Mumbai Court October 2012 Judgments
Dr. Annasaheb Choughle Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Another Vs. Pr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed to issue direction to the Committee on Petitions, constituted under the Maharashtra Legislative Council Rules, to refrain from entertaining the application dated 24th July, 2010, submitted by Respondent No. 17, along with undated representation of Respondent Nos. 1 to 16 Exhibit 'B' collectively. The alternative relief claimed is to issue direction or Writ of Mandamus to direct Respondent No. 18 to place the representation of the Petitioner Bank, dated 24th October, 2011 Exhibit 'I', before the abovesaid Committee with further direction that the same be heard and disposed of in a time bound manner. 2) Briefly stated, the Petitioner Bank had advanced an aggregate amount of Rs. 90 lacs to 20 borrowers on 29th March, 2004. The Bank advanced another some of Rs. 9 lacs to three other borrowers on 30th March, 2007. That advance was given against the security of mortgage created by each of the...
Tag this Judgment!The Collector, Yavatmal and Another Vs. Haji Daudbhai S/O Haji Suleman ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Oral Judgment: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 15.11.1989 passed by the Additional District Judge, Yavatmal in Land Acquisition Case No.58/1983. 2] The land bearing survey no.4/2, area 1.9 H.R. out of the total area of 4.64 H.R. situated at town Arni, was compulsorily acquired at the instance of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation for constructing bus-stand. The residential structure and godown standing on the said land were also subject matter of the acquisition. For the land and the structure, the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.37,968.50. Against this award the reference was sought. The land owner relied upon various sale instances and also brought on record that the land is in close proximity to the town Arni. Considering the evidence brought on record, the learned Reference Court did not allow any enhancement for the structure -residential and godown, however, enhanced the market value of the land to @ Rs.2.00 p...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh Ambadas Wagh and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Oral Judgment: All these four appeals are arising from the common judgment and award dated 29.11.2004 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.171/2002, 174/2002, 173/2002 and 179/2002, whereby the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition officer for the lands compulsorily acquired for the project – percolation tank, was enhanced to Rs.50,000/- per hectare. The details of the lands acquired are as under: First AppealSurvey/Gat No.Total area H.R.Area acquired H.R.Name of ownerCompensation Awarded by L.A.O.1140/082001.400.79Suresh Ambadas Wagh (Respdt.)Rs. 39,500/- P.H.811/092001.400.61Smt. Jeejabai DevidasWagh and Others (Respdt.)Rs. 39,500/- P.H.975/09191 199 2016.94 1.76 1.410.86 1.05 1.09RambhauRajaram Jaware(Respdt.)Rs. 39,500/- P.H.1326/092559.551.30PralhadBaliram Patil (Respdt.)Rs. 35,000/- P.H.LAC No.Date of DecisionCompensation by Reference courtAppellant171/0229/11/04Rs. 50,000/- P.H.STATE174/0229/11/04Rs, 50,000/- P.H.STATE173/0229/11/04Rs, 50,000/- P.H.STATE1...
Tag this Judgment!Shripati Ramchandra Choudhari (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs. Vs. Ra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
This second appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.08.1989 passed by the District Judge thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 30.04.1984. The appellant is an unsuccessful plaintiff who has filed regular civil suit no.262/1979 against the respondent (defendant) for partition and separate possession of one half share in the suit property based on the title. 2. The brief facts of case are as follows : A piece of land was purchased by the respondent (defendant) along with Pramilabai Patil on 16.4.1962 jointly. Thus, defendant being a co-owner, owns one half share in the said piece of land. This one half share is the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiff that at the time of purchase of the said property, he has contributed Rs.2,500/- i.e. 50% of the price and thus, he has one fourth share in the entire piece of land. It is the case of the plaintiff that though the sale-deed was executed in the name of the defendant alone, he had ha...
Tag this Judgment!Pratik B. Mehta and Others Vs. Uniform Offset Private Limited and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard finally. 2. None appeared for the Respondents even at the time of admission of the present Company Appeal u/s. 10F of the Companies Act, 1956, (for short "the Companies Act"), and the interim order was passed by this Court on 3rd August, 2012, in following terms : "Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicants. None for the Respondent, though served. The Appeal is placed for hearing and final disposal on 29th August, 2012. In the meantime the Respondents are restrained from selling, alienating, encumbering, transferring or creating any third party rights and/or interests in respect of the shares held by them in the Respondent No.1 Company to any person other than Appellants. Company Application is accordingly disposed of." 3. The Company Appeal is listed today for final hearing. Even today, none appeared for the contesting Respondents, though served. 4. The Appellants/Original Petitioners are the registered holder and owner of 3,300 shares of Rs.100/- each. The App...
Tag this Judgment!Dnyaneshwar Murlidhar Kapile Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard learned Adv. Mr. N.S. Ghanekar for the petitioner, and learned APP Mr. D.V. Tele for the respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 3. By the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and also under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner (original accused no.3) prays that the order dated 7-9-2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur, below Exhibit 103 in Sessions Case No.35/2012, rejecting to recall the witness no.1, namely, Suresh Baburao Kolthe, and also rejecting the permission to further cross examine the said witness, be quashed and set aside. 4. The factual matrix which gave rise to the present petition is as follows : (a) Charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner and against seven accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 304-B, 323, 504, 506, read with Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjeev Bishnudev Mishra Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. By this Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for a direction that an investigating agency like Central Bureau of Investigation or CID be appointed to properly investigate the C.R. No.I-22/2012 registered with Navghar Police Station, Bhayander, District Thane. It is also prayed that such investigating agency be directed to enquire into the circumstances leading to the registration of FIR by Navghar Police Station, Bhayander and also about the illegal arrest/detention of the petitioner. The petitioner further prays for direction to the Director General of Police / Superintendent of Police, Thane (Rural) to hold departmental enquiry against Respondent Nos.4 and 5 and other police personnel responsible for registration of C.R. No.I-22/2012 by the Navghar Police Station, Bhayander, Thane and also for effecting illegal arrest of the petitioner and extorting / misappropriating amount of `11,25,000/- from the petitioner on 9....
Tag this Judgment!Narayan S/O Ramdayal Gattani Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
The revision is filed to challenge the judgment and order of J.M.F.C. Aurangabad, delivered in S.C.C. No.1010 of 2007 and the judgment and order of the Sessions Court, Aurangabad delivered in criminal appeal No.254 of 2010. In a complaint filed by the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, respondent No.2 is acquitted. This decision of J.M.F.C. is confirmed in criminal appeal by the Sessions Court. It can be said that the complainant could have filed appeal in this Court under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., but the appeal was filed in the Sessions Court, probably due to confusion, which was there with regard to right of the complainant to challenge the decision of acquittal. Due to amendment to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. which came into force in the year 2009, the right was given to victim to file an appeal against the decision of acquittal in the court, where the appeal lies against the judgment and order of conviction and due to this prov...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil S/O Sohanlal Agrawal Vs. Vinayak S/O Jyotibaji Jadhav
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Oral Judgment: RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are identical, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment. 2. By these petitions, the petitioner impugns the orders passed by the trial Court on 11/07/2012 allowing the applications filed by the respondent under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for staying the suits filed by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner is the original plaintiff in both the suits. The petitioner had filed the suits against the respondent for specific performance of contract. It was the case of the petitioner that respondent-Vinayak had agreed to sell the suit properties to the petitioner and though the petitioner was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and had paid the entire sale consideration, the respondent had refused to execute the sale deed. The suits filed by the petit...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh Ambadas Wagh and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Oral Judgment: All these four appeals are arising from the common judgment and award dated 29.11.2004 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.171/2002, 174/2002, 173/2002 and 179/2002, whereby the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition officer for the lands compulsorily acquired for the project percolation tank, was enhanced to Rs.50,000/- per hectare. The details of the lands acquired are as under:First AppealSurvey/Gat No.Total area H.R.Area acquired H.R.Name of ownerCompensation Awarded byL.A.O.1140/082001.400.79Suresh Ambadas Wagh (Respdt.)Rs. 39,500/- P.H.811/092001.400.61Smt. Jeejabai DevidasWagh and Others (Respdt.)Rs. 39,500/- P.H.975/09191 199 2016.94 1.76 1.410.86 1.05 1.09RambhauRajaram Jaware(Respdt.)Rs. 39,500/- P.H.1326/092559.551.30PralhadBaliram Patil (Respdt.)Rs. 35,000/- P.H.LAC No.Date of DecisionCompensation by Reference courtAppellant171/0229/11/04Rs. 50,000/- P.H.STATE174/0229/11/04Rs, 50,000/- P.H.STATE173/0229/11/04Rs, 50,000/- P.H.STATE179/0229/11/04R...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »