 4. It appears that in the proceeding initiated by Non-applicant No.2/original complainant under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, applicant was convicted and is sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months and is directed to pay fine of Rs.13,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine he is d...
Nickunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-2014
1. In these petitions, the petitioners have assailed two notices dated 7 December 2012 issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act ("the Act") seeking to reopen assessment for A.Y. 2006-07 and A.Y. 2007-08 respectively. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 12 June 2012 rejecting the petitioners' objection to the reasons in support of the impugned notices dated 7 December 2012. 2. The reasons recorded in support of both the impugned notices for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2007-08 are identical and read as under : "The assessee company is engaged in trading of various industrial products viz. Crucibles, graphites, spare parts of industry equipments safety equipments, safety masks etc. The suppliers of trading goods of the company both foreign as well as domestics. The clients of the company include Indian Ordinance authorities, DRDO BARC apart from other private corporate. During the scrutiny proceedings in the past assessment years as well as ...
Robinson D'Costa Vs. Nesbit D'Costa and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-2014
1. Heard rival arguments at length on this criminal appeal preferred by the original complainant challenging the judgment and order dated 2/11/2010 passed in Criminal Case No.200/OA/NI/08/E. By the said impugned judgment and order the present respondent no.1 was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Being aggrieved by the said acquittal appellant/original complainant initially prayed for leave to file appeal and after the leave was granted preferred the present appeal. 2. At the threshold, it must be mentioned that the only ground on which the criminal complaint was dismissed, acquitting the respondent/accused was that the debt of Rs.6.00 lakhs was not legally enforceable at the time of issuance of the cheque. 3. Prior to discussing the rival arguments certain admitted factual position is mentioned as under: In the present appeal, complainant and the accused/respondent no.1 are close friends and accused/respondent no.1 asked for loan...
Purushottam Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-21-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. The appellant has been convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola for the offence punishable under Section 506-II of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.Two Thousand, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellant was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 364 and 506-II of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The incident in question had occurred on 8th July, 1998 at the house of the complainant Pratap. The appellant had come there and he had threatened the complainant and his family members and had allegedly taken away his father Dashrath to Akola on a scooter. Father of the complainant did not return for 2-1/2 months. The appellant had allegedly threatened the complainant and his family members that if any of the family members attempte...
Robinson D'Costa Vs. Nesbit D'Costa and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-21-2014
1. Heard rival arguments at length on this criminal appeal preferred by the original complainant challenging the judgment and order dated 2/11/2010 passed in Criminal Case No.200/OA/NI/08/E. By the said impugned judgment and order the present respondent no.1 was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Being aggrieved by the said acquittal appellant/original complainant initially prayed for leave to file appeal and after the leave was granted preferred the present appeal. 2. At the threshold, it must be mentioned that the only ground on which the criminal complaint was dismissed, acquitting the respondent/accused was that the debt of Rs.6.00 lakhs was not legally enforceable at the time of issuance of the cheque. 3. Prior to discussing the rival arguments certain admitted factual position is mentioned as under: In the present appeal, complainant and the accused/respondent no.1 are close friends and accused/respondent no.1 asked for loan...
Seema nee Ankita Hitesh Bardia Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-2014
P.C. 1. Heard the respective counsel. 2. The applicant herein questions the correctness and validity of the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai in Anticipatory Bail Application No.26 of 2013, thereby granting relief to the respondents under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicant prays that the order passed in favour of the respondents herein dated 21.1.2013 be quashed and set aside. 3. The facts of the case are that the respondents herein had filed an application before the City Civil and Sessions Court, Dindoshi, Goregaon (Borivli Division) seeking a relief under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in the event any crime is registered against them at Dahisar Police Station or Kandivli Police Station on the basis of the complaint of Ankita Bardia, the present applicant, who happens to be the wife of accused No.1. It was the case of the prosecution that the applicant herein had made a report to the Dahisar Police Station on 25.10.2012 again...
Sulabha Vijay Lokhande Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2014
1. Rule, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The parties are before this Court in view of the unseating of the Petitioner as a Municipal Councillor under the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986. The challenge raised in the above Petition is to the order dated 19/06/2014 passed by the Collector, Satara by which order the issues which were framed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation being Writ Petition Nos. 1655 of 2014 and 2751 of 2014 were answered and Exhibit 26 filed by the Respondent No.3 herein came to be allowed. 3. The facts giving rise to the filing of the above Petition can be stated thus - The elections to the Municipal Council Panchagani were held some time in December 2011. In the said elections 17 Councillors, who had contested the elections as independent candidates, were elected, which including the Petitioner and the Respondent No.3. Out of the said 17 Councillors, 9 Counci...
Shyama Tukaram Sahare Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-18-2014
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. In these appeals filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused Nos.1 and 2 in Sessions Trial No.79 of 2005 question the judgment dated 31.03.2007. The Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia, has found both the accused guilty of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code for committing murder of one Shivchand Patle and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. Accused No.1 - Pyarelal is further convicted under Section 307 of I.P.C. for attack on P.W.1 - Mulchand and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for five years, to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for four months. Sentences of accused No.1 are to run concurrently. Accused No.1 - Pyarelal s/o Mangasu Tumsare, is appellant in Criminal Appeal No.478 of 2011 while accused No.2 - Shyama Tukaram Sahare, is appellant in Criminal Appeal No.362 of 2007. 2. We hav...
Dr. Dilip Shankar Burte Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2014
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Kumbhkoni, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant. It is submitted that the Applicant has filed the criminal application challenging the findings / observations made by the learned trial Court against him, and prayed to quash, expunge the said findings. It is submitted that Section 341 confers power of filing an appeal against the order of initiation of proceedings for the offence of fabrication of evidence and giving false evidence, which is made punishable under Section 193 I.P.C. It is submitted that, therefore, liberty may be granted to the Applicant to convert the criminal application into criminal appeal. It is submitted that since the impugned order is passed by the Sessions Court, Pune; it being a Court subordinate to the High Court, Bombay, appeal will lie to this Court. 2. We, therefore, permit the applicant to convert the criminal application into criminal appeal. Amendment to be carried out during the course...
Shashikant Gangaram Narkar Shree Mahakali Sadan Vs. M/s. Advance Trans ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2014
M.S. Sonak, J. (In Chamber) 1. The petitioner-workman challenges the award dated 26 April 2007 made by the 6th Labour Court, Mumbai to the extent it denies the entire back-wages and other consequential benefits for the period between 1 October 1992 to 1 August 2003, despite having come to the conclusion that the termination of his services was neither legal, nor justified. 2. It is the case of the petitioner-workman that he was employed as H.T. Assembler with the respondent-employer with effect from 18 January 1971. In the year 1992, a charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner, which charges were denied by him. There was however, no enquiry held into charges and on 3 October 1992, the petitioner was abruptly prevented from discharging duties, on the ground that he had purportedly submitted a letter of resignation, which had since been duly accepted by the respondent-employer. 3. The petitioner and two other workmen who were similarly treated raised an industrial dispute which was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »