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.
Aniruddha S/O. Vishnu Deodhar Vs. Smt. Meena W/O. Tilak Gupta
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-18-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of the learned Counsel for the applicant. Counsel for the respondent is absent. 2. In a pending Summary Case bearing Criminal Complaint Case No.5952 of 2010, at the instance of the Complainant, the trial Court made an order below Exh.66 on 27th March, 2012 accepting the submissions of the accused that the cheque in question was required to be examined by the Forensic Laboratory to find out the age of ink on the cheque etc. As a sequel to the said finding, the trial Court directed the accused to take hamdast and reach the same on the same day to the Forensic Laboratory at Nagpur. Needless to say that the trial Court did not first ascertain whether the expert opinion could be given by the Nagpur Forensic Laboratory or Hyderabad Laboratory and thus, putting cart before the horse, the said order came to be made. Obviously, the accused had to return back to the Magistrate with a letter from the Nagpur Forensic Laborat...
Bhagirathibai W/O Chandrabhan Nimbarte and Another Vs. Tanabai W/O Ram ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-18-2013
1. The appellants in Second Appeal No.291 of 1995 are the original defendant Nos.1 and 2 in Regular Civil Suit No.407 of 1986 filed by the respondent Tanabai, claiming a declaration that she is the owner of half portion of the suit property, being the daughter of one Vithoba Nimbarte, who was the owner. The Trial Court, by its judgment and order dated 31-12-2001, has partly decreed the said suit and the declaration is granted that the plaintiff is the owner of 1/3rd share in the suit property. Accordingly, a decree for partition of the suit property has been passed and an enquiry into mesne profit has been ordered. 2. In Regular Civil Appeal No.26 of 1992, the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Bhandara, has modified the decree on 23-12-1994 by granting a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share in the suit property, and accordingly a decree for partition and separate possession was maintained along with enquiry into mesne profit under Order XX, Rule 12 of the Civi...
Girdhari Ramchandra Bhagwani Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-15-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- 1) Direct handing over of investigation of Crime No.385/2012 registered by Sitabuldi Police Station on 13/10/2012 for the offences punishable under section 448, 452 and 34 of Indian Penal Code to Crime Branch Nagpur or Crime Investigation Department, or any other independent unbiased authority, in the interest of justice. 2) Direct respondent no.2, Commissioner of Police to initiate departmental enquiry against the respondent no.4 so also other Police Officers who delayed with enquiry/investigation of complaint given by the petitioner, for dereliction of duty, in the interest of justice. 3. In so far as Prayer (1) is concerned, learned Adv. Mr. Vyas for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing the said relief, inasmuch as reply...
Dr. Vinod S/O Babarao Rode and Another Vs. the District Judge-2 and An ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-14-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioners impugn an order passed by the trial court on 15.10.2010, allowing an application filed by the respondent no. 2-plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure and directing that the petitioners be sent to civil prison for a period of one month for breach of injunction order dated 21.01.2002. The petitioners also challenge the judgment passed by the District Judge, Amravati. on 2.3.2012, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 15.10.2010. One Atmaram Bahadursingh Panjabi was the original plaintiff. The respondent no.2 is the legal heir of Atmaram. In the year 2001, Atmaram filed a civil suit against the petitioners for declaration, injunction and cancellation of the sale deed. An application was filed by Atmaram under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil ...
Mahendra Vs. Smt. Kantalal
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-14-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the orders passed by the trial court on 7.3.2012 and 16.8.2012, rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement. 2. The petitioner is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the respondent against the petitioner under the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act for possession. The suit was filed in the year 2003 and the respondent-landlord tendered the evidence on affidavit on 21.9.2004. When the matter was at the stage of the evidence of the petitioner-defendant, an application was filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement. By the proposed amendment the petitioner wanted to plead that during the pendency of the proceedings, in the year 2005, the plaintiff had let out the shop block vacated by another tenant and this showed that the plaint...
Pappu Alias Akhilesh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-14-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. 2. ADMIT. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as "respondent No.1") on 9th July, 2012 in exercise of his powers under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act. The petitioner has been directed to remove himself from territorial jurisdiction of Police Commissionerate, Nagpur and Superintendent of Police, Nagpur (for the sake of brevity "Nagpur City" and "Nagpur Rural") for a period of one year. The petitioner has already removed himself in obedience of the order passed by respondent No.1. 5. It is admitted position that an inquiry was held by respondent No.2 before respondent No.1 could pass order which is impugned in the present petition. It is also not disputed that about 21 criminal cases were pending against the petitioner in the Courts at Nagpur, mainly pertaining to Gittikhadan Police Station, Nagpur. The said 21 cases pending against the petition...
Prabhu Motiram Pamnani Vs. Krishi Utpanna Bazar Samiti
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-14-2013
Common Oral Judgment: Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are identical, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners are the original non-applicants. An application was filed by the respondent market committee under Clause 13 of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order for grant of permission to issue quit notice to the petitioners. It was the case of the respondent committee that the shop premises were allotted to the petitioners only for the market year 1989-90. It was the case of the committee that the vacant possession of the shop premises was to be handed over by the petitioners to the committee after the end of the market year on 30.9.1990. Since the petitioners failed to vacate the premises, the application was filed by the committee under Clause 13 of the Rent Control Order for grant of permission to issue quit notice to the petitioners. 3. The petitioner filed the reply and denied the claim of the resp...
Mohd. Sabir S/O Mohd. Hanif Vs. Govind S/O Badrinarayan Rathi
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-13-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard learned Counsel Mr. Mahesh Rai for the petitioner and learned Counsel Mr. S.P. Joshi, Advocate h/f Mr. S.S. Sharma for the respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Perused the impugned judgment and order rejecting the application for condonation of delay of 5 months 20 days. 4. The petitioner is an accused in the case pending before the learned Magistrate under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque in question, according to the petitioner, was interpolated. He, therefore, filed an application for sending the cheque to the Document Examiner. The said application was rejected. The said order was challenged before the Sessions Court after a delay of about 5 months and 20 days. The explanation given by the petitioner before the Sessions Court was that the petitioner thought that he could examine the Handwriting Expert though his application for sending the cheque to the Document Examiner w...
Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-13-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Union of India, Chairman, CBDT and Commissioner of Income Tax assail the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Nagpur in Original Application No. 2075 of 2003 on 26th September, 2003. By the said order, the Central Administrative Tribunal has allowed the challenge raised by respondent No.1-employee and has quashed the charge memo dated 07.11.2000 on the ground that the same suffered from inexplicable delay and some of the charges therein were in relation to discharge of quasi-judicial functions by the said respondent. This Court had on 26th April, 2004 admitted the matter and stayed said judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal. This Court also permitted the Departmental Enquiry to proceed further till the Enquiry Officer furnished his report. If the employee was found to be guilty, the petitioner-employer was asked to seek permissio...
Smt. Fehameeda Begum W/O Mahamood Khan Pathan Vs. Abdul Hafiz S/O. She ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-11-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The only issue that arises for determination in this petition is whether a notice under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, demanding a higher rent than the rent agreed between the landlord and the tenant is bad-in-law or whether the notice would be valid and the tenant would be required to pay the arrears of admitted rent within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the notice and/or within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the suit summons. The petitioner is the landlady. The petitioner had issued a notice under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 to the respondent seeking the arrears of rent for the period from 01/11/2002 till 31/10/2005 at the rate of rupees four hundred and fifty per month. In spite of the service of the notice, the respondent-tenant did not pay the rent. A suit was, therefore...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »