Mumbai Nagpur Court February 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.
State Bank of India Vs. Shri Sagar S/O Pramod Deshmukh and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
Judgment :1. Both these matters are admitted and since the same arise out of the proceedings of Special Civil Suit No.52 of 2010, they are heard together finally though both the matters challenge different orders. 2. Civil Revision Application No.33 of 2010 challenges the order dated 23-2-2010 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, rejecting the application Exhibit 17 filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code in Special Civil Suit No.52 of 2010 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it is barred by the provisions of Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). Appeal against Order No.38 of 2010 challenges the order passed below Exhibit 5 in Special Civil Suit No.52 of 2010 by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, allowing the application for grant of temporary injunction restrain...
Shri Gopaldas Deosthan, Bhidi Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
ORAL 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. This appeal is preferred against judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the order of Sub Divisional Officer, Wardha refusing exemption to the appellant-Trust under Section 47 (2) (a) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (Hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The appellant holds agricultural land in villages Bhidi, Hasnapur, Fatepur, Huradapur in excess of the ceiling limit of 52 Acres. The appellant-Trust, therefore, applied for exemption under Section 47 (2) (a) of the Act for the entire land. The appellant-Trust submitted an undertaking on 04.02.1976 in accordance with Section 47 (2) (a) of the Act, that it would appropriate major portion of the income from such land within a period of two years from the date of publication of the order granting exemption. However, the Officer on Special Duty, exercised the powers of Government under Section 47 (2) (a) of the Act and rejected th...
Gangaram S/O Bhagwan Borkar and ors.Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-08-2011
J U D G M E N T 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 5.8.2008, passed by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharkawda (Kelapur)in Session Trial No.2/2004, convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and further convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year, the present criminal appeals have been filed by both the accused persons.2. In support of the criminal appeals, learned Counsel for the appellants in both appeals made the following submissions.(a) Admittedly, the case at hand is not based on any direct ...
Amit S/O Mangalmay Mishra Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
J U D G M E N T: 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 5.6.1996 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Session Trial No. 424 of 1993, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, so also for the offence punishable under Section 397 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months, the present appeal was filed.2. SUBMISSIONS :In support of the appeal, Mr.Daga, learned counsel for the appellant, made following submissions : (i) the prosecution case was solely based on the testimony of P.W.1 Natasha who stated in her evidence that she did not actually witness the incident of assault on the deceased by the appellant. She only stated that she saw the appellant running from out of the house and then boarded ...
Murlidhar Haribhau Nimje and ors. Vs. Bhagwan S/O Dinbaji Jambhule and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
ORAL :1] This Second Appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 23.8.2010 passed in Misc. Civil Application Nos.7/2010, 8/2010, 9/2010 and 16/2010. By the said order, Misc. Civil Appeal No. 7/2010 was allowed. The order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner dated 14th February 2010 of partly allowing scheme application No. 126/2007 came to be set aside and the scheme application no.243/2009 came to be partly modified so as to include three persons in place of one Nathu Mahadeo Ghughal, Timmbak Badkar and Vijay Murkute as adhoc trustees. 2] The genesis of the dispute involved in the above proceedings lie in the application filed under Section 41D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The said application was filed by one Nimje which came to be allowed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and the Board of Trustees, which was in charge of the public trust known as "Bhartiya Shikshan Sanstha, Bhisi" came to be removed and an adhoc body of seven persons along with the Assistan...
Vijay Son of Purushottam and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
1. Appellants were charged for commission of offences under Section 302 read with Section 34, Section 304-B, and by way of additional charge, for offences under Section 498- A read with Section 34, and Section 316 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.2. Accused No.1 Vilas was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, while accused nos. 2 and 3 were convicted for offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. All accused were, however, acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 316 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.The sentence for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code was for life and fine, and it was one year and fine for offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code.3. Heard both the sides.4. The bone of contention raised in support of acquittal by learned Advocates Mr. Sirpurkar and Mr. V.R. Thote for the appellants can be summarized as follows:-...