Mumbai Court February 2015 Judgments
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Balasaheb Kashinath Shendage
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the State, challenging the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 02.04.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No.172/1995, thereby acquitting the Respondent Accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of the I.P. Code. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: 2. On 4th March, 1995 at about 9.20 hours one Santosh Shantilal lodged the Khabarto the Takali Dhokeshwar Police Outpost, contending therein that, Balasaheb Kashinath Shendage [accused] is the tenant of the complainant. While he was asleep, the accused came from the back door of his house, and told him that come to see what has happened in his rented premises. Thereafter, informant visited the house of the accused and found that, wife of the accused namely Urmila was lying in dead condition due to burning. There was a stove near her. He visited the Police Outpost Takali Dhokeshwar and lodged the khabar. On the basis of said Khaba...
Tag this Judgment!Maya Shrikant Sawant Dessai Vs. The Chief Secretary Government of Goa, ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-25-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. Taken up for final disposal by consent. 2. Calling for record and proceedings is dispensed with in view of the nature of the order impugned. 3. By this appeal, the Appellant challenges the order dated 21 July, 2014 passed by the District Judge, South Goa, Margao, allowing the application filed by the respondents for rejection of the plaint filed by the Appellant. 4. The Appellant has filed a suit contending that she is the one of the registered farmers in the command area of Seraulim Irrigation Project (SIP). It was the case of the Appellant that respondent no.2 had issued an auction notice inviting bids on behalf of the Governor of Goa from the interested parties situated in the command of SIP. The Appellant, pursuant to the auction notice, made an application for participation in the auction. She obtained the terms and conditions of auction of lease. According to the Appellant, when she obtained the terms and conditions she found that the terms and conditions...
Tag this Judgment!Development Corporation of Konkan Limited Vs. Saidhara â DCK Agro ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2015
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short the said Arbitration Act), the petitioner has impugned the arbtiral award dated 2nd March, 2010 thereby allowing some of the claims made by the respondent no.1 and rejecting the counter claims made by the petitioner. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. The petitioner was the original respondent to the claim made by the respondents and was claimant to the counter claim made by the petitioner. The respondents were the original claimants to the statement of claim and were respondents to the counter claim before the learned arbitrator. 3. The petitioner was nominated as the implementing agency for the Oil Palm Demonstration project of the Government of India. The petitioner had taken on lease several pieces of agricultural land from farmers in District Sindhudurg aggregating to about 1035 hectares of land for the purpose of planting nursery...
Tag this Judgment!Maya Shrikant Sawant Dessai Vs. The Chief Secretary Government of Goa, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. Taken up for final disposal by consent. 2. Calling for record and proceedings is dispensed with in view of the nature of the order impugned. 3. By this appeal, the Appellant challenges the order dated 21 July, 2014 passed by the District Judge, South Goa, Margao, allowing the application filed by the respondents for rejection of the plaint filed by the Appellant. 4. The Appellant has filed a suit contending that she is the one of the registered farmers in the command area of Seraulim Irrigation Project (SIP). It was the case of the Appellant that respondent no.2 had issued an auction notice inviting bids on behalf of the Governor of Goa from the interested parties situated in the command of SIP. The Appellant, pursuant to the auction notice, made an application for participation in the auction. She obtained the terms and conditions of auction of lease. According to the Appellant, when she obtained the terms and conditions she found that the terms and conditions...
Tag this Judgment!Vaman Anant Prabhu Gaonkar (since Deceased through his legal represent ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-24-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for the appellants and Ms. Kholkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. This appeal challenges the Judgment and Order dated 06/12/2010 passed by the learned District Judge-I, South Goa, Margao (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 246/1992. The appellants were the applicants and the respondents were the respondents in said Land Acquisition Case. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said case. 3. Vide notification bearing No. 22/132/88-RD, dated 24/11/1988, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L. A. Act, for short) and published in the Official Gazette dated 19/01/1989, land was acquired for the approaches to the Galgibaga bridge on National Highway 17 (re-alignment). This included land admeasuring 420 square metres from survey no. 4/1 of Village Loliem in which there was a structure and 17 coconut trees. The said structure belonged...
Tag this Judgment!Pedro Francisco Pereira (deceased) Represented through Legal heirs and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-24-2015
1. The appellants challenge the Judgment and Order passed by the Additional District Judge (II), South Goa, Margao and the Judgment and Order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco dismissing the appeal and the suit filed by the appellants. 2. The suit was filed by the appellants claiming to be the owners in possession of a property known as Pedachem Orda, which bears a land registration no.13985. According to the appellants, the said property was bounded on the East by the property of Mariano Rosario Pereira, on the West by property of Serafino Rodrigues, on the North by the property of Gustinho Pereira and on the South by the property of Triphonio Godinho. According to the appellants, the property was gifted to Jose Vicente Pereira father of the appellant to Maria Pacheco ,Grand mother of the appellants by the Deed of Gift dated 16 June 1905. The Appellants described part of the property, that is survey no.178/3, is bounded on the East by Kacha road, on the West by a ditch...
Tag this Judgment!Sebastiana Cardozo and Others Vs.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-24-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. 2. Leave to amend the prayer clause to correct the date of the impugned order granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3. The petitioners challenge the order passed by the respondent no.3-Town and Country Planning Board dated 22 November, 2011 and order passed by the South Goa Planning Authority dated 17 October 2011, in respect of the proceeding taken for demolition of structure in occupation of the petitioners. The Board has dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that they are mundcars of the house situated at Margao-Goa. A Notice came to be issued to the petitioners by respondent no.2-South Goa Planning and Development Authority calling upon the petitioners to demolish the structure as according to the Authority it was in violation of the planning laws. The petitioners thereafter filed an appeal as provided under section 52 of the Goa Town and Country Plann...
Tag this Judgment!Ravindra @ Balu Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2015
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 27/1996 which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. The Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant for offences punishable under sections 363, 366-A and 376 of Indian Penal Code. Maximum sentence of R.I. for seven years is given and all the substantive sentences are to run concurrently. Both the sides are heard. 2. Prosecutrix is a daughter of complainant Anna (PW 1). She was studying in 9th standard in a school from Zilla Parishad at Ladsavangi, Tahsil and District Aurangabad at the relevant time. At the relevant time, she was aged about 14 years. A sister of the appellant/accused was a friend of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix used to visit the house of the said friend frequently. The accused was running a cycle shop at the relevant time near his house and so, he could develop sexual relationship with the prosecutrix. He promised her to marry with her and kept the relati...
Tag this Judgment!Hariprasad Mohanlal Soni and Others Vs. Malegaon Municipal Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The above Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India take exception to three identical orders all dated 18th November, 2010 passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Nashik, by which orders the preliminary objection raised by the Petitioners as regards the maintainability of the Petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (For the sake of brevity referred to as the 1996 Act) came to be overruled and the Learned Principal District Judge, Nashik rejected preliminary objections raised vide Exh.12, 13 and 14. 2. Having regard to the nature of the order to be passed and the directions to be issued, it is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary details. Suffice it to state that an Awards came to be passed by the Learned Arbitrator to whom a reference was made in the suits field by the parties for recovery of the amounts due from each other. The Petitioners filed the suit against the Respondent Municipa...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Pralhad Shejwal Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2015
Oral Judgment: (Per Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.) 1. The Appellant, who stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for six months, by the Judgment dated 30th June, 2012 in Sessions Case No.199 of 2010, by the Additional Sessions Judge-5, Nashik, by this Appeal, challenges his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts, which are necessary, for deciding this Appeal can briefly be stated thus:- On 18th June, 2010, at about 1 pm, when PW-1 Chunilal Zambre, along with his colleagues PW-4 Mhasu Shene and deceased Sham Gade, was returning from the assignment of completing the repair of Gate No.84, near Belatgavhan Gate, three unknown persons were standing by parking their motor cycles at the road side. One of them gave the blow of wooden log to PW-4 Mhasu on his back. Therefore, all the three of them fell down along with motor cycle. Then, those three...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »