Mumbai Nagpur Court June 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.
Bandu S/O. Raghoji Ujwalkar Vs. Bandu @ Vinod Gajanan Sontakke and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal questions validity and legality of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yavatmal on 26.3.2013 in Motor Accident Claim No.140 of 1995 whereby the Claim Petition was dismissed with no orders as to costs. 2. Heard the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respective parties. The grievance of the appellant is that the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal did not apply his mind to the facts established on record and despite documents which were exhibited in evidence such as documents of F.I.R. and Police investigation, Certificates granted from hospital in respect of injuries to the claimant, the information received by the claimant regarding details as to offending motor vehicle, its registration, insurance etc. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, although the claimant had suffered from permanent disability and produced documentary evidence in support of his clai...
Rashtrawadi Kalipiwali Chalak-malak Sanghatana and Others Vs. State of ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The present petition is filed basically for a declaration that the action of respondents of detaining vehicles on account of carrying passengers in excess is violative in law and for award of appropriate compensation. 3. It is the basic contention of petitioners that respondent authority though are not entitled in law in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Nanded-Parbhani, Z.L.B.M.V. Operators Sangh reported at 2000 AIR SC 725, are detaining vehicles of petitioners and not releasing the same for 2 - 3 days. 4. It is also contended of behalf of petitioners that even during the pendency of the petition, vehicles of petitioners have been detained by respondent No.7 as police authorities have now grudged against petitioners on account of filing of the present petition. 5. The allegation of petitione...
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Tulsidas and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
Oral Judgment: The instant first appeal preferred by appellant against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Achalpur on 04/10/2011 granting compensation of Rs.4,12,700/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the claimants. 2. The narrow dispute between the parties is about the appropriateness of the multiplier and also the quantum of the amount deductible for notional personal expenses of the deceased. Admittedly, the deceased was within the age group of 20 to 25 years. In such cases, normal multiplier considering the judicial precedents may be 17 or 18, but in the present case, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the age of the appellants, who are claimants, will also to be considered for determining the just and proper amount of compensation payable to the claimants. It is true that the compensation to be awarded must be just and fair and not the bonanza for the claimants in Motor vehicle accident claim. Beari...
Chetan Stone Crushing Industries and Others Vs. Maharashtra State Fina ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
Oral Judgment: (Chief Justice) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.3.2013, passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Nagpur, rejecting the petitioners' application for setting aside the 'no written statement' order, dated 04.07.2012 in Original Application No.49/2012 filed by the respondent- Maharashtra State Financial Corporation, Nagpur, which is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 3. Having regard to the fact that the controversy in this petition is about the delay on the part of the petitioners (opponents in the Original Application filed by the respondent-MSFC herein) in filing an application for setting aside the order of 'no written statement', we do not propose to set out the facts in detail. 4. According to the petitioners, the Advocate engaged by the petitioners before the Debts Recovery Tribunal withdrew his appearance by way of a Pursis, without informing the petit...
Suresh S/O Pandurang Kale Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-26-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Session Trial No.47/2007. The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. The incident in which the victim Satish was injured had occurred on 18-1-2007. One Babanrao had a vacant plot on the backside of house of the appellant. Said Babanrao had asked the victim Satish and his brother Raju to remove thorny bushes from the said plot. The appellant thought that the complainant Raju and his brother Satish (victim) had been removing bushes from the plot of the appellant. There was verbal quarrel between the appellant on the one hand and the complainant and his brother on the other hand. The said quarrel had subsided. However, at about 7.00 p.m. the b...
Jyoti Ashokrao Dhabadge Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-26-2013
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Both these petitions are heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. The basic cause of action and the background are common and so also the basic facts, and therefore, this common judgment. 2. Both the petitioners, based upon an advertisement issued by respondent no.3, applied and appeared for a written examination. After the interview, the Selection Committee selected both the petitioners. Both of them joined services upon selection. 3. By impugned order dated 4.9.2012 respondents cancelled the appointments of the petitioners on the basis of the judgment passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) on 19.7.2012 in Original Application No. 90 of 2012 and MCA No. 42/12 (Review application) moved by original respondents 4 and 5. Admittedly both these petitioners were not parties to the proceedings initiated by Sonutai (applicant in original application). The operative part of the order...
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Umashankar S/O. Narmadaprasad ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-26-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr.B.Lahiri, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mrs.M.H.Pathade, learned Counsel for respondent no.1. Though served, none appears on behalf of respondent no.2. 2. The appellant/Insurance Company has questioned the judgment and order passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No.891 of 1999 on 4.7.2008 whereby it was held that the claimant was entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs.1,05,500/- along with interest @ 7.5 % p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation. Joint and several liability was imposed upon the Insurer as well as owner of the vehicle by the Tribunal. 3. It is the case of the appellant/Insurer that the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.MH-31/AA-9407 was a Bajaj Scooty with engine capacity of 60 cc and, therefore, a person below the age of 16 years could not have been allowed to drive the said vehicle in the public place. It is contended that there was breach of Section 4 of the Motor Veh...
Sambhaji S/O Chindhuji Pachare Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-25-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1) The present Criminal Appeal takes exception to judgment and order dated 31.3.2009, passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Chandrapur, in Sessions Case No.113 of 2008, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months; and for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2) The case of the prosecution in nut-shell is as under: The appellant Sambhaji s/o Chindhuji Pachare had given information to the Police Station, Ghuggus, that on 5.6.2006 at about 4.00 am, his wife Shalu was seen burning in the house near the cot and in the said incident in which his wife died. On the ...
Union of India, Through General Manager, Central Railway, Cst Vs. Smt ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-25-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is an appeal against judgment and order dated 10th August 2007 delivered by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench directing appellant Railway to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 400,000/-. 2. Facts, briefly stated, are thus On 7.1.2002, respondent was travelling from Kalyan to Kanpur along with her son Satendar Kumar. They purchased railway tickets no. 63094952 and 63094953 for general compartment of Kushinagar Express. However, on arrival of the train at Kalyan Station, the doors of general compartment were not opened by the passengers inside and they entered reserved compartment. Respondent Sumitradevi requested TTE of reserved compartment to allot them berths in a sleeper coach to which TTE said that since there was no berth then available, he would allot them as and when there is availability. Respondent and her son then sat on floor near toilet. TTE could not allot berths upto Bhusawal and advised them to approach...
Harichandra Pundlik Ughade and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, Throu ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2) The petitioner No.1 claims that he had purchased agricultural land Gat No.282/2, situated at Mouza Rasa, Tahsil Wani, District Yavatmal from legal heirs of Bapurao Wararkar on 20/08/2001 under registered sale deed. According to the petitioners, it was for the first time on 09/07/2004 respondent No. 6 Sou.Nirmala Baburao Turankar had obstructed petitioners' right of way enjoyed by the petitioners, since the date of their registered sale deed dated 20/08/2001. Therefore, instead of quarreling with the said lady, the petitioners claiming right of way had approached Revenue Authorities i.e. Tahsildar, Wani, District Yavatmal. On 19/03/2005, Naib Tahsildar Wani heard Revenue Case No. 1/RTW/2004-05 and passed order dated 19/03/2005 granting 4 feet wide right of way using the boundary of adjacent land bearing Field Survey Nos.316 and 317, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »