Mumbai Court September 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.
The State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Santosh Maruti Mane and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-2014
V.M. Kanade, J. 1. Confirmation Case No.2 of 2013 has been placed before us for confirmation of the sentence of death awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge Pune in Sessions Case No. 275 of 2012 to the Accused Santosh Maruti Mane. Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2014 has been filed by the Appellant/Accused, challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 275 of 2012 whereby he was pleased to convict the accused for the offences punishable under sections 381, 302, 307, 324, 427 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence punishable under section 3(2) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. (II) Preliminary observation: 2. The Accused Santosh Maruti Mane was working as a driver in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation since 08/08/1999 and, at the relevant time, he was working with Swargate S.T. Depot, Pune. 3. The Accused on 25/01/2012 had requested Shashikant Damkale (P.W.23) who was Assistant Traffic Controller of Sw...
Peter Devid Xavier Pinto Vs. Dinesh M. Ranawat and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-2014
Oral Order: 1. Rule. 2. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Respondents waive service. 4. By consent, heard finally. 5. The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.1117 of 2009, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Pune. The case is in respect of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act'), and arises on a complaint filed by the respondent No.1 (hereinafater referred to as 'the complainant', for the sake of clarity) herein. The petitioner had made an application before the learned Magistrate contending that the learned Magistrate had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and try the alleged offence, and praying that the complaint be returned to the complainant for presenting it before proper Court. However, on the ground that 'the collecting Bank was situated within the area where the learned Magistrate exercised his jurisdiction', the learned Magistrate did not ...
Nazira Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-09-2014
Shinde, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant / accused being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad on 9th February, 2001 in Sessions Case No.305 of 1996. The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C., and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The prosecution case, in a nutshell is, as under: The deceased Samina, sister of (P.W.1) Rafiqkhan and daughter of Ameenabee (P.W.2) r/o. Village Ghatnandra, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad was married to Ashpaq Khan of village Ambhai, Tahsil Sillod in the year 1994. The husband of victim Samina Ashfaqkhan was residing with his parents, whereas his four other brothers namely Anwarkhan, Iqbal Khan and Ishaq Khan were residing in same locality but separately. Brother Ishaqkhan had shifted to Bombay, whereas brothers Anwarkhan and Iqbalkhan were residin...
Sadashiv Yashwant Tanpure Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-2014
P.C. 1. The Petitioner herein has assailed the order passed by the Special Judge for C.B.I. Greater Mumbai dated 9/10/2013 thereby rejecting his application seeking discharge in C.B.I. Special Case No.67 of 2009. 2. The facts of the case are as follows : The Petitioner herein was working as a A.P.I. and was posted at Antop Hill Police Station, Mumbai in 2002. On 14th November, 2002 at about 7.50 p.m. one person namely Gokul Manikram Ankad came to the police station and claimed to be the driver of Lorry No.MWU 2690. He reported to the API that on 14th November, 2002 at about 6 p.m. while he was passing from front of I-Max theatre at M.M.R.D. Road, driver of the truck which was bearing No.KA-01-A-3457 had applied urgent brakes and therefore, he could not control his vehicle and hence, there was damage to the vehicle due to which glasses on the front side of the vehicle and the radiator had got damaged. Nobody was hurt. He gave his driving licence number, tax paid receipt, copy of the ins...
Meera Unnikrishnan and Another Vs. Aashutosh Dyeing Mills Pvt. Ltd. an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-2014
1. This appeal filed under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the order dated 7th October, 2011 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior division, Kalyan allowing the application filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein partly, filed under order 21 rule 58 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under:- 2. On or about 29th July 1997 Jankalyan Sahakari Bank Limited sanctioned loan in the sum of Rs.73.86 lacs to M/s.Suntex Hosiery Private Limited and Mr.Narottam Purohit against collateral security i.e. a factory premises known as plot No.F-12, situated at MIDC Industrial Estate, Badlapur, District Thane consisting of plot, plant and machinery etc. (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) M/s.Suntex Hosiery Private Limited and Mr.Narottam Purohit are hereinafter referred to as the judgment debtors. On 8th January 1999 the said bank issued a recall notice to the judgment debtor ...
K.K. Suresh Vs. Mansingaram Jivaram Choudhary and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-2014
P.C. 1. Heard. 2. Admitted and taken up for hearing forthwith by consent. 3. The applicant is the sole accused in Complaint Case No.485/SS/2010 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court at Girgaum. The said complaint is in respect of an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the N.I.Act'). The respondent no.1 herein is the complainant in the said case. While the trial was in progress, the applicant made an application before the Magistrate titled as "Humble Application of the applicant for challenging jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court". The applicant contended that on the basis of the evidence that was adduced before the Magistrate during the trial, it was clear that the learned Magistrate had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and try the offence in question. The applicant, therefore, prayed that the order issuing process and the complaint itself be quashed. 4. This application was rejected by the learned M...
The Association of Management of Unaided Engineering Colleges (Mah.) a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-2014
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. As common issues are involved in these Writ Petitions, so also the challenge to Clause-14 of the Government Resolution (GR)Nos. 177 and 188, (74/13-81/13) dated 9.5.2013, 15 May 2013, therefore, this common judgment. Impugned Clause No.14 (translation) is as under:- 14. The Institutes which are recognized by this Government Resolution who has applied directly to All India Council of Technical Education instead of submitting proposal through State Government as well as those institutes which are negatively recommended by the State Government such institutes will not be eligible for fee reimbursement scheme as implemented by State Government for approved courses. Director, Directorate of Technical Education, State of Maharashtra, Mumbai, is directed to act in accordance with this condition. 3. Technical Education and related aspects are controlled and governed by the All India Council for Technic...
State of Maharashtra, through Deputy Superintendent of Police Vs. Devi ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This is an appeal filed by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal of the respondent recorded by the learned Special Judge, Wardha, on 18.3.2002 in Special Case No. 6 of 1997. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are as under: (a) In April 1995, the respondent was Sub Divisional Officer and Rent Controller. He was seized of the matter that was filed against the complainant by Vishal Kumar. In this case, one amendment application was pending for adjudication and in order to decide the application in favour of the complainant, as alleged by the complainant, the respondent initially demanded from the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- which was reduced to Rs.7,000/-. The complainant agreed to pay the said amount as illegal gratification and payments of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- were made as alleged by the complainant on 7.12.1994 and 1.4.1995. These amounts were paid at about 5-45 a.m. when the respondent was on his usual morning walk. The remaining amoun...
Megha Uttam Gauns alias Kundaikar and Others Vs. Rohidas K. Borges and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-05-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by widow and two sons of the deceased Uttam Gauns alias Kundaikar, who died due to accident on 1st April, 2005. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 25th March, 2005 at about 20.10 hours near Sateri Temple. The deceased was riding a TVS Scooty, whilst other vehicle i.e. a motor cycle Suzuki Max-100 was being driven by respondent No.2 Mahesh. 2. Claiming that said motor cycle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident, claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act came to be filed. 3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panaji decided the said Claim Petition No.76/2005 on 28/04/2009. It answered issue No.2 pertaining to accidental death of Uttam, in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the claimants/appellants. Issue No.3 has been answered in the negative, but then in the process the Tribunal has worked out the total compensation, if payable on the...
Penguin Maritime Ltd. Vs. Lee and Muirhead Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2014
1. The plaintiff is a company incorported in Liberia owning the vessel m.v.LISSOM. The defendant is a firm of agents working at the port of Haldia, Calcutta, West Bengal. The plaintiff entered into a Charterparty with one Inglewood Gestion S.A., Geneva as a Charterer. The Charterer appointed the defendant as its agent in Haldia. Upon the recommendation of the Charter the plaintiff also appointed the defendant his agent in respect of the cargo to be loaded on the plaintiff's vessel at Haldia. The vessel arrived at Haldia on 12th September, 1996. The plaintiff issued the formal notice of readiness. The defendant knew about the arrival. The defendant had acted on behalf of the plaintiff in respect of the vessel since 11th September, 1996. The defendant had to undertake the formalities for loading the cargo on board the plaintiff's vessel upon certain terms of the Haldia port authorities. The defendant had to see that the cargo to be loaded was ready for loading when or before the plaintif...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »