Mumbai Nagpur Court July 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.
Girish @ Babalabhai S/O Champalal Vs. Shankarrao Kachruji Maiskar and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1) Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of Shri Chandurkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Kotwal, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3. None appears for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 though served. 2) The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 7/3/2011 whereby the application (Exh. 2) for staying the judgment passed in Misc. W.C.A. Case No.3/2008 and the Revenue Recovery Certificate No.71-1/2010 came to be rejected. 3) The respondent nos. 1 and 2 are the claimants in the said Misc. W.C.A. Case No. 3/2008. The said claim was on account of death of the son of respondent nos. 1 and 2, who was working at the relevant time with the petitioner, who was the principal employer and the respondent no.3 herein was a Contractor employed by the petitioner to carry out certain civil works. The said Misc. W.C.A. Case No.3/2008 came to be allowed and the petitioner and respondent no.3 were ...
Mansingh S/O. Gopusingh Pawar Vs. Kailash S/O Alasingh Chavan
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. Heard Mr. Aniruddha C. Jaltare, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S. S. Shingne, learned counsel for Respondent-sole. 2. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties. 3. The petitioner questions the order dated 01/01/2011 passed below Exh. 64 in Summary Criminal Case No. 803/2001, whereby the learned trial Magistrate had rejected the application for sending the cheque in question for expert opinion regarding the age of ink on the said cheque. It is noted by the learned Magistrate that the technology to determine the age of ink is not available, while according to learned Advocate for the petitioner, such technology is available with CBI at Delhi and, he will furnish address of the Forensic Laboratory where such examination is done for determining the age of ink on the document in question. Be that as it may, learned advocate for the petitioner is aware of availability of such technology. He is at liberty to apply afresh before the learned trial Magistrat...
Pundlik S/O. Tanbaji Nikhare Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
1. Heard Mr. R.M.Daga, Adv. for the applicant and Mr.A.S.Parihar, A.P.P. for the respondent/State. 2. ADMIT. 3. By this application, the applicant has prayed for to quash and set aside the proceedings in Summary Criminal Case No.279 of 2010 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (3rd Court), Gondia instituted pursuant to lodging of Crime No.17 of 2010 at Police Station Gondia (Rural) on 28.1.2010, u/s. 304-A r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In an unfortunate incident/accident, Vishal @ Vilas Umesh Lamkase, a boy aged about 10 years, fell in a cooking pan on or about 15.10.2008 and while receiving medical treatment in the New Gondia Hospital, Gondia, he died on 27.10.2008 as a result of 80 % burn injuries. On that basis, accidental death was registered as Marg Intimation No.35 of 2008 on 10.12.2008. It appears that earlier Jayatrabai w/o. Umesh Lamkase had filed Criminal Writ Petition No.652 of 2009 against the State of Maharashtra as well as agains...
Ashfaquali Ramzanali @ Babbumiya Vs. Hiralal W/O Bhagwandas Shahu
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
01) Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter by consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties. 02) Shri S.V.Manohar, the learned Counsel appears for the petitioner and Shri B.N.Mohta, the learned Counsel appears for the respondent sole. 03) The question is whether the area in question falls in the Notified Slum Area. The Appellate Court, has, in the order impugned in this petition, recorded the finding, that tenanted at premises does not fall in slum area and hence, the decree for eviction and possession, has been passed after recording further finding, that the case is made out by the landlord for eviction and possession. 04) Initially, this matter was dismissed by this Court on 24.2.2010. This order was challenged by filing an appeal before the Apex Court. The Apex Court, has decided the Civil Appeal No.1864 of 2011 observing, that this Court to consider the set of documents i.e. maps and revenue records placed before this Court in writ petition and to take a dec...
Ramdas Bhagwan Bankar Vs. Ku. Ujwala Panjabrao Lahamge and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
1. Heard Mr.Deepak Gupta, Adv. for respondent no.1 and Mr.A.S.Parihar, Adv. for respondent no.2/State. None appears on behalf of the applicant. 2. By this application, the applicant prays for to quash and set aside the judgment and order dt.24.8.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Criminal Revision No.,49 of 2010 with a further prayer to restore Summary Criminal Complaint Case No.11 of 2007 and to decide the complaint expeditiously. 3. It appears that Criminal Complaint u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by the present applicant against respondent no.1 Ujwala in which the process for the offence punishable u/s. 138 of the Act was issued on 15.7.2008. Later, on 28.8.2009, when complainant remained absent, the complaint came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. But, on the same date, the complainant moved an application for restoration of the complaint which was restored on 28.8.2009 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ch...
Agriculture Produce Market Committee Vs. Parshuram S/O Gopalji Kore
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 15/11/2010 passed by the Labour Court in Reference IDA No.14 of 2008. By the said order, the application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 filed by the respondent herein came to be allowed. 3. The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above petition are stated thus - The respondent herein came to be appointed on 8/12/1992 on a fixed salary of Rs.750/- per month by the petitioner which is an Agriculture Produce Market Committee functioning at Gondia. The services came to be terminated of the respondent on 20/03/1995, which resulted in the respondent filing Complaint ULP No.66 of 1995 invoking Item No.1 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. It was the case of the responden...
Vyankatesh S/O Ramaswami Reddy Vs. the Learned District and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
1) Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) The order impugned in the above petition is the order dated 1/3/2011 passed by the District Superintendent of Land Records whereby the Application filed by the petitioner invoking Section 232 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 for setting aside the order dated 19/7/2010 came to be rejected. 3) It is the case of the petitioner that the District Superintendent of Land Records, Nagpur, i.e. respondent no.1 herein without calling for the service report, proceeded to hear the proceedings filed by the respondent no.3 herein and passed the order dated 19/7/2010 directing mutation to be effected in favour of the respondent no.3. It is the case of the petitioner that in the civil proceedings being Regular Civil Suit No. 34/2006 filed by the respondent no.3, the address of the petitioner shown is the correct address i.e. r/o Bela, Tahsil Umred, District Nagpur whereas in the said rev...
Mrs. Arti D/O. Amar Pandey Vs. Manoj Kundanlal JaIn and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
1. Heard Mr.S.Adukia, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3. None for the applicant. 2. The revision applicant has challenged the order dated 30th October, 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision Application No.1180 of 2009 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to set aside the order of issuance of process which was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Nagpur. 3. It appears that Summary Criminal Case was instituted for the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 r/w. Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. After recording verification, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Court No.10), Nagpur, by an order dated 30.7.2009, issued process for the offence punishable u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. It appears that complainant Arti d/o. Amar Pande instituted complaint against six persons (accused nos. 1 to 6 ) on the ground that they were having business of sale and purchase of...
Madhukar Alias Babanrao S/O Ganpat Original Sabnis Vs. Smt. Kantabai W ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.9.1993, passed by the 10th Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.), Amravati in Regular Civil Suit No.30/1991, decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff in the sum of Rs.23,400/- with future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of suit till its realization and confirmed in appeal by the Extra Joint District Judge, Amravati on 3.2.1999 in Regular Civil Appeal No.4/1994, the present appeal was filed by the appellant/defendant. 2. In support of the appeal, Shri Rahul Dhande, the learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that though there is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below while decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff, the findings of facts are utterly perverse and thus would constitute substantial question of law. The findings are not based on evidence on record documentary as well as oral. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the suit was clearly barred by limitation but the Courts...
Shri Basant Lall Shaw and anr. Vs. Hri Manoj Kumar Jayaswal
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
1) Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 13/5/2011 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur whereby the application (Exh. 13) filed by the petitioners herein under Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") came to be rejected. 3) The issue, which arises for consideration in the above petition, is as to whether the dispute as regards implementation of the directions of the Escrow Agent appointed under the Indenture of Family Settlement dated 31/7/2008 is arbitrable and has to be referred to the Arbitrator ? 4) The factual matrix involved in the above petition can be stated thus : The petitioner no.1 is the father of the petitioner no.2 as well as the respondent. The petitioner no.1 has establi...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »