Mumbai Court February 2015 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.
Manubhai Vadilal Shah Vs. M/s. Noopur Developers and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-2015
Oral Order: 1. This notice has been taken out under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 22 of the CPC. Defendant Nos.4, 5 and 6 have opposed the notice. 2. The plaintiff has obtained the decree in the above summary suit which is sought to be executed. The decree has been obtained from the Court in Thane. The plaintiff has got the decree transferred to this Court for execution under Section 39 of the CPC. Section 39 runs thus: 39. Court by which decree may be executed.- (1) The Court which passed a decree may, on the application of the decree-holder, send it for execution to another Court. (a) if the person against whom the decree is passed actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such other Court, or (b) if such person has not property within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court which passed the decree sufficient to satisfy such decree and has property within the local limits of the ju...
Smita Subhash Sawant Vs. Jagdeeshwari Jagdish Amin and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-2015
1. Rule. With the consent and at the request of the learned counsels for the parties, Rule is disposed of finally. 2. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 24 September 2014 made by the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in Municipal Election Petition No. 129 of 2012 holding that the election petition instituted by the respondent no.1 questioning the petitioner's election as a Councillor of the Bruhan Mumbai Municipal Corporation is within the period of limitation prescribed by Section 33 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (said Act). 3. The election schedule for General Election, 2012 of Councillors under the said Act was published by notification dated 2 February 2012 declaring the date of poll as 16 February 2012. The same notification declared that counting of votes will be undertaken on 17 February 2012 and the list of elected candidates along with total number of valid votes polled by them will be published in the Government Gazette on or before 2...
Shantilal Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through the Food Inspector, Foo ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-09-2015
1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of conviction dated 01/03/2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded in R.C.C. No. 566/1998, thereby the learned Magistrate convicted the applicant for the offence punishable u/s 7 (i) read with 2(ia), (a), 2 (ia) (m) and Section 7 (v) read with Rule 50 punishable u/s 16 (1) (a) (ii) and 16 (1) (a) (I) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules thereunder and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/[ Rupees Five Thousand only], in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months on all counts, together with the Judgment and Order dated 06/08/2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in Criminal Appeal No. 19/2000, by which the learned lower appellate Court dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the Judgment of conviction, the applicant herein prefers the present Criminal Revision Application. 2. Heard Mr. S.S.Bora, the learned counsel for the appl...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramesh Ambadas Joshi and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-09-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the State of Maharashtra, aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna on 28th November, 1996, thereby acquitting the Respondents for the offence punishable under sections 302 and 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In short, the prosecution case is that, deceased Madhavi daughter of PW 3 Madhukar Lambe was married to accused No.1 before three years of her death. Accused made demand of Rs. 3,000/- for purchase of T.V. and suspected her character. In furtherance of common intention, all the accused committed murder of Madhavi and thereafter set her dead body on fire. 3. The prosecution examined Ramrao Kulkarni as PW-1, who is panch to inquest pachanama, Sitaram Lambe was examined as PW-2, grand father of deceased, Madhukar Lambe was examined as PW-3, father of the deceased, Dr. Bhadre was examined as PW-4 and Arun Bharaskar was examined as PW-5. Inquest panchanama is at Exhibit-10, Spot panchan...
Mohd. Rafique Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order passed on 3rd November, 1999, in Sessions Trial No.261/1993 by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur thereby convicting the appellant of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer different sentences. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under: (i) Deceased Mumtaj was the wife of the appellant whose marriage with the appellant was performed on 21st May 1989. After the marriage, deceased Mumtaj started residing with her husband at Somwari Quarter, Nagpur. Initially, she was treated well by the appellant and after few days of marriage her ill-treatment at the hands of her husband began. It is alleged that the appellant used to ask deceased Mumtaj to bring an amount of Rs.20,000/- and also a gold ring from her father and on expressing her inability to meet the illegal demand, the appellant used to subject deceased Mumtaj to beating. About ...
Shailesh Kanada and Another Vs. Intelligence Officer, Air Intelligence ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-2015
Oral Order: 1. These two applications can be conveniently disposed of by this common order as the applicants in both these applications are accused in one and the same case i.e. NDPS Special Case No.51/13 pending before the Special Court for Narcotics cases at Mumbai, and the contentions raised are also the same. 2. The applicant - Shailesh Kanada (APL 56/14) is the accused No.3 while the applicant Kailash Rajput (APL 221/14) is the accused No.2 in the said case. By these applications, invoking the inherent powers of this Court, the applicants pray that their prosecution vide the said case be quashed. In the alternative, the applicants pray that the order of cognizance as passed by the learned Judge of the Special Court be quashed and set aside, and that, by quashing and setting aside the order of the dismissal of their application for discharge as done by the learned Judge of the Special Court, the applicants be discharged from the said case. 3. The facts of the case, that it would b...
Rashmikant Kundalia and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-2015
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. Rule. Respondents through their respective counsel waive service. By consent of parties, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 234E seeks to levy a fee of Rs.200/- per day (subject to certain other conditions as set out therein) inter alia on a person who deducts Tax at Source (TDS) and then fails to deliver or cause to be delivered the TDS return/statements to the authorities within the prescribed period. Consequently, the Petitioners have also sought a declaration that the notices issued to Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 under section 200A of the Act are null, void and bad-in-law being ultra vires the Constitution of India. 3. It is stated in the Petition that Petitioner No.1 is a practicing Chartered Accountant who has received several notices under section 200A of t...
Vijay Shantaram Mandavkar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2015
Mohit S. Shah, CJ. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the notices/orders of eviction issued by Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) in respect of a redevelopment project and also permissions granted by other statutory authorities from time to time. Under the said project, the petitioners are offered alternative permanent accommodation on the same land, but the petitioners have nonetheless challenged the notices and orders of eviction. 2. The facts leading to filing of this petition, broadly stated, are as under: (a) The subject matter of controversy in the present petition is a project for redevelopment of the following properties in Parel-Sewree Division popularly known as Dr. Vier's Wadi / Kale Wadi at G.D. Ambedkar Marg, Mumbai, under Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 (DCR):Sr.Nos.Description of PropertyArea in sq.mtrs.1CS No.189 (Part)9,915 sqm.2CS No.197 (Part)6,876 sqm. ...
Barbara Gomes Vs. Pratap Mardolkar and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-06-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri Y. V. Nadkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. None for the respondents. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 16/08/2006, on the following substantial questions of law: a) Whether the first Appellate Court did not correctly construe the documents produced by the plaintiff, more particularly the certificates of usurpation issued by the Communidade, and other documents such as Consent Decree ? (b) Whether the first appellate Court had correctly interpreted the provisions of Code of Communidades regarding usurpation ? (c) Whether the first Appellate Court did not correctly interpret the documents produced by the plaintiff more particularly the certificates issued by the Communidade as also other documents which if correctly interpreted would have led to an opposite conclusion? 3. Shri Y. V. Nadkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has strenuously contended that the property belonging to the appellant is correspo...
Gaurav K. Desai Residing at Sion Kamgar CHS Ltd. and Others Vs. The St ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. Petitioners, who were ex-office bearers of respondent no.6-society called Sion Kamgar Co-operative Housing Society (The Society) situated at Bombay, have challenged the common order passed by the respondent no.2-Divisional Joint Registrar, Mumbai dated 28.11.2014 thereby partly confirmed order dated 27.5.2014 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, F/N Ward, Mumbai. 3. Operative part of order dated 27.5.2014: HINDI Operative part of order dated 28.11.2014: ORDER 1. The Revision Application No.193 of 2014 is dismissed. 2. The Revision Application No.318/2014 is partially allowed. 3. The impugned order dated 27/05/2014 passed by the Respondent Assistant Registrar, C.S., F/N Ward, Mumbai u/s 75(5) of the M.C.S.Act 1960 is hereby partially confirmed to the extent of disqualification of Mr. Gaurav S. Desai from the post of member of managing committee for a period of 05 years and the part...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »