Mumbai Court August 2011 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.
Gulabrao Kadwe and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-09-2011
Top of Form 1. Admit. Taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent of parties. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this application, applicants have sought for quashing and setting aside FIR vide Crime No. 3019/11 registered with Police Station, Karanja for the offences punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Sections 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Applicant no. 4 is Head-master of Jagdamba Vidyalaya which is run by Saraswati Mata Vidya Prasarak Mandal, Thanegaon. There are two groups in the said Society and there is lot of infighting between the members. Even though applicant no. 4 was appointed as a Head-master, he was not permitted to join by the rival group. Applicant no. 4's appointment was on the basis of directions given by this Court in writ petition no. 2884 of 2010. Applicant no. 4 with great hardship succeeded to join his post and after he joined, applicants exposed the ri...
Mansaram Shaligram Sawalkar and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-09-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. Admit. Ms Kalyani Deshpande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice for respondent-State. Since the question involved in the application is very limited, the same is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent of parties. 2. Applicants are accused in Sessions Trial No. 7 of 2010 and are facing prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 376 (g) read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. After the evidence of the prosecutrix (P. W. 1) was over, applicants moved application for recalling her for the purpose of further cross-examination. It was stated that omissions and contradictions were not brought on record. 3. Even though there was no mention in the application that failure to bring on record omissions and contradictions were attributable to the earlier advocate, it was argued before the Sessions Court as well as before this Court that for the inefficiency of the lawyer, accused who are suffering serious accus...
Gajanan P. Lasure and anr. Vs. the Central Board of Film Certification ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respective respondents. 2. The counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are practicing Advocates enrolled with the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa. They are also activists and closely associated with the social movement related to protecting the rights of Backward Classes, particularly Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The petitioners have appeared in various matters before this Court and other Courts for various litigants and defended the cause of Backward Classes based on the policy of reservation mandated by the Constitution. The petitioners are members of the Scheduled Castes community. 3. The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent no.1 is the Central Board of Film Certification constituted under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1952"). The respondent no.2 is the Regional Officer, Mumbai Region of the respondent no.1 ...
Vasant Ganu Patil of Thane Vs. the Chancellor and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-2011
1. I have had the benefit of reading the draft Judgment proposed to be delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice which has elaborately dealt with the factual controversy as also the relevant provisions of law, submissions of the respective learned counsels for the parties and has also referred to and quoted from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Basavaiah (Dr.) v/s. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and ors. (2010) 8 SCC 3721. I have also carefully considered the pleadings, the provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 1994 Act) as amended by Maharashtra Act No. 14 of 2009, the Statutory Order dated 27/5/2009 issued by the Government of Maharashtra under section 12(3)(A) (d) of the 1994 Act and various other Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court which are referred to hereinafter at appropriate place. While I agree with the Hon'ble Chief Justice regarding the conclusion reached by the Hon'ble Chief Justice in respect of the challenge to the ...
Asagarali Abdul HussaIn Bohari Vs. Subhash Zumbarlal Mutha and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-09-2011
1. This appeal arose from Regular Civil Suit No. 272 of 1978. 2. The facts leading to this appeal in short can be stated as under :- 3. The plaintiff purchased the suit property which is a building at Ahmednagar. He purchased it from children of one Ibrahim. Children of Ibrahim had mortgaged four rooms and privies etc. situated on first floor (floor above the ground floor) of this building to the defendant/appellant on 12.06.1965, by a registered deed. The contents of the mortgage deed suggest that out of these four rooms, defendant No.1 was already occupying two rooms and the other two rooms were in possession of two different tenants of children of Ibrahim. The other term of this transaction was that after ten years, the children of Ibrahim were entitled to redeem the mortgage by repaying the amount of Rs. 10,000/-. The property as said above was sold to the plaintiff by the children of Ibrahim. The plaintiff sought redemption of mortgage but the same was denied. So, the suit was fil...
Jaitunabi Shekh Musa Vs. Additional Commissioner Amravati Division and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-09-2011
Top of Form 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 18/05/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division Amravati, by which order the Appeal filed by the respondent No.3 herein came to be allowed and resultantly the order dated 24/01/2011 passed by the Additional Collector, Washim in Gram Panchayat Case No.41/BVP Act/16(2)/2009-2010 came to be set aside. 3) The petitioner herein was elected as a member of the Gram Panchayat Wara Jahagir, District Washim. The respondent No.3 herein had filed a complaint before the Additional Collector alleging that the petitioner is disqualified under Section 14 (1) (j-3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act on the ground that she has committed encroachment on Government land being Plot No.585 of the said village. The respondent No.3 in support of his case, relied upon Form No.8 mainta...
Shri. Maroti S/O. Dewaji Lande Vs. Sau. Gangubai W/O. Maroti Lande and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-09-2011
1. Heard Mr. Rajnish Vyas, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. S. V. Sirpurkar, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.1. 2. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties. 3. The petitioner questioned the order dated 07/10/2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pombhurna in Misc. Criminal Application No. 17/2008, as also order dated 09/08/2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Criminal Appeal No. 132/2009. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he had married with respondent no. 1 namely Gangubai about 19 years back, she resided with him for 3 years at Rajura, District Chandrapur and, then left matrimonial home and started residing with her parents. Respondent No. 2 is son of the petitioner, who according to the petitioner, has already attained the age of majority i.e. 18 years and is not entitled for the maintenance. The petitioner is facing proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women fro...
Smt. Gumfabai Dattalal Jaiswal and anr. Vs. Suresh Laxminarayan Jaiswa ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-09-2011
1) Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2) This Civil Revision Application is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 1st October, 2009, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Nanded in HRCA No.1/2007, arising out of the judgment and order dated 16th May, 2007 in Case No.RCA(15)18/1994 passed by the learned SDO/Rent Controller, Nanded. 3) It is the case of the petitioners/tenants that the respondents/landlords filed an Eviction Petition under Section 15 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rent Control Act), against the original defendants/tenants, before the SDO/Rent Controller, Nanded, on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord and willful default on the part of the tenants. The Rent Controller rejected the said petition vide judgment and order dated 16th May, 2007. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the presnet respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed H.R.C.A.No.1/2007 in the Court of Dist...
Mohmmad Shabir Shaikh Ajij and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and a ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-09-2011
Top of Form 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 16/06/2010 passed by the Executing Court i.e. the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad, by which order the application at Exhibit-1 in M.J.C. No.62/2009 filed by the petitioners herein was partly allowed and out of the total amount of Rs.9,15,393/-, which is kept in FDR bearing No.SD/A 29 275192 in the State Bank of India Pusad Branch. The petitioners were held to be entitled to only an amount of Rs.2,82,794/- and the remaining amount of Rs.6,32,599/- was directed to be refunded to the State. The said M.J.C. proceedings being No.62/2009 has been filed for execution of the Award passed by this Court in First Appeal No.89/1995 decided on 3rd April, 2009. The Reference Court had 0908wp2292.11.odt 3/6 granted compensation to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/- per hectar...
Mansur Yusuf Kapadia, Dist Thane Vs. Devki C. Vyas, Thane and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-2011
Mr. P.N. Kashalkar Honble Presiding Judicial Member: (1) This appeal has been filed by the original Complainant whose complaint No.160/2003 was dismissed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Thane by judgement and order dated 30.10.2004. (2) The Appellant had filed consumer complaint in the District forum, Thane against the Respondent Builder Developer. According to Appellant he had booked tenement i.e. Shop No.A-7 in Yashoda Apartment, which has been constructed at Village Mira, District Thane and it has been developed by Opponent Nos.3 and 4. Complainant had paid total amount of `2,52,000/- for the said tenement to Opponent Nos.3 and 4. Later on Opponent Nos.3 and 4 assigned development rights in favour of Opponent Nos.1 and 2. But Opponents have not given possession to the Complainant even when he had paid full amount. Therefore, he had filed consumer complaint before Thane District Forum. Complainant had filed several police complaints for the fraud committed by all ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »