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.
Sitaram Nana Sarvade and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2014
Oral Judgment: [A.R. Joshi, J.] 1. Heard the rival contentions on this appeal preferred by both the appellants challenging the judgment and order of conviction in Sessions Case No. 34 of 2010. The judgment and order of conviction was passed on 30.5.2012 by 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur thereby convicting both the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment of three months each was imposed. Both the appellants/accused were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 504 and 506 r/w Section34 of IPC. State Government did not file any appeal challenging the acquittal for the said offences. Both the appellants/accused have challenged their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Presently, both the appellants are on bail grant...
Alkabai Yelanna Vaidu and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2014
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellants - original accused Nos.1 and 2 against the judgment and order dated 27.6.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.609 of 2011. By the said judgment and order, the learned Session Judge convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for five months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (a) Deceased Sunita was the daughter of PW 8 Lata. Sunita was married to appellant No.2 in the year 2006. Appellant No.1 is the mother of appellant No.2. After her marriage, Sunita was residing at Vaiduwadi along with the appellants. The house of her mother Lata was situated nearby. Lata was residing along with her husband, son PW 2 Sandeep, his wife and their two children. It is the prosecution case t...
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2014
P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Arshad Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh More, learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Revision Application No.118 of 2013. The petitioner had filed the said revision application before the Sessions Court impugning the order passed by the learned Magistrate of Pune, Court Room No.4, on a complaint case No.450996 of 2007 filed by respondent No.2, the Inspector of Metrology. The respondent No.2 in the said complaint had alleged that the petitioner had violated Rule 6(1A) of the Standards of Weight and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 and has thereby committed offence punishable u/s 51(1) of Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985. The amendment in question can be reproduced as under: "R.6(1A) Every package shall bear the name, address, telephone number, E-mail address, if available, of the person who can be or the...
Reena Vivek Sinha Vs. Preetimala Sinha and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2014
Oral Order: [A.R. Joshi, J.] 1. Heard the rival arguments at length on this Family Court Appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 28.5.2013 passed by the Judge, Family Court No. 7, Bandra, Mumbai. The impugned Judgment and Order was passed in Petition No. D-75 of 2012 preferred by the present respondent for declaration under Sections 6 and 7 of Guardian and Wards Act. The present appellant was the respondent in the said petition. 2. At the threshold it is to be mentioned that the impugned judgment and order was passed exparte under the premise that the present appellant, respondent therein, though served with summons, did not put her appearance. Factually without there being any representation from the present appellant, respondent therein, the impugned judgment and order was passed granting custody of the minor child with the petitioner therein i.e present respondent. 3. After considering the rival arguments, certain factual position is required to be mentioned in order to have...
Venkat Gangadhar Bilapatte and Another Vs. Tulsabai Baburao Dahiphale ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-19-2014
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Though Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were duly served, no one appeared on their behalf when the matter was called out. Office note shows that, Appeal stands dismissed against Respondent No.5 Prabhakar Sude vide Registrar's order dated 7th September, 2004. 2. This First Appeal is preferred by original Resp.Nos. 1 and 2 driver and owner of the Tractor and Trolley challenging the Judgment and Award dated 14th October, 1997 passed by the Member, M.A.C.T., Latur in M.A.C.P. No. 266 Of 1994 holding that original Respondent Nos. 3 and 6 i.e. the New India Assurance Company and the United India Insurance Company Ltd. are entitled to reimbursement of the Interim compensation amount paid by it to the original claimants from the Appellants. 3. In the present proceedings, the accident took place on 26th April, 1994 in which one Pandit Bapurao Dahiphale, age 20 years, occupation labourer and agriculturist died. Hence, his legal heirs filed M.A....
Dr. Kumudini Mayur Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-2014
P.C. 1. Heard. Admit. 2. By consent of the parties, taken up forthwith for final hearing. 3. The Petitioner was the Complainant before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum in Criminal Case No.26/SW/2011. The Respondent Nos.2 to 5 were the accused, who were facing trial for the offences punishable under sections 419, 465, 467, 471 of the IPC, read with section 34 of the IPC as also under section 120(B) of the IPC. 4. The order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, issuing process against the Respondent Nos.2 to 5, was challenged before the Sessions Court by the Respondent Nos.2 to 5. The learned Sessions Court allowed the Revision Application and directed that the order dated 9 September, 2011, passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Girgaum, should be set aside. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner has moved this court by way of filing the present Writ Petition. 6. Learned Advocate, Mr. Bh...
Venkat Gangadhar Bilapatte and Another Vs. Tulsabai Baburao Dahiphale ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-2014
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Though Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were duly served, no one appeared on their behalf when the matter was called out. Office note shows that, Appeal stands dismissed against Respondent No.5 Prabhakar Sude vide Registrar's order dated 7th September, 2004. 2. This First Appeal is preferred by original Resp.Nos. 1 and 2 driver and owner of the Tractor and Trolley challenging the Judgment and Award dated 14th October, 1997 passed by the Member, M.A.C.T., Latur in M.A.C.P. No. 266 Of 1994 holding that original Respondent Nos. 3 and 6 i.e. the New India Assurance Company and the United India Insurance Company Ltd. are entitled to reimbursement of the Interim compensation amount paid by it to the original claimants from the Appellants. 3. In the present proceedings, the accident took place on 26th April, 1994 in which one Pandit Bapurao Dahiphale, age 20 years, occupation labourer and agriculturist died. Hence, his legal heirs filed M.A....
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Devnath M. Yadav and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-14-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellant, National Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 11th March, 2008, passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Goa, Panaji in Claim Petition No. 101/2005, has approached this Court by the aforesaid first appeal. By the impugned judgment and award, Respondent No.1's claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was partly allowed and the respondents No.2, 3 and the appellant, jointly and severally directed to pay to the respondent No.1, an amount of Rs.1,59,150/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the sum of Rs.1,17,150/- from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment of entire claim. 2. Learned Presiding Officer of the MACT, framed as many as 5 issues, which read thus: 1. Whether the claimant proves that on 17.11.2004 at 17.00 hours at Porvorim, the respondent no.1 drove the Maruti van bearing No.GA-01/T-4678 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed aga...
Sharad Sonu Wani Adult, Indian Inhabitant Vs. K.B. @ Anna Hajare Adult ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-14-2014
1. This Contempt Petition is filed with the following prayers :- (a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to initiate proceedings in contempt against Respondent No.1 for having issued press statements, more particularly referred to in the petition and haul Respondent No.1 for having committed criminal contempt as defined in the Contempt of Court Act. (b) Such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require be granted to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner claims to be a social worker having active participation in several social organizations which work for upholding common citizen's right. It appears that, at the time of filing the contempt petition, the petitioner was a member of the Legislative Council. It is stated in the Petition that, the respondent no.1 claims to be a social worker and is resident of village Ralegan, Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar. He claims to be acting against corruption in the society and has formed an organization named as Brashta...
Badrinarayan Shankar Bhandari and Others Vs. Ompraskash Shankar Bhanda ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2014
Mohit S. Shah, CJ. 1. This Full Bench has been constituted on the reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court (R.G. Ketkar, J.). This reference became necessary as the learned Judge doubted correctness of the decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Vaishali S. Ganorkar and Others v/s. Satish Keshavrao Ganorkar and Others (2012(5)-Bom.C.R.-210).The following questions of law have been referred for our opinion:- (a) Whether Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act, 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (b) Whether Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act,2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (c) Whether Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act,2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (d) Whether Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act,2005 applies only to daughters born a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »