Mumbai Court July 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.
Ramesh S/O. Tulshiram Mahajan and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-15-2010
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants herein, by way of judgment and order dated 16th April 2010, rendered by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner, in Sessions Case No. 15 of 2008, thereby convicting them for offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, for having voluntarily caused grievous hurt by dangerous weapon to victim Arun s/o. Pandharinath Mahajan (PW 1), and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, each, and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, each, and also convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC for having voluntarily caused grievous hurt by dangerous weapon to Sarlabai s/o. Ramesh Mahajan (PW 4), and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, each, and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, each, in default of payment of fine,...
Jayant Namdeorao Gohad Vs. Prakash Manikrao Vighe and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-15-2010
1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard.2. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 12/10/2010 passed by the Tahsildar/Mamlatdar, Morshi in exercise of the power under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906, by which order the right of way through the field of the petitioner has been granted to the respondent no.1. The second order under challenge is the order dated 6/9/2008 by which the Sub Divisional Officer, Morshi has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner under Section 23 of the said Act.3. The dispute in the above petition is as regards the claim of the respondent no.1 of right of way to his field being Survey Nos.242/2 and 242/2A, situated at mauza Pala through the field of the petitioner being survey No.240/3.4. It appears that the respondent no.1 along with his brother had filed an application before the Tahsildar, Morshi on 10/1/1991 stating that the...
Anil Namdeo Rajguru. Vs. the State of Maharashtra at the Instance of t ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-2010
1 The present appeal is filed by the original accused no.1 who was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 506(2) r/w. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the first charge and RI for two months with fine of Rs. 100/- for the second charge. The appellant was also Jud.205.cri.appeal.1542.04.sxw convicted for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and was sentenced RI for four months and fine of Rs.100/-. Similar order of conviction and sentence was passed against accused No.2 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No.732 of 1998. It appears that accused no.2 has not preferred any appeal.2 The prosecution case in brief is that injured PW1 Ashok and PW2 Manoj and some others and accused no.1 Anil and accused no.2 Pravin as well as the eye witnesses of this case were residing in the nearby localities. Prior to the incident of the present case al...
Satyavati Ramprasad Ruia, and ors. Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Br ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-2010
1. Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioners as well as learned Advocates for the Respondents.2. Rule.3. Learned Advocates appearing for the Respondents waive service.4. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and the Petition is taken up for final hearing.5. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioners have prayed for setting aside the order dated 11.8.2009 passed by the Small Causes Court in Municipal Appeal (ST) No.1019 of 2004, directing the Petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.2,03,56,651/ (Rupees two crores three lacs fifty six thousand six hundred and fifty one only) i.e. the increased rateable value in respect of the entire premises of Maker Chamber V(the said building) and to set aside the order dated 24.2.2010 dismissing the review application. 6. The Petitioners are the members of Respondent No.2 i.e. Maker Chamber V Premises Cooperative Housing Society Limited and are the owners of premises Nos. 909, 910, 911, 912 and 920 situate on 9 floor of Maker ChamberV ...
Bhupendrabhai Rambhai Patel, Aged About 54 Years. Vs. Sau. Lilabai Mah ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-14-2010
1.Heard Shri De, learned counsel for the petitioner plaintiff, Shri Alaspurkar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 defendant No.1 and Shri Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.2 defendant No. 2.2. Shri De, learned counsel states that the petitioner filed suit for specific performance on the basis of a written agreement and in it made a specific prayer for recovery of possession. He states that only at one place in the plaint, it is mentioned that possession of the suit field was delivered to the petitioner. However, according to him, reading of entire plaint shows that such possession was never delivered. To show that such possession was never delivered, he invites attention to written statement filed by contesting defendant i.e. defendant No. 1 and he also states that defendant No. 2, though really not a necessary party, has also accepted that the petitioner plaintiff is not in possession. In this situation, he contends that objection raised by defendant No. 2 to the exhibition ...
Bank of Baroda, Through Its Sitabuldi Branch, Vs. M/S J.K. Chemicals, ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-14-2010
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26th August 1996 passed by 6th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur dismissing the suit of appellant-Bank as against respondents no. 4 and 5, appellant-Bank has filed the present appeal. Appeal is filed also against the refusal of the trial Court to award agreed rate of interest on the outstanding amount. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their original status in the suit.2. Plaintiff-Bank filed suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 7,85,655.50. It was averred that various loans as described in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the plaint were granted and disbursed to defendants no. 1 to 3 and defendants no. 4 and 5 stood guarantee for borrowers (defendants 1 to 3). Since the defendants failed to pay the loan amount, a call notice was issued to them to pay off the outstandings. Since inspite of notice defendants did not settle the dues, plaintiff-Bank filed the suit.3. Defendants no. 1 to 3 by their Written Statement...
Subhrajit Saha Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-14-2010
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Matter is taken up for hearing with consent of learned Advocates.2. Heard Mr. Abhay Sambre, Advocate for appellant, Mr. D.M. Kale, APP for the non-applicant no.1 and Mr. Rajnish Vyas, Advocate for the non-applicant no2.3. Delay condoned and the Revision is taken up for hearing forthwith.4. It appears that the revision applicant has preferred revision application for quashing the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order dated 15.04.2009 passed in Criminal Revision No.222/2008, delivered by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge-2, Amravati, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge by allowing the revision application, was pleased to quash and set aside the issuance of process under Section 506 Part-II r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered dismissal of the complaint, thereby discharging Sau. Kaberi w/o Subhrojit Saha (accused no.2).5. It appears that the applicant had preferred Criminal Complaint Case No....
Namdeo S/O. Narayan Dekate Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-14-2010
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.2. By this petition, the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the order dated 19th June 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2007 and the order dated 27/08/2007 passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, District Wardha in Enquiry No. 50 of 2004 whereby the seized property wood in FIR No. 105/8, dated 19/11/2004 i.e. material - 83 in number, admeasuring 2.310 Q.mts. and 882 pieces admeasuring 19.649 Q.Mts. of Survey No. 70, Mouza Garamsur was attached / confiscated to the Government.3. The facts, briefly stated, are as under : On or about 24/02/2000, Shri Shankar Saduji Dhandale resident of Garamsur/owner of land Survey No. 70 at Garamsur had applied to Range Forest Officer and sought permission to cut 860 teak wood trees from his survey No. 70 of Mouza Garamsur. He had got the field measured from TILR, Sel...
Shri Manoharprasad Raghuvirprasad Pande and anr. Vs. Yogesh S/O Ishwar ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-14-2010
1) Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.2) This petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 19/03/2011 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, by which order the application for amendment of the plaint filed by the petitioners came to be rejected.3) The facts involved in the above petition in brief can be stated thus - The petitioner-Trust was created by one Ganpatrao Pande. The petitioner-Trust was having its properties at several places the said properties included the property known as Ganesh Bhuvan, Civil Lines, Nagpur. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents herein are not at all concerned with the said property, Ganesh Bhuvan. It is further the case of the petitioners that the respondents entered into the said premises of Ganesh Bhuvan and took forcible possession of an area of 3000 sq.ft. on 05/05/2004. This resulted in, the plaintiffs-pe...
Shri Nandkumar Krishnarao Navgire Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Di ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-2010
ORAL ORDER :- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This matter was called in the beginning around 10.45 a.m. and since appellant was absent again called out at about 11.35 a.m. and since appellant remained absent, appeal is heard even in his absence. We heard Mr.S.S. Jinsiwale, Advocate for the respondent. Perused the record. This appeal takes an exception to the order dated 17th July 2008 passed in complaint No.281/2003 Mr.Nandkumar Krishnarao Navgiri V/s. M.S.E.D.Co. Ltd. passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (Forum below in short). It was a dispute about excess billing in respect of bill dated 20/12/2002 for Rs.12,640/- for period 8/10/2002 to 09/12/2002 for total consumption of 3121 units. Forum below uphold the consumer complaint and directed the respondent/org. O.P. as under :- The bill dated 20/12/2002 issued to the complainant by the Opposite Party, demanding an amount of Rs.12,640/- towards electricity consumption for the period from 08...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »