Mumbai Nagpur Court May 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.
Suresh Gulabrao Shambharkar Vs. Digambar Dasharath Khadse and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-10-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally as a notice of final disposal was issued to the respondents and the respondents are duly served with the notice. 2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial Court on 11/02/2013 allowing an application filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 4 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for joining them as party plaintiffs. 3. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the sons of Shantabai. Shantabai had executed an agreement to sell the suit property in favour of the petitioner on 10/04/1998. Shantabai expired on 10/06/1998 before the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner. After the death of Shantabai, the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 executed the sale deed in respect of 3/4th of the land, i.e. their share in the property in favour of the petitioner on 30/09/1998. The petitioner is the owner and possessor of the 3/4th of the property belonging to Shantabai, having purchased ...
Sau. Banotai Wife of Usman Garwe Vs. the Divisional Commissioner [Reve ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-10-2013
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 01. Rule. Rule heard forthwith. 02. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the instance of a woman Member of Zilla Parishad, Washim, depicts the blatant violation of the constitutional provisions despite insertion of Seventy-Third Amendment to the Constitution conferring necessary status, namely constitutional status, on the Panchayat Raj Institutions in the extant political system, though more than two decades have passed. Eventually, this Court and rather this Bench had an occasion to deal with a similar situation and a decision was rendered by both of us with concurring judgments written separately in the case of Charan Sovinda Waghmare Vs. State of Mah. and others [2012 (4) Bom. C.R. 40]. We find no material difference in the facts of the present case, so also the violations of constitutional provisions as to Panchayati Raj on the part of the respondents. 03. It is the case of the petitioner that for beautification and development of...
Vilas Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-07-2013
Oral Judgment: (P.B. Varale, J.) By this Appeal, the appellant / original accused is challenging the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana, thereby convicting the accused / appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only), in default of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. 2. Facts as are necessary for the decision of this appeal may briefly be stated thus : The marriage of the victim Sarla and the appellant / accused had solemnized sometime in 2004 and the couple was blessed with one child namely Vishal. Though in the initial period of marital life of couple everything was well, subsequently after 5-7 months of the marriage, the accused and his parents were picking up quarrels with Sarla on trifle grounds and consequently the couple was separated from each other. Thereafter, victim Sarla and her s...
Rahul Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Minister, Animal Husbandary ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-07-2013
Oral Judgment: By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the respondent no.1, the Hon'ble Minister for Animal Husbandary and Dairy Development, on 28.11.2002 remanding the matter to the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies for a fresh decision on the same. 2. The Magasvargiya Pashu Va Pakshi Palan Sahakari Sanstha is a society registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1950 (sic). On the said society, the respondent No.5 was appointed as an administrator. The petitioner is the chairman of the society. According to the petitioner, the bye-laws of the society were amended as per the guidelines of the State Government. The amendment was carried out after seeking the approval of the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. The respondent Nos.6 to 15 were aggrieved by the order granting permission to amend the bye-laws and hence challenged the same before the Divisional Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur. The Divis...
Naresh Balaji Kolhe Vs. Smt. Shakuntala
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-06-2013
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 an order passed by the trial Court on 04.12.2012 allowing an application filed by the respondent for amendment of the written statement with a view to file a counter claim. 2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the petitioner for a decree of specific performance of contract. It was the case of the petitioner that the defendant-respondent had failed to execute the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner. The respondent filed the written statement on 24.06.2011 and denied the claim of the petitioner. On 02.07.2012, during the pendency of the suit, the respondent filed an application for amendment of the written statement with a view to file the counter claim. By the proposed amendment, the respondent wanted to seek a decree of perpetual injunction against the petitioner restraining the...
Smt. Jijabai Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-03-2013
Oral Judgment: (P.B. Varale, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner-convict questions the order passed by the State Government dated 30.10.2012. The short point for our consideration is whether the category of the petitioner-convict as stated in the order dated 30.10.2012 is in conformity with the judicial pronouncement of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.3701/2012 (Usha Munna Upadhyay vs. The State of Maharashtra) rendered on 15.03.2013. The request for premature release of the petitioner-convict was considered and the petitioner-convict was placed in category as categorized in the Government Guidelines issued in that behalf on 15.03.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the categorization as fixed by the authorities is clearly in breach of the judgment and order passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.3701/2012. 3. T...
Purushottam and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-02-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard learned Counsel R.R. Vyas for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri J.B. Jaiswal for respondent No.1. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioners are accused in Regular Criminal Case No.237/2008 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajura. They are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 324 read with Section 34 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence punishable under Section 326 is not a compoundable. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 were injured in the alleged incident. Respondent No.2 Sau. Sangita Nikhade, who is wife of respondent No.3, was the complainant. 4. The petitioners and respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are present before the Court. It is stated by them that they have resolved the issue amicably out of the Court. It is stated by respondent Nos.2,3 and 4 that they do not want to proceed further against the petitioners as their rel...
Pramila Pralhad Gole and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-02-2013
P.C. Heard Shri Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. 2. Learned counsel Shri Sirpurkar, submits that the case of the applicants No.1 and 2 is different from the case of applicant No.3. It is submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the application of the applicant No.3 and may be given liberty to file afresh. It is apprehended by him that joint hearing of this application may cause prejudice to the applicants No.1 and 2. He, therefore, wants to file separate application for applicant No.3. 3. Prayer of applicant no.3 for grant of bail is disposed of as not pressed. Liberty is given to file fresh application on behalf of applicant No.3. 4. As far as applicants No.1 and 2 are concerned, they were members of alleged unlawful assembly. It appears that there is a dispute between two families of Goles since long and because of that dispute the incident in question had occurred. It appears that the...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›