Mumbai Court January 2016 Judgments
Dadasaheb Haribha Mane Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellant was prosecuted on the allegation of his having committed offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 306 of the IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, after holding a trial, acquitted him of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, found the appellant guilty of an offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.4000/-, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 3 months. Being aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence imposed upon him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the appellant has approached this court by filing the present appeal. 2. So far as the appellant's acquittal in respect of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC is concerned, the same has become final as the State has not filed any appeal challenging the said acquittal. 3. I have ...
Tag this Judgment!Mayfair Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, Represented by its Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
1. This Writ Petition challenges the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 03/07/2006, passed by the President, Co-operative Tribunal, Goa at Panaji in Cooperative Appeal No.14/2003, thereby dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and order dated 07/03/2003, delivered by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society, Central Zone, Panaji. The effect of the dismissal of the Co-operative Appeal, has been that the application, filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 as applicable to the State of Goa at the relevant time (hereinafter referred to as the MCS Act, for short), does not raise any dispute under Section 91 and is, therefore, not tenable before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. 2. The case of the petitioner- society before the Assistant Registrar was that a group of persons organized themselves for the purpose of forming a Co-...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrashekhar and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through the S ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
S.V. Gangapurwala, J. 1. Both the Writ Petitions are based on similar set of facts and involve common question of law. As such, to avoid rigmarole, the same are decided together. 2. The elections of respondent no.5 - Agriculture Produce Market Committee were declared and election programme was published. The same was to commence from 25-8-2015. Polling was scheduled on 25-10-2015. Counting of votes was to take place on 26-10-2015. On 18-10-2015, after nomination papers were filled in, one of the contesting candidates expired. In view of Rule 55 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 [For short, hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1967?], the order countermanding the elections was passed. As such, the poll scheduled on 25-10-2015 could not take place. 3. Fresh elections are declared polling of which is to be held on 31-1-2016. The programme states that the nomination papers would be filed from 3-12-2015 to 17-12-2015 and different stat...
Tag this Judgment!Heniriqueta D'Souza (Deceased through her legal representative) Isabel ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The controversy involved in this petition has witnessed quite a tumultuous journey. The matter has been travelling from one forum to another forum and then to the High Court and once again back to the original forum or the revisional forum or the appellate forum. At the centre of the controversy is a question “ whether the petitioner is entitled to be declared as a mundkar in view of Section 3 of Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act?, for short) or in view of definitions contained in Section 2(p) and Section 2(n) of the Act. So far as Section 3 is concerned, the controversy has been set at rest by the judgment delivered on 18/12/2013 in W.P.Nos.457/2010 and 266/2008, when the issue was referred to it by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench has taken a certain view with regard...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravikant Padmakar Tarekar and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. In Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 84 of 1995, the claimant was held entitled to compensation of Rs.3,10,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till its deposit in the Court. The owner of the offending vehicle which is a truck bearing registration No. MIA-9711 and the appellant Insurance Company with which the truck was insured are held jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount of compensation. The Insurance Company is before this Court in this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that it was a case of head on collusion between the two vehicles i.e. Bus bearing registration No. MH-20/D-0574 and the truck bearing registration No. MIA-9711. The appellant who is the claimant was driving S.T. Bus and therefore, he was contributory negligent to the extent of 50% in driving the vehicle. According to the learned counsel...
Tag this Judgment!Nayan @ Chandrakala Chandrakant Borkar Vs. Gurudas Hari borkar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
1. Heard Shri John Lobo, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri Nachinolkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, waives service. 3. The Appellant challenges the Judgment and Order dated 30.12.2014 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-1, FTC-1, South Goa, Margao, in Regular Civil Appeal no. 110/2014 by which, the came to be dismissed. 4. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows: The Respondent in the present Appeal filed a suit against the Appellant bearing Regular Civil Suit no. 62/2007/F before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao, for eviction of the Appellant from the suit house and for perpetual injunction restraining the Appellant from entering the suit house. The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao, decreed the suit on 09.05.2014. 5. Being aggrieved with the same, the Appellant filed an Appeal against the Respondent...
Tag this Judgment!The Executive Engineer, Works Division XVIII (Roads) Vs. Ulhas Gopinat ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
1. The appellants challenges the order dated 12.9.2011 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1, North Goa at Panaji in Land Acquisition Case No. 35/2010 by which the learned Reference Court has allowed the reference of the respondent under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, (the Act? for short) and enhanced the compensation to the extent of Rs.202/- per square metre. 2. Parties shall hereinafter referred as per their original status. 3. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- An area of 140 square metres belonging to the applicant/respondent herein was acquired from survey no. 43/7 situated at Madkai Village in Ponda Taluka for the purpose of construction of a road from main road Madkai, Tonca to Satki Lake in V.P. Madkai in Ponda Taluka. 4. The respondent issued and published notification dated 29.12.2005 under Section 4(1) of the Act and notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 18.8.2006. The award was passed on 31.12.2007 by the Land Acquisitio...
Tag this Judgment!Mayfair Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, Represented by its Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
1. This Writ Petition challenges the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 03/07/2006, passed by the President, Co-operative Tribunal, Goa at Panaji in Cooperative Appeal No.14/2003, thereby dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and order dated 07/03/2003, delivered by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society, Central Zone, Panaji. The effect of the dismissal of the Co-operative Appeal, has been that the application, filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 as applicable to the State of Goa at the relevant time (hereinafter referred to as the MCS Act, for short), does not raise any dispute under Section 91 and is, therefore, not tenable before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. 2. The case of the petitioner- society before the Assistant Registrar was that a group of persons organized themselves for the purpose of forming a Co-...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrashekhar and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through the S ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
S.V. Gangapurwala, J. 1. Both the Writ Petitions are based on similar set of facts and involve common question of law. As such, to avoid rigmarole, the same are decided together. 2. The elections of respondent no.5 - Agriculture Produce Market Committee were declared and election programme was published. The same was to commence from 25-8-2015. Polling was scheduled on 25-10-2015. Counting of votes was to take place on 26-10-2015. On 18-10-2015, after nomination papers were filled in, one of the contesting candidates expired. In view of Rule 55 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 [For short, hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1967 ], the order countermanding the elections was passed. As such, the poll scheduled on 25-10-2015 could not take place. 3. Fresh elections are declared polling of which is to be held on 31-1-2016. The programme states that the nomination papers would be filed from 3-12-2015 to 17-12-2015 and different stat...
Tag this Judgment!Heniriqueta D'Souza (Deceased through her legal representative) Isabel ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The controversy involved in this petition has witnessed quite a tumultuous journey. The matter has been travelling from one forum to another forum and then to the High Court and once again back to the original forum or the revisional forum or the appellate forum. At the centre of the controversy is a question whether the petitioner is entitled to be declared as a mundkar in view of Section 3 of Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act , for short) or in view of definitions contained in Section 2(p) and Section 2(n) of the Act. So far as Section 3 is concerned, the controversy has been set at rest by the judgment delivered on 18/12/2013 in W.P.Nos.457/2010 and 266/2008, when the issue was referred to it by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench has taken a certain view with regard to heri...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »