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.
Vasant Vs. Govindrao Upasrao Naik and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-02-2016
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.08.2014 in Petition No.E-35/2013 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Amravati, by which the applicant has been directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month each, totalling to Rs. 40,000/- from the date of filing of the Application i.e. 4.3.2013, to the father and mother of the applicant (original petitioners), the instant Revision has been filed. FACTS: 2. The respondents herein, that is, applicants before the Family Court, Amravati Govind and Mankarnabai, filed an Application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the present applicant-Vasant, their son, for grant of maintenance in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month each, from the applicant. In their Application, they stated that they are the parents of the present applicant and have been residing in the house of their daughter Rajani in Prabhu Colony, Amravati. The applicants on Vasant is serving in a high position in Saudi Polydlefins Limited,...
Qureshi Brothers Vs. State of Maharashtra, Irrigation Department
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-02-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The Arbitrator awarded interest at the rate of 18% per annum, which has been reduced by the trial Court at the rate of Rs.6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. 2. The point for determination of this Court is as under: Whether the trial Court was right in reducing the rate of interest awarded by the Arbitrator? 3. In paragraph 21 of the judgment, the trial Court has clearly observed that, "I find that the Arbitrator's award even on the point of interest cannot be set aside". In paragraph 23, it is observed that the decision of the Arbitrator about the interest of compensation is not erroneous and accordingly, the finding is recorded on Issue No.4 in negative. Undisputedly, it was a commercial transaction and the delay in compensating losses shall attract the commercial rate of interest which could not have been denied for the reason that the Arbitrator has awarded huge amount of interest. In view of this, there was no reason for the tri...
Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd., (Formerly known as Mahara ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-02-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. In Land Acquisition Reference Case No.28 of 1991, the Reference Court, acting under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ), has enhanced the compensation from Rs.1,75,000/to Rs.9,25,650/per hectare, after deducting the amount already paid to the respondent No.1/claimant. Apart from this, the claimant is also held entitled to the statutory benefits consequently available in law. This first appeal has been preferred by the acquiring body, challenging the enhancement of compensation. 2. Shri Moharir, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-acquiring body, has urged : (1) that the matter be remanded back to the Reference Court, as the appellant was not permitted to file written statement and was not joined in the reference as party-respondent; (2) that the reference should have been dismissed as barred by limitation; and (3) that the Reference Court has committed an error in enhancing the compensation. 3. The points...
Aakash @ Golu and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-01-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. The appellants suffered conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they are ordered to suffer sentence for life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months by learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.5 of 2012 on 7.2.2013, is the reason for these appellants to be before this Court in the present appeal. A. PROSECUTION CASE : 2. Deceased is Shatrughna. First informant Yograj Dayaram Jambhulkar (PW 4), is the father of the deceased. Yograj Jambhulkar lodged a oral report on 23.8.2011 at Police Station Kalmeshwar (Exh.28). The said oral report was reduced into writing by prosecution witness No.11 Shri Sambhaji Khandu Mhetre who at the relevant time was discharging duties as police inspector. The oral report was disclosing commission of a cognizable offence. Resultantly, Sambhaji Mhetre (PW 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›