Mumbai Nagpur Court October 2012 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.
The Collector, Yavatmal and Another Vs. Haji Daudbhai S/O Haji Suleman ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Oral Judgment: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 15.11.1989 passed by the Additional District Judge, Yavatmal in Land Acquisition Case No.58/1983. 2] The land bearing survey no.4/2, area 1.9 H.R. out of the total area of 4.64 H.R. situated at town Arni, was compulsorily acquired at the instance of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation for constructing bus-stand. The residential structure and godown standing on the said land were also subject matter of the acquisition. For the land and the structure, the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.37,968.50. Against this award the reference was sought. The land owner relied upon various sale instances and also brought on record that the land is in close proximity to the town Arni. Considering the evidence brought on record, the learned Reference Court did not allow any enhancement for the structure -residential and godown, however, enhanced the market value of the land to @ Rs.2.00 p...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh Ambadas Wagh and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Oral Judgment: All these four appeals are arising from the common judgment and award dated 29.11.2004 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.171/2002, 174/2002, 173/2002 and 179/2002, whereby the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition officer for the lands compulsorily acquired for the project - percolation tank, was enhanced to Rs.50,000/- per hectare. The details of the lands acquired are as under: First AppealSurvey/Gat No.Total area H.R.Area acquired H.R.Name of ownerCompensation Awarded by L.A.O.1140/082001.400.79Suresh Ambadas Wagh (Respdt.)Rs. 39,500/- P.H.811/092001.400.61Smt. Jeejabai DevidasWagh and Others (Respdt.)Rs. 39,500/- P.H.975/09191 199 2016.94 1.76 1.410.86 1.05 1.09RambhauRajaram Jaware(Respdt.)Rs. 39,500/- P.H.1326/092559.551.30PralhadBaliram Patil (Respdt.)Rs. 35,000/- P.H.LAC No.Date of DecisionCompensation by Reference courtAppellant171/0229/11/04Rs. 50,000/- P.H.STATE174/0229/11/04Rs, 50,000/- P.H.STATE173/0229/11/04Rs, 50,000/- P.H.STATE1...
Sushil S/O Sohanlal Agrawal Vs. Vinayak S/O Jyotibaji Jadhav
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Oral Judgment: RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are identical, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment. 2. By these petitions, the petitioner impugns the orders passed by the trial Court on 11/07/2012 allowing the applications filed by the respondent under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for staying the suits filed by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner is the original plaintiff in both the suits. The petitioner had filed the suits against the respondent for specific performance of contract. It was the case of the petitioner that respondent-Vinayak had agreed to sell the suit properties to the petitioner and though the petitioner was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and had paid the entire sale consideration, the respondent had refused to execute the sale deed. The suits filed by the petit...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh Ambadas Wagh and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Oral Judgment: All these four appeals are arising from the common judgment and award dated 29.11.2004 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.171/2002, 174/2002, 173/2002 and 179/2002, whereby the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition officer for the lands compulsorily acquired for the project percolation tank, was enhanced to Rs.50,000/- per hectare. The details of the lands acquired are as under:First AppealSurvey/Gat No.Total area H.R.Area acquired H.R.Name of ownerCompensation Awarded by L.A.O.1140/082001.400.79Suresh Ambadas Wagh (Respdt.)Rs. 39,500/- P.H.811/092001.400.61Smt. Jeejabai DevidasWagh and Others (Respdt.)Rs. 39,500/- P.H.975/09191 199 2016.94 1.76 1.410.86 1.05 1.09RambhauRajaram Jaware(Respdt.)Rs. 39,500/- P.H.1326/092559.551.30PralhadBaliram Patil (Respdt.)Rs. 35,000/- P.H.LAC No.Date of DecisionCompensation by Reference courtAppellant171/0229/11/04Rs. 50,000/- P.H.STATE174/0229/11/04Rs, 50,000/- P.H.STATE173/0229/11/04Rs, 50,000/- P.H.STATE179/0229/11/04...
The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Sunita Wd/O Satyagrah ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
Oral Judgment: This appeal arises from the judgment and award dated 7.6.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yavatmal in Claim Petition No.229/2000 whereby the claimants were awarded compensation of Rs.20,40,000/- on account of death of Satyagrah Patil which occurred on 25.12.1994 in a motor vehicular accident involving motor cycle MH-29E-7168 and the truck bearing no MO- 23D/9241. 2] On the fateful day the deceased was riding pillion on the motorcycle which was being driven by one Ghanshyam. When the motorcycle reached near M.I.D.C. Lohara on Yavatmal - Darvha Road, a truck coming from opposite direction dashed against it. Driver - Ghanshyam survived, but the deceased Satyagrah came under the wheels of the truck and died. At the time of death the deceased was serving as a welder with the Western Coalfields Limited. Having regard to his age and the salary drawn by him, the learned Tribunal considered the loss of dependency at Rs.120,000/- p.a. and by applying multip...
Swayambhu Construction Pvt. Ltd. Konark Apartments Vs. Dhrupada W/O Pa ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard both sides. 2] Admit. With the consent of both the parties, this appeal is heard finally. 3] The only question that has cropped up in this appeal is, the appellant not getting opportunity of being heard while the Claim Petition No .43/2007, was decided. It is submitted that, there was death of mother of the appellant and because of which he could not attend the proceedings. Further contention is that vehicle was insured with the respondent no.4. However, the Tribunal after holding that there was breach of terms of insurance policy saddled the entire liability on him. 4] Considering the cause for non appearance of the appellant before the Tribunal and also the fact that appellant was deprived of an opportunity of leading evidence, particularly to rebut the defence raised by the respondent no.3, in the interest of justice, the award exonerating respondent no.4 and saddling the entire liability on the appellant, will have to be set aside. 5] It is clarified that issue...
Swayambhu Construction Pvt. Ltd. Konark Apartments Vs. Dhrupada W/O Pa ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard both sides. 2] Admit. With the consent of both the parties, this appeal is heard finally. 3] The only question that has cropped up in this appeal is, the appellant not getting opportunity of being heard while the Claim Petition No .43/2007, was decided. It is submitted that, there was death of mother of the appellant and because of which he could not attend the proceedings. Further contention is that vehicle was insured with the respondent no.4. However, the Tribunal after holding that there was breach of terms of insurance policy saddled the entire liability on him. 4] Considering the cause for non appearance of the appellant before the Tribunal and also the fact that appellant was deprived of an opportunity of leading evidence, particularly to rebut the defence raised by the respondent no.3, in the interest of justice, the award exonerating respondent no.4 and saddling the entire liability on the appellant, will have to be set aside. 5] It is clarified that issue...
Sharifabi W/O. Sabirshah Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Bhangale, J.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 14th October, 2011 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No.31 of 2011 whereby the appellant/accused herein was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under : That, on 14.8.2012, at about 2.00 p.m. there was a quarrel between deceased Shayedabi and the appellant/accused. Upon such quarrel, the appellant went inside the house and brought a Can containing kerosene. She then poured kerosene on the person of deceased Shayedabi and set her ablaze. After the deceased raising shouts, her husband came there and extinguished the fire. Crime No.162 of 2010 was registered initially under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code at ...
Nazir Ahamad Mansoor Ahamad Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
P.V. Hardas, J. Criminal Appeal No.306 of 2012 has been filed by original accused no.2, Nazir Ahamad Mansoor Ahamad, while Criminal Appeal No.280 of 2012 has been filed by original accused no.1, Uttam Ramdas Chavan, who stand convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 330 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to imprisonment for life and each to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, rigorous imprisonment for three years and each to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of which, to undergo further R.I. for one month, rigorous imprisonment for three years and each to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of which to undergo further R.I. for one month, with a direction that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad, by judgment dated 6th of July, 2012 in Sessions Trial No.103 of 2003, by these appeals, question the correctness of their conviction and sentence. Since both these appeals arise from the same judgment of the Tria...
Ku. Suman Vishnu Pathak and Others Vs. Smt. Usha W/O Prabhakarrao Kopa ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
1. The respondent Smt. Usha Koparkar is the original plaintiff and the granddaughter of Late Shri Vishnu Pathak, who filed Regular Civil Suit No.80 of 1981 claiming that the suit property, which stood in the name of Vishnu Pathak, was acquired by nucleus of joint family funds and hence she was entitled to share in it. She claimed partition and separate possession of 1/36th share in the suit property, i.e. Plot No.17 at Yavatmal. The appellant Nos.1 and 2 are the original defendant Nos.17 and 19, who claimed to be the owners of the suit property on the basis of the codicil executed by Vishnu Pathak on 10-5-1973 bequeathing the suit property in their favour. The appellant Nos.3 to 7 are the original defendant Nos.26 to 30, who claimed to have purchased the suit property from the appellant Nos.1 and 2. 2. The two sons of Kashinath Pathak, viz. Satish and Vinod, were joined as the defendant Nos.1 and 2; Smt. Nirmalabai w/o Kashinath Pathak was joined as the defendant No.3; the another daug...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »