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.
Sheikh Lal Hiraji Bagwan Dead Through LRs. Vs. Buldana Urban Coop. Cre ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 2nd March, 2013 made by the Principal Sessions Judge, Buldana in Criminal Appeal No.17/2008 dismissing the Appeal, thereby confirming the judgment and order dated 24th June, 2008 of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.3, Buldana, in Summary Complaint Case No.1573/2005, by which the revision applicant/accused was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,40,000/-, the instant Revision Application was filed by the original accused/ applicant. 2. In support of the Application, Mr. A.J. Thakkar, learned counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that the Courts below have committed error in convicting the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (henceforth abbreviated to 'N.I. Act'), in the absence of any legal liability or legally enforceable liability. According to him, the blank cheque given by the applicant was...
Chandramani Vs. Shashikala
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This Court had issued notice for final disposal of this Second Appeal on 14th July, 2014 having been prima facie convinced that the dispute between the parties was required to be resolved by having measurements from the experts from the concerned Govt. Department, since it was found, while issuing notice, that both the Courts on their own based their findings on the basis of papers, maps etc., placed before them, i.e., without appointing a Surveyor from the concerned Govt. Department, to find out the exact claim of the parties to the dispute. 2. Upon service of notice, learned Adv. Mr. Karmarkar appears for the respondent sole. Mr. Karmarkar fairly states that it would be proper that both the parties to the dispute know the exact measurements of the properties they own and posses, as they have purchased their respective properties for payment of valuable consideration. It is in this context, both the parties have, therefore, agreed for having a final disposal of this ...
Chandrashekhar Vs. Dr. Balkrishna and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
1. Heard Shri P.D. Randive, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri M.B. Naidu, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.6 and 7. 2. The petitioner-defendant has challenged the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application filed by him under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission to amend the written statement. 3. It is undisputed that the trial of civil suit has commenced. The application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to amend the written statement does not show that inspite of due diligence, the petitioner could not bring on the record the facts sought to be brought on the record by the proposed amendment. In view of this, the learned trial Judge does not have the jurisdiction to consider and allow the amendment application, in view of the bar created by the proviso below Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, as held in the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidyabai and others vs. Padmala...
Mahesh Zangoji Ghotekar Vs. Prayas Sakhare and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-18-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The dispute arising out of a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act, pertains to Plot No. 8, Khasra Nos. 62, 69, 71 and 87 of Mouza Ajani in the layout Uruvila Cooperative Housing Society, Wardha Road, Nagpur, which was owned by one Smt. Jasabai, the mother of the present applicant, the original plaintiff. The respondent no.2 Smt. Manjushri Prayas Sakhare is the daughter of Nivrutti, real brother of the plaintiff, and the respondent No.1 is her husband. In Special Civil Suit No. 104 of 2012 filed by the applicant-plaintiff, the respondents were joined as defendant nos. 1 and 2, as it was alleged that they have forcibly taken possession of the suit premises on 01.09.2011 and the suit was filed on 02.02.2012, which was during the period of limitation of six months, about which there is no dispute. 3. The applicant-plaintiff alleged that he was in actual possession of the suit...
Satish Shrikrishna Solanke Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-17-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. By the present appeal, the appellant is before this Court as he is aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge, Akola, in S.T. No.84/10 on 20.5.2013. By the said judgment, though the learned Judge of the Court below acquitted the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, found him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and directed the appellant to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, can be summarized as under : (a) Deceased is Sunita. Her marriage with the appellant took place prior to three years of occurrence of burn. According to prosecution, on 16.3.2010 in between 7 to 7-30 p.m., the appellant under the influence of liquor picked up a quarrel with his wife, the deceased, poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze. She su...
Omprakash Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-17-2016
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 99 of 2012 on 7th March 2013 recorded a finding of guilt against the appellant in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Rameshwar @ Ramu and consequently, he ordered sufference of life imprisonment by the appellant and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/by him and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The appellant is before this Court and has questioned the correctness and legality of the said judgment. A. THE PROSECUTION CASE : 2. During the course of trial, the prosecution has unfolded its case which is narrated hereunder : Deepak Walvi (PW 12) on 11.11.2011 was duty officer at Police Station, Dhantoli, Nagpur. On the said day at about 06.45 pm, one person holding axe in his hand which was smeared with blood, came to Police Station. Deepak Walvi made enquiries with him. He disclosed his name as Omprakash Gayaram Nirma...
Shamim Saifuddin Sarkhot Vs. Jugraj Miyachand Jain and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-17-2016
Oral: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. With consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing before admission. 3. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shrivardhan, on 19.12.2015, thereby directing the petitioner to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/ due to the State and compensation of Rs. 2,82,500/- due to the respondent No.1, within 30 days from the date of order and further directed to issue a warrant to Collector, upon failure on the part of the petitioner to comply with the directions. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is illegal as the petitioner is only legal heir of the original accused and secondly petitioner has received property on the basis of will executed by original accused. It is, therefore, the self acquired property of the petitioner and the petitioner is not liable either to pay fine amount or compensation. 5. The impugned order of the trial ...
Mayank Vs. Neha Malhotra (Kohli)
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-16-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Both these appeals under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, are filed by the husband Mayank. Petition No. A386/13, filed by him under Section 12[1][c] of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for annulment of marriage between him and respondent by a decree of nullity, has been dismissed by the Family Court. Similarly, Petition No. A 289/12 filed by the respondent wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights has been allowed with a direction to resume cohabitation and in default to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 20,000/. The Family Court has decided both these matters by a common judgment dated 23.07.2015. Family Court Appeal No. 73 of 2015 challenges the dismissal of annulment proceedings filed by him. FCA 74 of 2015 assails the grant of restitution in proceedings filed by Respondent wife. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is hereinafter referred to as the Act . 2. This Court has on 23.09.2015, issued notice observing ...
Prabhakar Vs. Additional District Magistrate Collectorate Premises, Na ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-12-2016
P.C. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Nagpur dated 9-10-2015 under Section 14 of the Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest act, 2002 (herein after referred to as the 'Act' for the sake of brevity) permitting the respondent No.2 Bank to secure the actual possession of the property from the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is one of the co-borrowers who had obtained cash credit facility from the respondent No.2 Bank to the extent of Rs.2,75,000/-. Since the petitioner defaulted in repaying the loan amount, the respondent No.2 Bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act on 17-9-2009. The symbolic possession of the property that was mortgaged by a registered mortgage deed by the petitioner with the respondent No.2 Bank was secured by the Bank immediately thereafter, in terms of the provisions of Section 13(4) of the Act. After securing the symbolic possession, the B...
Asha Vs. T.S.K. Reddy and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-12-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The question that arises for consideration in this contempt petition filed under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, the Act of 1971) is whether the Commissioner while considering a complaint filed under Section 62 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short, the Act of 1995) is a court for the purposes of Section 10 of the Act of 1971. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Forest Guard in the Forest Department of the State of Maharashtra. Her appointment was on a post reserved for handicapped persons. The petitioner sought promotion on the post of Forester and on said claim not being accepted, she filed a complaint under Sections 62 and 63 of the Act of 1995 before the Commissioner. By order dated 2-7-2015, the Commissioner partly allowed the complaint and directed the Chief Conservator of Forest to examine the case of the petitioner and considered her claim for prom...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »