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.
Shaikh Mujeeb and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-21-2014
1. Before the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No.86 of 2002 following were the 7 original accused: 1) Shaikh Mujeeb s/o Shaikh Maheboob 2) Hanuman @ Hanmant s/o Kashinath Ugale, 3) Sadashiv Kashinath Ugale, 4) Ramesh s/o Sugand Kamble, 5) Shivaji s/o Madhavrao Suryavanshi, 6) Promod @ Ramatya Madhavrao Suryatale, 7) Mahesh Ramkishan Sharma. Out of the above accused, accused No.6 Promod died during pendency of the trial. Rest of the accused came to be convicted under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.) and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.1000/- each. In default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Against the Judgment of conviction and sentence, present Criminal Appeal No.459 of 2004 was filed by original accused Nos. 1 to 3. Appellant No.2 Hanuman died pending this Appeal and the matter abated regarding accused No.2 Hanuman. Original accused Nos.4 and 5 Ramesh Sugand Kamble and ...
Director of Income-tax (Exemptions), Mumbai Vs. Ramhari Foundation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2014
1. On 15th March, 2010, the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) passed an order against the respondent-assessee. The respondent-assessee, therefore, approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, by filing Income Tax Appeal No.3061/Mum/2010. By an order dated 12th August, 2011 this appeal was allowed and the order of the Director was set aside. 2. The revenue has filed this appeal and in which Mr. Pinto submits that the Tribunal's order raises substantial question of law. The Tribunal failed to note that the Director found that two trusts were amalgamated into the single trust by order passed in the year 2001 by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. Later on, in the garb of seeking renewal of the exemption under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 what the assessee attempted to do was to apply the original certificate to a altogether new trust namely Ramhari Foundation. Therefore, the Director was justified in probing and scrutinizing so also verifying the records. In tha...
George Cyriac Maruthukunnel Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This Criminal Revision Application is filed against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, partly allowing the Appeal of the Applicant. 2. The Applicant was convicted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 35th Court, C.S.T., Mumbai for the offence punishable under sections 353 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the Applicant of the offence punishable under section 504 of the IPC and maintained his conviction for the offence punishable under section 353 of the IPC. 4. The allegations against the Applicant in brief, before the learned trial Magistrate's Court, were that the Applicant had assaulted and / or used criminal force against R.P.F. Police Constable, while he was discharging his duties, as R.P.F. Constable. The incident in question had occurred in the main reservation hall. 5. The PW-1, who is the Complainant and victim of the offence, has stated in his evidence that he was on duty i...
Rajmal Jasraj Shaund through its Partners Vs. Pune Municipal Corporati ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. All these Criminal Revision Applications are being decided by this common judgment and order, as all the Applicants have been convicted by the trial court and the appellate court for the offence punishable under section 398 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (for short, hereinafter referred as 'the BPMC Act') for the same reasons. 2. The Applicants, allegedly, evaded octroi and had committed offence punishable under section 398 of the BPMC Act. Separate Criminal Complaints were filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (P.M.C.) Pune, by an officer, authorized by the Corporation against the Applicants. The Applicants had allegedly purchased gold and it was brought within the jurisdiction of Pune Municipal Corporation, without paying requisite octroi. 3. All the complaints have been decided under section 429 of BPMC Act in the absence of the Applicants. Section 429 of the BPMC Act reads as under: "S.429. - Power of Magistrate to hear ...
Gaurang Vs. Vinay A. Choksi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2014
1) This petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act) challenges the arbitral award dated 10th August, 2008 made by Sub-Committee of Producers Grievances Cell and In-House Settlement (for short the Committee) of Indian Motion Picture Producers Association (IMPPA). The challenge to the award is on three grounds. Firstly that, there is no arbitration agreement between the petitioner and the respondent. Therefore, the learned arbitrator had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties. Secondly that, the notice of the arbitral proceedings had not been served upon the petitioner. And thirdly that the award deals with the dispute which is beyond the statement of claim. The respondent contests the petition contending that the same is barred by the law of limitation and also on merits. 2) Briefly stated the facts of the dispute decided by the arbitral award are as follows:- One Vinod Doshi (since dec...
Balu Gangaram More and Others Vs. Bhivchandra Shankar More and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2014
1. Pursuant to the order dated 26th March, 2014 the petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. Heard the Counsel. 2. The short question arising for consideration in this appeal is, whether the proceedings taken out to set aside the ex-parte decree constitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act so as to extend the period of limitation of an appeal against the ex-parte decree. 3. The brief facts required to be stated for deciding the question are as follows :- The petitioners, the original plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.35 of 2007 against the respondents for partition and separate possession of the suit property. It was decreed ex-parte on 4th July, 2008. A month thereafter, i.e. on 5th August, 2008 the respondents obtained its certified copy. On 12th August, 2008 they filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code ("CPC" for short) for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The trial Court by its detail...
P. Gowri, Prop. of Sabareesh Road Lines Vs. Automark Industries (India ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-20-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard finally with consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This criminal application is filed by the applicant/accused challenging jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yavatmal in entertaining complaint filed by the respondent/ complainant M/s. Automark Industries (India) Ltd. under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. Shri Agnihotri, learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant, states that the proceedings before trial Court are almost complete. It is submitted by learned Counsel appearing for both the sides that the matter is now fixed for arguments before trial Court. The learned Counsel for both the sides have not disputed the recent position on the aspect of jurisdiction pertaining to cases filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as laid down by the Apex Court in its judgment in Criminal Appeal No.2287/2009 (Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra and another) and in para 20 thereof, it is directed...
Kalyan Santram Kawade and Others Vs. Khanderao alias Khandu Ganpati Ka ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The petitioners are challenging an interlocutory order dated 26/02/2014 below Exh.18, passed by the Joint Civil Judge, J.D. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad. 3. Contention of the petitioners is that the respondents have preferred RCS No.268/2013 before the Trial Court, seeking a declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction in respect of land Survey No.29/A admeasuring 2 Hectre 2 R, Survey No.30/A admeasuring 41R and Survey No.29/E to the extent of share admeasuring 44R. These claims alongwith other connected claims are set out in the claim petition of the respondents especially from paragraph Nos. 1 to 7. The petitioners have filed their reply / written statement to the plaint. An application for temporary injunction and temporary relief is admittedly not pending on the file of the Trial Court. 4. The respondents moved an application below Exh.18 seeking appoin...
JSW Steel Ltd. Vs. AI Ghuriar Iron and Steel LLC
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2014
1. The petitioner has challenged the money award of the Arbitral Tribunal dated 28th May, 2013 upon a written contract between the parties. The petitioner was the supplier of certain specified goods being Prime Hot Rolls Steel Coils. The respondent paid the price of goods and was to receive the same under two bills of lading dated 8th May, 2008 shipped from Mumbai to Dubai. It has been the petitioner's case that the goods were to be supplied per description and specification as regards the Weight, the Outer Diameter (OD) and the Inner Diameter (ID) of the coils. This was an important part of the contract. The respondent as the claimant in the arbitration claimed that unless the goods were of the correct specification, they could not be loaded on the mandle of the respondent and the mandle would have been damaged if the coils were not of the required specification. 2. When the goods were shipped the petitioner sent the Mills Test Certificate to the respondent. This was received by the r...
E. Gomathi Vs. Automark Industries (India) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-20-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard finally with consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This criminal application is filed by the applicant/accused no.1, who is tried vide Summary Criminal Case No.832/2009 under the provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yavatmal. Before the said Court, the accused had raised the ground of territorial jurisdiction alleging that institution of complaint was wrongly done in the Court at Yavatmal with the sole purpose to harass the applicant, who is a female and would require to travel thousand of kilometres from Chennai to Yavatmal. 3. Ad interim relief was granted in favour of the applicant/accused by this Court. During the course of argument, learned Counsel for both the sides have submitted that in view of the recent judgment of the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.2287/2009 (Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra and another), complaint pending before the trial Court needs to proceed in view o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »