Mumbai Court August 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.
Suryakant and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2014
1. Appellant No.1 Suryanakt Chandrakant Gade and Appellant No.2 Shashikant Chandrakant Gade (original Accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively, hereafter referred as accused No.1 and accused No.2) were prosecuted before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon in Sessions Case No.118 of 1993 for offence punishable under Section 307, 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('I.P.C.' in brief). They have been convicted for offence under Section 307 and 325, both read with Section 34 of I.P.C. For offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. each of them has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs.5000/, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year, and for offence under Section 325 of I.P.C., each of them has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.2000/, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four months. The Substantive sentences are to run concurrently. The trial Court directed the amount deposited by the ac...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Shivram Ramgarib Kunthre
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-28-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. These appeals are directed against the judgments and orders acquitting the accused-respondent in three criminal cases filed against him in respect of offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. All these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as common evidence has been recorded in these cases and they relate to the same charge, although pertaining to different periods of time. 2. The respondent, during the relevant period, was working as Postmaster at Branch Post Office S.R.P. Camp, Amravati. This relevant period in which the offence of criminal breach of trust as has been alleged to have been committed by the respondent was from 30/7/1978 to 10/6/1982. It has been alleged that while working in the capacity as Branch office Postmaster, the respondent had received from different account holders the amounts of Recurring Deposit Scheme of the Department of Post and Telegraph on different dates and instead of ...
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Great ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2014
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioners, being the owner, Developer and Constituted Attorney, have challenged impugned communication/letters dated 5 March 2012 and 10 April 2013 issued by Respondents-Corporation, thereby revoked the Letter of Intent (for short, LOI) issued earlier and not considering the request for additional TDR against the construction of road. 3 The relevant prayers of the Petitioners are as under:- (a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the records and proceedings pertaining to the subject matter and after examining the legality, validity and impropriety of the impugned Letters dated 5.3.2012 (Ex. B and B-1 hereto) and impugned letter dated 10th April 2013 (Ex. C hereto), be pleased to quash and set aside the same, being invalid and illegal and ultra vir...
Umesh Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-28-2014
Oral Judgment : 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 1.11.2007 delivered in Sessions Trial No.109 of 2006. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case against the appellant is as under : On the basis of complaint lodged against the present applicant and 15 other persons at about 14.45 hours of 19.11.2005 by one Fulchand Patil, offences punishable under Sections 143, 504, 506 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the Atrocities Act) were registered by Police Station Ural, District Akola. It was alleged by the complainant that there was a Gram Sabha at village Andura on 19.11.2005 at about 11.00 a.m. and when the meeting started, the appellant together with other accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and abused the complainant on his caste and intentionally insulted him by abusing him and also questioning his status and capacity to occupy a ...
Pedro Anthony Lopes (since deceased) Through legal heirs and Others Vs ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-27-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Rohit Bras De Sa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Panaji, in Regular Civil Suit No. 11/2007 dated 03.08.2013 whereby an application filed by the respondents for appointment of Commissioner came to be allowed. 3. Mr. Rohit Bras De Sa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the appointment of the Commissioner would amount of calling for evidence at the instance of the Court. The learned counsel further pointed out that it is the contention of the respondents that the petitioners have encroached into the property purchased by the respondents pursuant to the three sale deeds dated 21.05.1984, 30.07.1984 and 08.06.1987 by which the respondents have purchased three contiguous plots of the property surveyed under No.11/5 of the Village Batim. The lear...
Nirav Deepak Modi Vs. Najoo Bhiwandiwala and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Chamber Summons No.614 of 2014 is taken out by the Plaintiff for impleadment of the legal heirs of deceased Defendant No.1. The companion Chamber Summons, Chamber (Lodging) No.1056/2014, is taken out by Defendant Nos.3 and 4 for leave to continue with the proceedings in the suit in the capacity of legal representatives of Defendant No.1 under the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 and / or Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. It is a case of the Plaintiff that on the date of filing of Chamber Summons No.614/2014, the Plaintiff was not fully aware of the legal heirs of Defendant No.1. Accordingly, in prayer clause (a) of the Chamber Summons, the Plaintiff has sought disclosure of names and addresses of legal heirs of Defendant No.1 from Defendant Nos.2 to 4. At the hearing of the Chamber Summons, the particulars of the legal heirs of Defendant No.1 have been furnished by the other Defendants to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, a draft amendment is proposed b...
Manoj Mahadev Gawade and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2014
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The Appellants / original accused Nos.1 to 4 along with two other accused persons viz. original accused Nos.5 and 6 i.e. Mangal Mahadev Gavade and Suresh Dattu Gavade were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 146, 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 201 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code by the District Judge -3 and Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No.215 of 2006. The Appellants / original accused Nos.1 to 4 are convicted by the District Judge -3 and Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli by its impugned judgment and order dated 11th April 2011 in Sessions Case No.215 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. The Appellants i.e. original accused Nos.1 to 4 have been further convicted under Section 120(B) of the Indian...
Anil and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary to Tribal ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-27-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard the petition by consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 2. This petition is filed for orders or direction against respondent No.2/Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribal Claims on the ground that the petitioners are adversely affected because of caste validity certificates granted in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 6 by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners disputed the status of respondent Nos.4 to 6 as belonging to Scheduled Tribe on the ground that Annexures in the petition particularly copy of registered sale deed annexed as Annexure-I did not indicate that sellers were belonging to Scheduled Tribe. The petitioners sought to rely upon the number of documents to substantiate the contention that by suppression of true facts caste validity certificates were obtained from the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribal Claims. 4. It is urged that th...
Rolta India Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2014
1. The petitioner has challenged the award of the learned sole Arbitrator dated 8th December, 2010 in this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act). The Award has not granted specific performance of the agreement between the parties. It grants various damages. The Award has also granted a part of the compensation charges payable to the respondent. The Award has made provision for the grant of part costs of the arbitration by the respondent to the claimant. 2. The parties entered into an MOU with regard to the grant of certain premises to the petitioner herein upon certain conditions on 3rd March, 1999. The respondent has thereafter issued a letter of allotment to the petitioner on 13th April, 1999 which has been refuted by the petitioner. The petitioner claimed specific performance of the MOU which was stated to be the only agreement between the parties relied upon by them in the correspondence after the agreement as also after the allotme...
Ultratech Cement Limited and Others Vs. Dalmia Cement Bharat Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2014
1. The Defendant has filed the present Notice of Motion asserting that the Plaint is liable to be rejected as barred by law under Order VII Rule 11 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code). 2. It is submitted on behalf of the Defendant that the present Suit is for infringement and passing off. Leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent has not been granted till date. Hence, in law, there is presently no action for passing off. The action before this Court is for infringement alone. It is submitted that jurisdiction for the action for infringement has not been invoked with reference to the cause of action. In fact, it is an admitted position that no part of the cause of action (infringement or passing off) has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. The Plaintiffs have sought to sustain jurisdiction, in so far as the plea of infringement is concerned, solely by relying upon Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 (the Act). If this requirement is not met, the action must ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »