Mumbai Nagpur Court February 2016 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.
Milind and Others Vs. Pramod
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. 2. The respondent/plaintiff-Pramod s/o Deshraj Budhraja has filed Summary Civil Suit No.108 of 2015 under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure on 10-8-2015 for a decree in the sum of Rs.3,51,26,250/- along with future interest at 21% per annum compounded quarterly from the date of filing of the suit till its payment, against the appellant-defendants, alleging that the defendants had issued four cheques dated 25-2-2015, 25-3-2015, 25-4-2015 and 25-5-2015 for an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- each in favour of the plaintiff to discharge their liability, and all the four cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The first cheque dated 25-2-2015 was presented on 26-2-2015, and upon its dishonour, it was returned to the defendant No.1, who made the payment of Rs.70,00,000/- and assured to make the balance payment of Rs.30,00,000/-, which he has failed to make. The other three cheques were dis...
Sushil Vs. Harishankar Ramnivas Sharma and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. Heard finally in view of notice for final disposal issued on 23/09/2014. 2. By this civil revision application filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code'), the applicant, who is the original defendant No.1 in S.C.S. No.5055/2012 has challenged the order dated 30/06/2014 passed on the application below Exhibit- 33 filed under provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code for rejection of the plaint. Similarly, the order dated 15/09/2014 rejecting the review application below Exhibit-49 filed by the applicant is also under challenge. 3. Few facts which are relevant to consider the challenge as raised in the revision application are that, initially the non-applicant No.1 had filed S.C.S. No.581/2006 against the present applicant and three others. It was the case of the non-applicant No.1 that he was the lawful owner of land bearing Kh. No.46 and part of land bearing Kh. No.47, admeasuring 1.75 acres. It was the further ca...
Maratwada Wakf Board through Mohammad Vs. Vibhawari and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, the Code) takes exception to the judgment dated 16.09.1994 passed by the first appellate Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 2. Facts found relevant for deciding the second appeal are that according to the appellant there was a Dargah and graveyard admeasuring about 350 ft. X 250 ft. in Survey No. 153 at Rajura Tahsil, District Chandrapur. The said Dargah and graveyard was shown as Wakf property in the development plan of Rajura town in 1972. In the Government Gazette dated 06.03.1975 it was shown at Sr. No. 49. According to the appellant the defendant no.1-Deepak Deshpande had encroached an area admeasuring 160 ft. X 170 ft. of said property in the month of May 1974. The defendant no.1 had also sold the portion admeasuring 95 ft. X 80 ft. to the defendant no.2 on 29.06.1976. In this background the appe...
Prabhakar and Another Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation, through ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-25-2016
1. Heard Shri M.P. Khajanchi, advocate for the applicants and Shri S.S. Ahirkar Special P.P. for the non-applicant. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The applicants have approached this Court under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the application (Exh. No.42) filed by them praying for discharge from the prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120B and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The non-applicant Central Bureau of Investigation has filed final report before the Special Judge, Chandrapur against the applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 120B and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint dated 20th/21st January, ...
Kashiram and Another Vs. Mansaram since Deceased : Through his LRs. an ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14th March 2001 in Regular Civil Appeal No.30/2000 made by the learned 7th Additional District Judge, Nagpur, by which the lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1999 in Regular Civil Suit No.32/1994 passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Kuhi and decreed the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs, the present Appeal was filed by the original defendants. 2. Field Survey No.22(old) Gut No.11 admeasuring 6.44 acres situated at Mouza Savangi, Tah.Kuhi, District: Nagpur was originally owned by Mansaram, along with his father Tulshiram and uncle Bala. The appellants agreed to purchase the said suit field vide an agreement of sale dated 17.9.1967 for a consideration of Rs. 4,000/- and the said agreement was executed by all the owners Mansaram, Tulshiram and Bala. The entire amount of consideration, namely, Rs. 4000/- was paid and was received by the respondents and the possession was also handed over to the appell...
Digambar Jain Dharma and Samaj Vikas Trust and Another Vs. Sub Divisio ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioner is a Public Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act and it owns agricultural land at Mouza Rangaon, Tq. Malkapur, District Buldhana, including Survey No.32/1, Gat No.53, admeasuring 3 hectare and 16R, which is the subject matter of this petition. One Shri Gunnusingh Dhondusingh, resident of Rangaon was the tenant in possession of the land in question, who died in the year 1991. The petitioner Trust filed an application for grant of exemption under Section 129(b) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (for short "the said Act'), which was allowed on 08.04.1968 and the land in question is included in the said certificate of exemption. The revision application filed by the legal heir was dismissed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 23.09.1974 and it attained the finality. 2. After the death of the original tenant Shri Gunnusingh Dhondusingh in the year 1991, the Trust filed an application under Section ...
Akash Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. Criminal appeal No.307/13 is filed by original accused No.1 Akash Jagdish Kakanya. Criminal Appeal No.322/13 is filed by original accused Sidharth Shankar Janbandhu. The appellants will be referred in the present judgment by their original position. 2. The accused persons are before this Court in view of their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge-12, Nagpur, in S.T. No.417/12. By the said judgment, after recording a finding of guilt against the accused persons, the learned Judge of the Court below sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Though both the accused are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, State has chosen not to prefer any appeal. 3. Prosecution case, as u...
Vidarbha Maharogi Seva Mandal Vs. The Member, Maharashtra Revenue Trib ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The petitioner-Trust had filed an application under Section 120(c) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (for short the said Act ), for recovery of possession on 15-6-2001, which was allowed by an order dated 9-5-2003 passed by the Tahsildar. The appeal preferred against it was dismissed on 17-6-2003. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in revision under Section 111 of the said Act, has set aside the decisions given by the lower authorities, and the application filed under Section 120(c) of the said Act for eviction and possession by the petitioner-Trust, has been dismissed. Hence, the Trust is before this Court in this petition. 3. The undisputed factual position in Writ Petition No.5383 of 2014 is that one Bhagwansingh and his wife Badamibai were the tenants in personal cultivation of the land bearing Survey No.83 and Gat No.203/B, w...
Narendra Vs. Tulsabai and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
1. Being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 29.01.2014 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.54/2005, passed by District Judge-1, Pandharkawda, thereby confirming judgment and order dated 20.04.2005 in Regular Civil Suit No.140/2000, passed by Jt. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Wani by which the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed and the counter claim was partly decreed directing delivery of possession of the suit property to the defendants, the present appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff. FACTS: 2. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for specific performance of contract in respect of field survey No.77/1 area 1.81 HR owned by deceased Bapurao istari Parshive, Rajeshwar and Vitthal Bapurao Parshive. The deceased Rajeshwar and Vitthal were the sons of the deceased Bapurao. According to the plaintiff, by agreement dated 14.02.1986, all the three, Bapurao, Rajeshwar and Vitthal had agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for Rs.45,000/- and he had pa...
Subhash @ Sopan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. By the present appeal, the appellant Subhash @ Sopan Pralhad Gawande, who is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, as awarded to him by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge1, Buldana, Camp at Malkapur in Sessions Case No.63/2012 (Old S.T. No.5/2012), after holding him guilty for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, is before this Court. 2. Shivaji Bhatu Ahire (PW-8) a probationary Police Sub Inspector was present at Nandura Police Station on 4.11.2011. That time, Sudhir Gawande (PW-1) came to Police Station and lodged his oral report (Exh.25). As per the said report, though he resides at Nashik in view of his service, for the purpose of Diwali, he had been to his village Mamulwadi. On 4.11.2011, he heard the noise and commotion. Therefore, he rushed towards the place of incident to notice that his uncle Murlidhar Dnyandeo Gawande lying in a pool of blood and Subhash @ Pralhad Gawande, the appellant...