Mumbai Court December 2010 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.
Ll R/O Shendi, Tq.Ahmednagar Vs. Gopinath Dagdu Shinde
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-09-2010
:1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, petition is heard finally.2] The order dated 7/1/2010 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar is subjected to challenge in this Petition. By that order, the application of the respondent/orig.deft. under Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C. for appointment of Court Commissioner came to be allowed.3] The impugned order is passed appointing an advocate as Court Commissioner to visit the spot in question and to submit a report in respect of possession of the suit property. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no commissioner can be appointed by the Court to collect evidence. He has relied upon the following cases in support of his contention :[I] Sanjay Namdeo Khandare V/s Sahebrao Kachru Khandare & Ors reported in 2001 (2) Mh.L.J. 959.[II] Efigenio Dias and another V/s Malaquias D'Costa & Ors. reported in 2000 (2) Mh.L.J. 209.[III] Puttappa V/s Ramappa reported in AIR 1996 Karnataka 257.4] In the aforemen...
Narsanna Naganna Arge Vs. Assistant Registrar
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
:1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24th November, 2010 passed by the Respondent No.1 Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded in Appeal preferred by Respondent No.3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent of the parties taken up for final hearing.2. The petitioner herein is a member of the Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Yetale, Tq. Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded. The election programme for the election of the said society was published on 25th October, 2010. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.3 filed nomination form from OBC Reserved category for contesting the election of the said society. The Returning Officer respondent NO.2 rejected the nomination form after scrutiny. The Returning Officer found that the certificate produced by the respondent No.3 mentions that he belongs to sub-caste Golla, which comes under N.T. Category and is at Sr.No.9 in the list of Nomadic Tribes in Maharashtra as published by...
Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
:1. Both these Petitions can be conveniently disposed of together, as the questions raised in the respective Petitions are common.2. Shorn of details, the facts which have given rise to filing of the above two Writ Petitions by Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal (hereinafter referred to as `RMD' for the sake of brevity) and Jagdish M.Joshi (hereinafter referred to as `JMJ' for the sake of brevity), can be set out as under:(a) The Petitioners have rushed to this Court essentially on account of order, passed by the Special Court constituted under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the `MCOC Act') for Greater Mumbai, dated 26th July 2005, in Special Case No.1/2005; and also because of non-bailable warrants issued against them in connection with the said case i.e. DCB CID CR No.152/2004. The Petitioner RMD asserts that he is the Chairman of M/s.Dhariwal Industrial Limited, having its registered office at Pune. The said Dhariwal Industries is part of...
(F) Chandrakant S/O Purushottam Dehedkar and ors. Vs. the Collector an ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
: 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.2 The petitioner, namely, Purushottam Vyankatrao Dehedkar, who was of 87 years, filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed as under : " (A) This petition be kindly allowed;(B) Record and proceedings in respect of the petitioner's claim for freedom fighter's benefits with the respondents be kindly called;(C) By issue of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, impugned orders dated 10.11.2006 and 4.7.1995 issued by respondents be quashed and set aside;(D) By issue of writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, the respondents be kindly directed to grant to the petitioner freedom fighter's pension with effect from 1.1.1995 along with all incidental, ancillary and consequential benefi...
Chandrapal Khubiram Rajoriya Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2010
The Appellant-Applicant has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai for offence punishable under Section 302 and is undergoing life sentence. During the pendency of the Appeal, present Application has been filed praying for releasing the Applicant on parole for a period of 30 days. In the alternative to grant him temporary bail in order to attend the marriage ceremony of his sons scheduled on 9th December, 2010. This Application was moved on 2nd December, 2010. It was taken up for hearing on 3rd December, 2010 when we thought it appropriate to direct the concerned Authority to decide the Applicant's request for grant of parole on or before 6th December, 2010. Pursuant to the said direction, the concerned Authority considered the parole request of the Applicant and has rejected the same principally on the ground that the Applicant is not eligible for grant of parole in terms of Rule 19 of the statutory Rules.2. In view of the said decision which was conveyed to u...
Hanmant S/O Vitthalrao Ghodke Vs. Chandrashekhar Malikarjunappa Bidwe
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
:-1 This petition is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 9.3.1990, passed by the learned District Judge, Latur in Rent Appeal No. 12 of 1989. By the said judgment, the leaned District Judge has confirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller in File No. 1987/RCA/0/24 dated 8.8.1989.2 The petitioner herein is tenant and the respondent herein is the original landlord, who filed eviction petition for eviction of the petitioner herein on the ground of willful default in making payment for the suit premises of Municipal house No. 172/2 situated at Lokhand Galli, Latur. Since the eviction was sought only on the ground of willful default, the Rent Controller Latur framed only one issue i.e. Does the petitioner proves that respondent-tenant is willful defaulter? The said issue is answered by the Rent Controller in affirmative. 3 Being aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner herein filed Rent Appeal No. 12 of 1989 before the learned District Court, at Latur. ...
Shri Wilfred Rozario Fernandes Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
1.The Appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 21st October, 2002 passed by Additional sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.12 of 1998 whereby the Appellant was convicted of the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine in the sum of Rs 1000/- in default to undergo further imprisonment of three months.2. Briefly stated facts of the prosecution case are as under :- On 05th October, 1997 Police had received intimation that a dead body of an unidentified male with throat injuries is lying in Talav Pakhadi Maidan, Sahar Village, Andheri (East). Police proceeded to the spot to ascertain identity of the person. Information gave rise to C.R. No. 959 of 1997 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Inquest (Exh. 7) was held on 6th October, 1997. Pair of slippers, blood smeared chopper, blood sample from the wounds of the dead body were seized under the Panchnama. The d...
Ganesh S/O Jagannath Tambave Vs. Unknown
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.02. By the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has prayed;"(A) To issue writ of certiorari or any other writ or directions in the like nature and the order passed by Caste Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad i.e. respondent No.2 dtd. 18.04.2006 in file No.04/7 may kindly be quashed and set aside.(B) To issue writ of mandamus or any other directions in the like nature, the petitioner may kindly be declared as belonging to Caste "Lingader-Lingdhar" which one and the same and appears at Sr. 34 in list of Scheduled Caste as notified under Constitutional Provision and his caste certificate may kindly be held to be valid.(C) To issue writ of mandamus and the Respondent No.2 Caste Scrutiny Committee may kindly be directed to return the original documents forfeited by them to the peti...
Nos.1 and 2 Through Its General Vs. Nos.1 to 3 Through
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
:1 The Writ Petition No.536 of 1992 has been filed, challenging the judgment and order dated 21st April, 1990 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision No.MRT/AH/X/6/88 (TNC.246/88) Pune-1.The Writ Petition No.3695 of 1998 has been filed, challenging the Judgment and Order dated 27th January, 1994 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sangamner in Appeal No. 13 of 1992 and confirmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision No.MRT.AH.III.4/94 (TNC.B.74/94) Pune-1, by judgment and order dated 22nd April, 1998. 2 The relevant facts as disclosed in the Writ Petitions are as under:The petitioners herein are the original tenants in respect of land Survey No. 226-1/A, admeasuring 0.53 R assess at Rs. 2.45 pasie and Survey No. 178-1/B, admeasuring 1 Hector 35 R assess at Rs. 6.30 Paise. These lands are situated at Village Nathpatlachiwadi, Tq. Kopergaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. The said lands were taken on lease by the petitioners priot to 1st April, 1957. However, the original l...
Mr. Rajesh Bhalchandra Chalke Vs. M/S Emco Dynatorq Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-2010
:1.This petition has been placed before the Full Bench for considering the question about interpretation of Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Sections 118, 138, 139, 142, 143 and 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short referred to as "NI Act") and its interplay with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short referred to as "CrPC").2. Shortly put, the question is - "whether, in view of the provisions of Section 145 CrPC (added by Act No.55 of 2002), a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate, First Class, taking up a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, along with documents in support thereof and a verification made in the affidavit in support of the complaint, is still obliged to examine on oath the complainant and his witnesses before issuing process on the complaint?3. The reference has been made as the learned Single Judge expressed the prima facie view that the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Cour...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »