Mumbai Nagpur Court July 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.
Surendrakumar Madhusudan Mor Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through the ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in so far as it provides for limitation of three months for filing of an application thereunder on the ground that it deprives the land holders from getting rightful amount of compensation. 2} The petitioner has also prayed that a communication dated 9th May 2011 from the Collector, Yavatmal, be set aside. 3} The petitioner submits that he owns the land bearing Gat No.128 admeasuring 5.27 hectares situated at mouza Pimpri (Hatgaon), Taluka and District Yavatmal. The respondent No.1 by the Notification dated 18th January 2003 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act), proposed to acquire 33.95 hectares land of mouza Pimpri for minor irrigation project, including 2.27 hectares land of...
The State of Maharashtra, Through Anti-corruption Bureau Vs. Khudaram ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12.1.2001 passed by the Special Judge, Nagpur in Special Case No. 4 of 1991 whereby respondent/accused has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (i) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the State of Maharashtra has preferred the present appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The facts, in brief, are as under: According to first informant Gunwant, he wanted to cut branches of trees standing on the boundary of his field. He went to the house of respondent/accused on 6.1.1990 who was, at the relevant time, working as Forest Guard. He gave oral permission to the complainant. Complainant engaged his cousin brother Vikram as a labour and after cutting, loaded the branches in a bullock cart. According to complainant, respondent-accused accosted the bullock cart on way and asked the complainant to take it to check post. At check-post, respondent/accus...
Soma Balkrushna Dadore Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt.26.7.2004 passed in Sessions Trial No.348 of 1997 by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur whereby the appellant/accused was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused was also found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. However, the accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocities Act”). 2. T...
Rajesh Mahadeo Pakhare Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
Oral Judgment : (M.L. Tahaliyani, J.) 1. The appellant Rajesh Mahadeo Pakhare was tried for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with original accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 namely Mahadeo Punjaji Pakhare, Ramdas Shalikram Kanoje, Smt. Manjulabai Punjaji Pakhare and Smt. Pramilabai Mahadeo Pakhare. The original accused Nos. 2 to 5 have been acquitted of both the charges and the appellant has been convicted of both the charges. The learned trial Court has imposed a punishment of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the former offence and jail sentence of ten years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the latter offence. 2. The appellant has impugned the said judgment and order of the learned 3rd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati dated 13rd February, 2008. 3. The appellant ...
Deepak Satyanarayan Sharma Vs. Kanchan
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J) 1] Admit. The appeal is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2] By this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment of the Family Court No.4, Nagpur dated 11th April, 2011 dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 seeking custody of his two minor sons from the respondent. 3] Few facts giving rise to the appeal are stated thus:- The marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 9th May, 2004 at Mangwadi, Tahsil Risod, District Washim, as per Hindu rites and customs. The parties stayed together till 31st August,2009. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent had started quarrelling with the appellant just after 15 days from the date of marriage. It is pleaded that the respondent and her parents went to Imamwada Police Station and lodged a false report against the appellant and his family members. The police had called the app...
Rajesh Mahadeo Pakhare Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
Oral Judgment : (M.L. Tahaliyani, J.) 1. The appellant Rajesh Mahadeo Pakhare was tried for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with original accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 namely Mahadeo Punjaji Pakhare, Ramdas Shalikram Kanoje, Smt. Manjulabai Punjaji Pakhare and Smt. Pramilabai Mahadeo Pakhare. The original accused Nos. 2 to 5 have been acquitted of both the charges and the appellant has been convicted of both the charges. The learned trial Court has imposed a punishment of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the former offence and jail sentence of ten years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the latter offence. 2. The appellant has impugned the said judgment and order of the learned 3rd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati dated 13rd February, 2008. 3. The appellant ...
Soma Balkrushna Dadore Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt.26.7.2004 passed in Sessions Trial No.348 of 1997 by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur whereby the appellant/accused was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused was also found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. However, the accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Atrocities Act). 2. The facts, brie...
Deepak S/O Toshwantrao Raghorte Vs. Smt. Priyanka W/O Deepak Raghorte
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.B. Chaudhari, J.) First Appeal No.473/11 has been filed by the husband being aggrieved by the common judgment and decree dated 6.4.2011 in his petition No.A-442/08 for grant of divorce. First Appeal No.474/11 has been filed by the husband against the said common judgment dated 6.4.2011 rendered in petition No.A-584/08 allowing the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the wife. 2. FACTS : The appellant/husband and the respondent/ wife were married on 3.2.2007 at Nagpur. The appellant/husband is B.E. (Electrical) and is serving as Junior Engineer in M.S.E.B. Respondent/wife is B.Sc. According to respondent, it was misrepresented to him that the respondent was M.Sc. (Chemistry) but there was no supporting certificate shown to him at any point of time and thus according to him he was cheated. After marriage they went to Simla for honeymoon and he found that she was immature, suffering from unsoundness of mind and had no menstruation after marriage and star...
Ramdarsh Shardaprasad Mishra and Another Vs. Divisional Joint Registra ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.B. Chaudhari, J.) 1. A common judgment and order dated 25.6.2012 in Writ Petition Nos.2490/2012 and 2491/2012, passed by the learned Single Judge, is under challenge in these two letters patent appeals. 2. In support of the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant in both the appeals made the following submissions. (A) The members of the Managing Committee of respondent no.4 - Co-operative Society are 13 from the elected category and 2 from the nominated category and thus, the strength of the Committee is 15. The motion of no confidence was passed against the appellants with 9 votes. According to Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the appellant in both appeals, it is an admitted fact that the notice of motion of no confidence was given to only 13 elected members of the Committee and the 2 nominated members, namely one from a District Central Cooperative Bank and the other, namely the representative of District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies were not at all ...
Ramdarsh Shardaprasad Mishra and Another Vs. Divisional Joint Registra ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.B. Chaudhari, J.) 1. A common judgment and order dated 25.6.2012 in Writ Petition Nos.2490/2012 and 2491/2012, passed by the learned Single Judge, is under challenge in these two letters patent appeals. 2. In support of the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant in both the appeals made the following submissions. (A) The members of the Managing Committee of respondent no.4 - Co-operative Society are 13 from the elected category and 2 from the nominated category and thus, the strength of the Committee is 15. The motion of no confidence was passed against the appellants with 9 votes. According to Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the appellant in both appeals, it is an admitted fact that the notice of motion of no confidence was given to only 13 elected members of the Committee and the 2 nominated members, namely one from a District Central Cooperative Bank and the other, namely the representative of District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies were not at all ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »