Mumbai Nagpur Court January 2011 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.
Sudhakar S/O Awdhoot Vardhe and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. Criminal Appeal Nos.164/2003, 204/2003, 229/2003 and 244/2003 were filed in this Court by the appellants original accused namely, Jagannath Bhaurao Utane (accused No.1), Rajesh Jagannath Utane (accused No.2), Duryodhan Deorao Vardhe (accused No.3), Babulal Chandumal Vardhe (accused No.7), Dadarao Chandumal Vardhe (accused No.9), Sudhakar Awdhoot Vardhe (accused No.8), Chandu Ramkrishna Vardhe (accused No.4), Vilas Shrikrishna Vardhe (accused No.10), Raju Awdhoot Samdure (accused No.6) and Rameshwar Ganpat Wankhade (accused No.5) against the judgment and order dated 28.2.2003 in Session Trial No.249/2000, passed by the II nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions, Amravati, by which they were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months each, further convicted for the o...
Sudhir Annaji Choudhary and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. All accused persons were charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 307, 324, 336, 427, 506 read with Section 149 or 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 135 read with Section 37 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the Accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16 to 25, and 28 to 30 for commission of the offences charged and sentenced them as detailed below:- For the offence punishable under Section/s :[a] 302 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, for Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default, Simple Imprisonment for six months each.[b] 307 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, for Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, Simple Imprisonment for three months each.[c] 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, for Rigorous Imprisonment for six months each.[d] 336 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, for Rigorous Imprisonment for one month eac...
Smt Pushpabai Marotrao Paraskar and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
Judgment: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.11.2007 passed by 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Case No. 160 of 2006 whereby appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. They were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, is as under :Victim Maya was married to Mahendra, son of appellant no. 1 and brother of appellant no. 2. Maya was ill-treated by appellants on various counts like, she has failed bring money from her parents; she had failed to conceive e...
Madanlal Pannalal Bhangadiya Vs. Pralhad Narayan Atole
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
ORAL .1. The above Second Appeals arise out of the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.43/1992 dated 26.08.1994 (i.e. Second Appeal No. 371/1994) and judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 410/1989 dated 20.08.1994 (i.e. Second Appeal No. 396/1994). Since the substantial question of law involved in the above Second Appeals are common viz. Construction of document marked at Exh.76 in Second Appeal No. 371/1994, both the appeals were tagged together and are therefore, being heard and disposed of by this common judgment.2. The facts in nutshell can be stated thus - Respondent in Second Appeal No. 396/1994 is the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 29/1981. The appellant in Second Appeal No. 396/1994 is the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.219/1982. Both the suits involve a common property which is a Gadhi i.e. "description given to an ancestral property coming down from ages, belonging to a particular family and the land surrounding the said gadhi." The...
Mukesh S/O Kamalnarayan Tiwari Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-10-2011
ORAL (PER S.A. BOBDE, J.)1] Rule returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties finally by consent.2] The petitioner has approached this Court against the removal of his name from the panel prepared for selection of distributorship of Liquified Petroleum Gas ("LPG" for short) for Mouda. The petitioner's name has been removed from the panel on the sole ground that the site for showroom proposed by him is not located in the township of Mouda. The setting of this case is in Mouda which is a name used for a small town in the rural area, also for its Gram Panchayat and its Tahsil - all three of which are called Mouda.3] The Indian Oil Corporation which is a Corporation and which inter alia manufactures and distributes Liquified Petroleum Gas for domestic purposes issued a notice for appointment of a Distributor for LPG along with the other two Corporations, namely, the Bharat Petroleum Corporation and the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation for the location of Mouda. The advert...
Amol S/O Late Bhalchandra Joshi and ors. Vs. Deorao S/O Santoshrao Bho ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-06-2011
Judgment :1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. All these three matters challenge the common order passed on 21-8-2009 by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, dismissing the application Exhibit 1 in Special Darkhast No.118 of 1995 and allowing the applications Exhibits 1 and 6 filed in Special Darkhast No.156 of 1995. The Executing Court has proceeded further in Special Darkhast No.156 of 1995 and the judgment-debtors in the said Darkhast are directed to execute and register the sale-deed of the suit property in favour of the applicant, after rejecting the objections at Exhibits 19, 70 and 159, to the executability of decree raised by the petitioners in all these three matters. The proceedings before the lower Court are stayed.3. The facts leading to the case are as under :The property in dispute (suit property) is the land admeasuring about 18.07 acres, bearing Survey Nos.53 and 54 out o...
Amol S/O Late Bhalchandra Joshi and ors.Vs. Deorao S/O Santoshrao Bhon ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-06-2011
Judgment :1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. All these three matters challenge the common order passed on 21-8-2009 by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, dismissing the application Exhibit 1 in Special Darkhast No.118 of 1995 and allowing the applications Exhibits 1 and 6 filed in Special Darkhast No.156 of 1995. The Executing Court has proceeded further in Special Darkhast No.156 of 1995 and the judgment-debtors in the said Darkhast are directed to execute and register the sale-deed of the suit property in favour of the applicant, after rejecting the objections at Exhibits 19, 70 and 159, to the executability of decree raised by the petitioners in all these three matters. The proceedings before the lower Court are stayed.3. The facts leading to the case are as under :The property in dispute (suit property) is the land admeasuring about 18.07 acres, bearing Survey Nos.53 and 54 out o...
M/S. Bhushan Steel Limited and ors. Vs. Mrs. Varsha A. Maheshw and ors ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-05-2011
JUDGEMENT.1. Challenge in both these Writ Petitions filed by rival parties against eachother is to orders dated 30.09.2010 passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in Civil Suit No.70/2009. The said suit is filed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5364/2010 as Summary Suit for recovery of amount of Rs. 38,89,674.14 along with interest @ 18% jointly and severally against the defendants therein. The dues claimed are on account of Magnetite Powder supplied by the plaintiff to defendant no.1 Company on the strength of purchase orders placed by the defendant no.1 Company with the plaintiff. The defendant no.2 is the General Manager in purchase department of defendant no.1 Company. By the impugned order passed below Exh.16 the trial Court has granted leave to defend under Sub-rule [5] of Rule 3 of Order 37 of Code of Civil Procedure Code, subject to defendants depositing a sum of Rs. 34, 24,895/- in Court or then furnishing a bank guarantee for that sum within a perio...
M/S. Mohanlal Kisanlal Agrawal and ors. Vs.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-05-2011
JUDGEMENT.1.By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners/defendants have questioned the concurrent judgments delivered by the Trial Court as also the Appellate Court granting a decree of their eviction to respondent no.1 - Public Trust. Respondent no.2 is the Appellate Forum namely District Court, Nagpur while the respondent no.3 is the Trial Court i.e. Small Causes Court at Nagpur. The judgment of Trial Court is dated 07.12.2009 and it is delivered by the 2nd Additional Small Causes Curt, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 238/2005. Judgment of Appellate Court is dated 23.07.2010 and it is delivered by District Judge-9, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 11/2010. Respondent no.l - Public Trust sought eviction of defendants from a shop block ad-measuring 700 sq. ft. on account of their need to construct a temple and a community hall on the plot of trust. The trial Court as also Appellate Court have found suit maintainable, not bad for no...
The Workmen of Taroda Opencast Mine of Western Coalfields Limited Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-05-2011
:1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner - Trade Union has challenged the Award dated 02.05.1997 delivered by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Mumbai, in Reference No. CGIT-2/68 of 92 answering the reference made at their instance in negative. The reference as made on 10.12.1992 reads as under: "Whether Shri K.PS. Nair and other 12 workers (list enclosed) working in the Canteen through the contractor are entitled for absorption by the Sub Area Manager, Taroda Opencast, W.C. Ltd., District -Yeotmal, after working from March 1989 If not, to what relief they are entitled to ?"2. The reference was sought by the petitioner about workers in Canteen at Taroda Opencast Coalmine. The mine is one of the mines owned and managed by National Coal Limited i.e. Coal India Limited. The operations there started in the year 1987 and with a view to make canteen facility available to employees working therein, a contractor came to be appointed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »