Mumbai Court March 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.
Kanchan Kumar Arun Thool Vs. State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-24-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Ms. M. Collasso,learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Ms. S. Linhares, Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents no. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no.3. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of learned counsel. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents waives service. 4. The above petition inter alia seeks for a relief to direct the respondents no. 5 and 6 to restore the path way and construct the retaining wall of the nallah bearing survey no. 137/43 in the village Saligao, Bardez, Taluka. 5. On the last date when the matter was taken up or admission and hearing, upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, we called upon the Water Resource Department to inspect the site and examine the grievance raised by the petitioner. Accordingly a report was submitted by the Executive Engineer WDI at Panaji dated 27.2.2015 inter alia disclosing the fac...
Peter @ Petra Fernandes Vs. State and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-24-2015
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice for the respondents. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is a case where a frolic ride in a boat, turned into a tragic accident, resulting into death of a young medical student and seriously injuring the other. 3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus:- That the complainant, Prateek Shukla alongwith his friends including now deceased Shrey Makhija and injured Sanjay Singh Rawat had come to Goa on a vacation. On 18.11.2010, the complainant alongwith his friends had gone at the Calangute beach. After sometime, Sanjay Singh Rawat and now deceased. Shrey Makhija had gone on a bumper ride in a boat. It so happened that the rider/mariner of the boat while returning back to the shore, suddenly took a turn, as a result of which, the bumper tied to the boat hit another stationary boat. The incident occurred between 15:...
Tushar Jivram Chauhan and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, throug ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-2015
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The Petitioners being owners of the suit property have challenged order and deemed conveyance certificate dated 18.11.2013 passed by Respondent No.2, granting deemed conveyance of the suit property in favour of Respondent No.3-Society and subsequently also challenged unilateral registration of conveyance dated 18.07.2014. 3. The case and submissions of the Petitioners are as under : The Petitioners are the owners of the plot of land bearing plot no. 60, Survey no. 1000 (part) having CTS No. 1188 and 1188/1 to 1188/20 admeasuring about 1672.80 sq. mtrs or thereabout situated at junction of J. N. Road and Zaver Road, Mulund West, Mumbai-400080 (for short, the suit property). 4. There are two buildings namely Shrinivas Building A and Shrinivas Building B already exist on the suit property. On 17.1.2001, the Petitioners allowed Respondent No.4 to develop the balance part of the suit property. 5. In 2002, Re...
Jayantilal Khandwala and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Iffat Ahmedi and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-2015
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 18th May, 2011 and supplementary award dated 15th May, 2011 passed by the arbitral tribunal allowing the claims made by the respondent no.1. 2. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 3. The petitioner was the original respondent in the arbitration proceedings whereas the respondent no.1 was the original claimant. 4. The petitioner is share and stock broker and a member of the Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. Respondent no.1 was the constituent and had carried out various transactions in shares and securities through the petitioner. During the period between 2002 2003, the petitioner had sold and disposed off the shares and securities of the respondent no.1 for approximately Rs.71,70,112/-. The dispute arose between the parties. The respondent no.1 filed a complaint against the petitioner before the Bombay ...
Rajabhau Damodar Raikar Vs. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, Pune a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-2015
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 2. Notice for final disposal of the Petition was issued by order dated 18th November, 2014. 3. Today an affidavit in reply has been filed by the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 who are contesting Respondents. 4. The challenge in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is to the order passed by the Maha Lok Adalat on 16th September, 2012 on a change report filed by the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (in short the said Act of 1950). 5. The order passed by the Maha Lok Adalat on 16th September, 2012 reads thus: Matter is put up before Maha Lok-Adalat on 16-09-2012 1. The application is filed to report the change in respect of death/change in Trustee Committee/change in address. 2. In support of the application, the Applicant has filed copy of previous change report/death extract/proof of change in address/copy of notice/service proof/attendanc...
Swarupchand Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Felt aggrieved, the appellant is before this court to challenge his conviction, for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for five months, as imposed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, dated 12.10.2000 in Sessions Case No. 358 of 1996. 2. The prosecution case, as it was unfolded during the course of the trial, can be narrated as under: MadhukarAute (PW 9) was attached to police station Gangapur as Police Sub-Inspector in the year 1996. He received a message from the Tahsildar on 22.1.1996 at 4.30 p.m. that a quarrel is going on in front of the Tahsil office and large crowd has gathered there. Upon receipt of such information, he rushed to the spot with police staff. There, he noticed accused persons and the complainant party had indulged themselves into the free fighting with variou...
State Vs. Shailesh @ Shailu Naik, (Major) and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-23-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. 2. The learned Counsel for the respondents waive notice. 3. Heard finally, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. By the present Criminal Revision Application, the State has challenged the order dated 14/08/2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa, Goa in Sessions Case No. 66/2013. The applicant-State is aggrieved by the impugned order, by which, in place of charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short), the learned Sessions Judge has framed a charge for the offence punishable under Section 304-II of I.P.C. 5. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the Revision Application, may be stated thus - The incident in question has occurred on 14/08/2013 at about 18.20 hours at Sun Shine Bar at Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. According to the prosecution, the respondents/ accused i.e. Shailesh Naik and Vijay Karbotkar were already sitting at the bar and having a drink. It is said that now deceased Lavu along wi...
State Vs. Shailesh @ Shailu Naik, (Major) and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. 2. The learned Counsel for the respondents waive notice. 3. Heard finally, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. By the present Criminal Revision Application, the State has challenged the order dated 14/08/2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa, Goa in Sessions Case No. 66/2013. The applicant-State is aggrieved by the impugned order, by which, in place of charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short), the learned Sessions Judge has framed a charge for the offence punishable under Section 304-II of I.P.C. 5. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the Revision Application, may be stated thus - The incident in question has occurred on 14/08/2013 at about 18.20 hours at Sun Shine Bar at Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. According to the prosecution, the respondents/ accused i.e. Shailesh Naik and Vijay Karbotkar were already sitting at the bar and having a drink. It is said that now deceased Lavu along wi...
Sunil Kashinath Chandanshive and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-2015
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. 1. All these five Appeals are arising out of one and same Judgment dated 10th February, 2009 in Sessions Case No.260 of 2007 of the 6th Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai. Hence, they are being decided by this common Judgment. The Appellants are referred to, for the sake of convenience, by their original nomenclature. 2. By the impugned Judgment, Accused Nos.1 to 6 are convicted and sentenced as follows : Section 143 IPC - R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs.200/-, in default to suffer R.I. for 1 month. Section 144 IPC - R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.300/-, in default to suffer R.I. for 1 month. Section 147 IPC - R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.300/-, in default to suffer R.I. for 1 month. Section 148 IPC - R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer R.I. for 2 months. Section 37(1)(a) r/w. 135 Bombay Police Act - R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs.200/-, in default to suffer R.I. for 1 month. Section 4 r/w. 25 Arms Act - R.I. f...
Dashrath Pandurang Khilare Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-2015
Oral Judgment: (Smt V.K. Tahilramani J.) 1. The Appellant original Accused has preferred this Appeal against the judgment and order dated 16th May 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.362 of 2012. By the said judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant under section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to RI for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, RI for six months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under:- PW 5 Vrushali was the wife of the Appellant. The Appellant started ill-treating Vrushali. Vrushali then contacted her mother and told her about the ill-treatment In the meanwhile, a daughter was born to Vrushali from the Appellant. The Appellant then insisted that Vrushali should bring some cash amount from her mother and on this count, he physically ill-treated Vrushali. The Appellant also threatened that if she failed to get the amount, he would send her for prostitution to Kamathipura...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »