Mumbai Nagpur Court February 2013 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.
Madhukar S/O Deorao Dudhe Vs. Ranapratap Shriram Malviya and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) The matter is heard finally with the consent of Shri J.J. Chandurkar, learned counsel for the appellant tenant, Shri A.S. Chandurkar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 landlord, and Shri M.J. Khan, learned AGP for respondent No. 5, in the light of order dated 20.03.2012. 2. The facts are not in dispute. Sudhakar, brother of present appellant was the tenant inducted by Respondent No. 1. Said Sudhakar expired in 1986. The landlord filed Small Cause Suit No. 79 of 2003 against Madhukar, present appellant and legal heirs of deceased Sudhakar, for their eviction under Sections 15 and 16 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 1999 Act). One of the contentions was, the premises were unauthorizedly sub-let to present appellant Madhukar. The suit was dismissed on 22.07.2008 and in Regular Civil Appeal No. 142 of 2008 preferred by Respondent No. 1, the District Judge, Amravati, set aside that judgment and decreed the suit. ...
Amit S/O Subhashrao Mohod Vs. the Bank of India (Through Its Head Offi ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. Respondent No. 1 before this Court is a Nationalized Bank and Respondent No. 2 is its Zonal Officer. Communication dated 28.08.2012 issued by Respondent No. 2 to present petitioner informing him that in view of the provisions of Section 10(1)(b)(i) of Banking Regulations Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as 1949 Act) his candidature for the post of Clerical cadre in Respondent No. 1 Bank stood cancelled, has been questioned by the petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The contention is, the Competent Court has given him benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 1958 Act) and in view of the provisions of Section 12 thereof, he cannot be subjected to any disqualification on account of said disqualification. 2. The judgment and order delivered by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandur Bazar, in Regular Criminal Case No. 133 of 2003 on 06.02.2008 is not in dispute. The ...
Sunil Vs. Prabhakar
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Oral Judgment: By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgments passed by the trial and the first appellate Court granting a decree of eviction and possession in favour of the respondent-landlord and against the petitioner-tenant. 2. The respondent is the original plaintiff. A suit was instituted by the respondent for ejection and possession under Section 16(1)(h) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. It was the case of the plaintiff that in the month of September, 2003 the Nagpur Improvement Trust had proposed to widen the road and the portion which was in occupation of the petitioner-defendant was required to be demolished for road widening. It was pleaded that since the plaintiff was asked by the Nagpur Improvement Trust to demolish the shop block, it was necessary for the defendant to vacate the shop block so that the plaintiff could demolish the portion in occupation of the defendant and construct a new building. 3. The case of the plaintiff was denied by the petitioner...
Sanjay Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
A.P. Lavande, J. By this appeal, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") takes exception to the judgment and order dated 24.4.2009 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Case No.233/05 convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for one month for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and to undergo R.I. for three months for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly, the prosecution case is as under:- Deceased Hawasu Dhurwe was the father of the first informant PW.1 Bastiram Dhurwe. They were residing at Tiosa Ghat. The accused was also resident of Tiosa Ghat. The accused had alleged that the deceased had practised witchcraft upon him and had threatened to kill him. On 24.8.2005 at a...
The State of Maharashtra, Through the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
P.B. Varale, J. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. Shri A.J. Pathak, the learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of respondent No.1. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioners-State of Maharashtra through Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Entry Tax Officer, Nagpur are challenging the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai in Second Appeal No. 1294 of 2005 thereby allowing the appeal preferred by respondent No.1-Smt. Anuja Chhajed. The brief facts, giving rise to filing of the present petition, can be summarized as under. 3. The respondent No.1 purchased a chassis (vehicle chassis) at Raipur in State of Madhya Pradesh on 10.07.1995. Respondent No.1 effected the entry of said chassis in the State of Maharashtra causing it to be driven on public road. Respondent No.1 thereafter purchased bus body at Nagpur for mounting the same on the chassis, which was entered into State of Maharashtra. Respondent ...
Ramkisan Son of Goverdhan Dhurve Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
Oral Judgment: [A.B. Chaudhari, J.]: 1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 2nd May, 2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gondia, in Sessions Trial No. 91 of 2010, convicting the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for the first offence, and Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months, for the latter offence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court. Facts 2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was residing at village Dhanegaon with his wife Pushpabai, step-daughter Jantribai and deceased Rajesh Markam, who was the husband of Jantribai, in a hut built on the plot allotted by the Government. The accused had married with Pushpabai,...
Rajukumar Girdharilal Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. 2. ADMIT. 3. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 4. It is seen from the xerox true copy of Roznama produced before me that the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure for trial of sessions cases was not scrupulously followed by the learned Sessions Court. Section 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enjoins upon the Sessions Court to ask the learned prosecutor to open case for the prosecution. Section 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure runs as under : "226. Opening case for prosecution : When the accused appears or is brought before the Court in pursuance of a commitment of the case under Section 209, the prosecutor shall open his case by describing the charge brought against the accused and stating by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused." 5. Stage to frame a charge comes after the Court comes to a conclusion that there was no case for discharge. The charge is to be framed if upon consideration of record and hearing, ...
Abdul Subhan S/O Mohammad Umar and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
A.P. Lavande, J. 1] This appeal was originally filed by two appellants. However, during pendency of the appeal, appellant no.1 has expired and as such, his appeal stands abated. Appeal filed by appellant no. 1 is dismissed as abated. As such, we shall deal with the appeal in so far as appellant no.2 is concerned. 2] By this appeal, the appellant/original accused no.2 (hereinafter referred to as the accused) assails the judgment and order dated 30.5.2006 passed by 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 115/03 convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 364 read with Section 34, Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.7000/-, in default of which to suffer S.I. for 18 month for the offence punishable under Section 364 read with Section 34 and to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/-, i...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Nilesh Manohar Risodkar
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. S.S. Doifode for the appellant and learned Counsel Ms. Trupti Udeshi for the respondent on the point of delay. After having heard both the sides, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor shall file application for condonation of delay. The Registrar is directed to mark the said application as disposed of. The application will be filed only for the purposes of record and statistic. 2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. S.S. Doifode for the appellant and learned Counsel Ms. Trupti Udeshi for the respondent. 3. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 4. The respondent is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, by the impugned judgment and order dated 10th July, 2012. The respondent was also tried for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal...
Chief Officer and First Appellate Officer, Nagpur Housing and Area Dev ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-18-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard finally at the stage of admission as a notice of final disposal was issued to the respondents by an order, dated 16.1.2013 and the respondents are duly served with the notice. 2. By this petition, the petitioners impugn an order passed by the State Information Commissioner on 27.3.2012, directing the petitioner to furnish the information to the respondent no.1 within a period of 15 days. 3. The respondent no.1 filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and requested for information about the declaration of income - wealth of two of its employees, namely Tushar Rathod and Smt. Kanta Kalnahke. The Public Information Officer sent a reply to the respondent no.1 stating therein that the details of the personal information in regard to the two employees cannot be furnished in view of the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act. Since the information was not furnished, the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »