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.
Zenobia Ghadially Vs. Mehrouz Ghadially
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2014
Aided By The Following Delegates1. Mr. Adi Nariman Mogrelia (Foreman)2. Mrs. Mithoo Sali Wadia3. Mr. Sam Darabshah Patel4. Dr. Jehangir Firojsha Deboo5. Ms. Goolu KaraniG.S. Patel, J. 1. This Parsi Matrimonial Suit is filed by the wife seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 32(dd) of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 (PMDA). 2. I have been aided by the delegates named above at the trial and the hearing of this suit. Their decision on facts is unanimous. Under Sections 19 and 46 the PMDA, the delegates are the sole judges of facts. Given their unanimous decision, it would not have been ordinarily necessary to set out the facts at any great length. I have done so for three reasons. The first is because there are very many issues framed, some of which lie within the remit of the delegates and others not, especially the question of alimony and residence; yet all are inter-dependent. The second is that although the delegates view is final and not appealable, there app...
Dipee Mahendrasing Dogra Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2014
A.R. Joshi, J. 1. Heard rival submissions on this Criminal Appeal preferred by the sole woman accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 18.12.2012 passed in Sessions Case No.513 of 2009. The present appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer RI for one month. 2. The case of the prosecution is narrated as under: The first informant (PW-2) one Robin Masih was working as a peon in the nursing department at Military Hospital at Pune. Earlier his aged mother was residing at Punjab at his native place. His another brother by name Wilson Masiha (PW-3) was also working as a Peon in the Military Hospital at Udaypur, State Rajasthan. During the year 2007, said first informant Robin Masih (PW-2) had been to Lucknow to attend some departmental examination. While on his return journey, he met with the present accused and her...
State of Goa, Through Police Inspector, (Vasco Police Station) Vs. Sam ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-26-2014
U.V. Bakre, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Menezes, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28/06/2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- I (Trial Judge, for short) in Sessions Case No. 10/2010/I. 3. Initially, charge sheet No.09/2009 was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under section 307 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short). The allegation was that the accused, on 01/12/2009 at 22.00 hours at House no. 202, near Pai Hospital, at Vaddem, Vasco, after latching his bed room from inside, assaulted his wife, Rupa alias Samiksha Shetye, by stabbing her in her stomach by means of a knife and caused grievous injuries to her and attempted to commit her murder. Charge was framed by the Trial Judge for the said offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short) to which the accused pleaded not guil...
Ram Avatar Meena Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the learned APP for first, second and fourth Respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the third Respondent. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has taken an exception to the order dated 22nd August, 2013 passed by the second Respondent in exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short "the COFEPOSA"). By the said order, the second Respondent directed that one Shri Muralilal Meena be preventively detained under the COFEPOSA. The order was passed with a view to prevent the Petitioner in future from abetting in smuggling of goods. The Petitioner is the father-in-law of the detenu. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has pressed into service various grounds of challenge pleaded in the Petition. The first ground pressed into servi...
Subhash Shirodkar and Others Vs. State of Goa Through Public Prosecuto ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-26-2014
U.V. Bakre, J. 1. Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 2. This petition, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, has been filed for quashing of F.I.R. registered on 10/07/2013 by the Officer in charge of Ponda Police Station being F.I.R. No. 169/2013; the Charge Sheet No. 253/2013 dated 30/12/2013 and the proceedings filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Ponda against the petitioners for offences under Section 5 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (the Act, for short) read with Rules 5 and 6 of Bio-Medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998 (the Bio-Medical Waste Rules, for short) and Sections 199, 269, 297, 336, 447 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short). 3. The said Charge Sheet, which has culminated into Criminal Case No. 1/S/IPC/2014/C, has been filed altogether against 11 accused persons. The petitioners are accused nos. 4 to 9 an...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Vijay Namdeorao Khawashi
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-26-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This is a State appeal against acquittal of the respondent in Regular Criminal Case No.36 of 1998 recorded by the judgment delivered on 11/5/2001 by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karanja (Gh.), district Wardha. 2. Brief facts giving rise to file this appeal are stated as under.: The respondent was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'the PFA Act') on the basis of the complaint filed by Food Inspector Shri D.K. Sonvane. It was the case of the prosecution that when the Food Inspector inspected the shop of the respondent, he found one food article 'Saunf' (fennel) stocked in open tin container for sale. He, therefore, purchased 600 gms. of the said article and by following the procedure, he kept the said article in a packet, labelled and sealed it. Spot panchanama was also drawn out in presence of the panch witnesses. The sample of fennel was sent to P...
Rajaram Estates and Another Vs. Collector and District Magistrate, Sou ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-26-2014
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The above appeal challenges the judgment dated 10/08/2006, whereby the reference under Section 18 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 came to be rejected. 2. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 10.08.2006 passed in Land Acquisition Case no.35 of 2002, whereby a reference under Section 18 of the Works of Defence Act 1903, came to be rejected. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, by Notification dated 16.03.1992, issued a notice under Section 3 of the Works of Defence Act 1903, imposing restrictions specified in Clause (b) of Section 7 of the said Act upon the use and enjoyment of the land situated in the Village of Chicalim, Mormugao Taluka, for creation of a safety zone around Naval Armament Depot, Goa, being land in the vicinity of the Armament Deport in Goa, amongst which was the land surveyed under No.126/1 admeasuring 2...
Jagannath Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Educati ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-26-2014
1. Heard the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order of his retirement dt.23.2.1999 to the extent of the petitioner with further directions to the respondents to continue the petitioner till 1.4.2001 and provide him the benefit of age of 60 years. 3. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: The petitioner was appointed in Zilla Parishad High School, Buldana in the pay scale of Rs.60120/- p.m. October, 1962. According to the petitioner, the Zilla Parishads were established in the State of Maharashtra w.e.f. 1.5.1962 and prior to that date, Janpat Sabha was established under the Madhya Pradesh State. The age of retirement in accordance with Madhya Pradesh Secondary Act, 1951 was 60 years for teachers. It is submitted that no rules and regulations were framed in respect of Schools of Zilla Parishads in the State of Maharashtra and the services of teachers were simply governed under ...
Renuka Vijaykumar Chourasiya and Another Vs. Satyawati and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-26-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. By order dated 20-11-2013, notice for final disposal of the writ petition was issued considering the issue involved therein. Hence, Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 20-6-2013 passed by the trial Court below Exhibit-12 rejecting in part the application moved by the plaintiffs for seeking amendment to the plaint. By said order, part of the amendment as sought with regard to property bearing Gat No.41 was allowed, while amendment in relation to Gat No.184 was disallowed. 3. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the alleged joint family property. According to the plaintiffs, on getting knowledge of the aforesaid properties, the application for amendment was immediately moved. However, by the impugned order, the amendment with regard to one of the properties came to be allowed and that with regard to the other p...
M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-2014
G.S. Kulkarni, J. Both these appeals under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act 1944 arise out of the common orders dated 6.1.2012 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), West Zonal Bench at Mumbai ( for brevity the Tribunal) in Appeal nos.ST/49/2007 and ST/145/2009. The Appellnt has raised the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct and justified in holding that the Appellant was not entitled to credit of duty paid on tower parts, green shelter, printers and office chairs ? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct and justified in holding that the Appellant was not entitled to credit of duty paid on tower parts, green shelter on the ground that tower/green shelter is immovable property and hence, do not qualify as capital goods or inputs as defined under the Cenvat Credit Rules,2004 ? 3. Whether in the facts and cir...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »