Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-17-2011
..... consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. in state of uttar pradesh v. kishanpal & ors. [(2008) 16 scc 73], the supreme court examined the issue of motive in a case of circumstantial evidence and observed that motive is ..... a casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in the case. in other words, if the court is convinced that the testimony of witness to the account is true the court is free to act on it. minor loopholes and irregularities in the investigation cannot form crux of the case on which the ..... the io from new shital building in ovaripada, dahisar. pw 53 - mahesh parab stated before the trial court that on 29/12/2003 at about 8 p.m. the police had called him to act as a panch and new shital building in ovaripada was adjacent to his house. pi munagekar was leading the ..... the offences punishable under sections 3, 5, 6 read with section 25 of the arms act. 99. on the point of sentence awarded in sessions case no.3 of 2005 and sessions case no. 5 of 2005, the trial court has considered the circumstances like the manner of commission of murders, motive behind the murders ..... also convicted under sections 3, 5 and 6 read with section 25 of the arms act and sentenced to undergo si for three years. the learned additional sessions judge directed to submit the record and proceedings to this court for confirmation under section 366 of cr. p.c. however, it appears that the registry .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-17-2011
..... / building, the change in position of law will have to be addressed to. section 7 of maharashtra ownership flats act, 1963 (mofa for short) was interpreted by the bombay high court in kalpita enclave cooperative housing society v. kiran builders pvt. ltd. reported in holding that a promoter was not ..... is various amended approved plans of the year 1991, 1994, 1996 and 2009 and since those plans were not placed on record of the trial court, the respondents/ original defendants did not have opportunity to meet the challenge. in order to extend opportunity to the respondents/ defendants and with a ..... not have an opportunity to meet the case of the appellant, in my opinion, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the trial court. 10. the counsel appearing for the respondents contended that there was informed consent by the members/flat purchasers and they were made aware in respect ..... jayantilal investments v. madhuvihar co-operative housing society, air 2007 sc 1011 and m/s.manratna developers v. megh ratan co-operative housing soc.ltd., 2008 (6) all mr 550. 8. it is true that the flat purchasers, when they entered into an agreement between 1991 to 1993 for purchase ..... the counsel appearing for the appellant, the construction activities being carried out by the respondents/ defendants is not in consonance with the law laid down by this court in its judgment in the case of madhuvihar co-operative housing society, mumbai v. jayantilal investments, mumbai, 2011 (1) mh.l.j. 641 and .....Tag this Judgment!