Mumbai Court October 2012 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.
Dr. Madhavrao S/O Bhujangrao Kinhalkar Vs. Ashok S/O Shankarrao Chavan ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
1 The petitioner is challenging the election of Respondent No.1 who is a returned candidate from 85-Bhokar Legislative Assembly Constituency. 2 The general elections to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Maharashtra were held and results came to be declared on 22.10.2009. The petitioner was also one of the contesting candidates at the election. The petitioner contested election as an independent candidate, whereas Respondent No.1 was set up as a candidate by Indian National Congress Party. Respondent No.1 got elected by a margin of more than one lac votes. He polled 79.65% of the votes, whereas, petitioner could secure 8.79% of the votes polled. The challenge raised by petitioner to the election of Respondent No.1 is mainly based on corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. 3 Respondent No.1 has presented written statement and has controverted the contentions raised by petitioner in the election petition. In the written statemen...
Chintaman Tukaram Ahire and Others Vs. Karuna Keshv Ahire
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Both sides argued the matter for final disposal. 2. The application is filed for transfer of criminal case No.9 of 2011 filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, by the present respondent. It is the grievance of the applicants that the complainant, wife of applicant No.4 is working in the same Court, where the case is pending and so there is apprehension to the applicants that they may not get justice. The other side has opposed the application. 3. This Court has seen the order made by the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court has observed that if the contention is accepted, it will mean that the Judge can be influenced even by a clerk. Though it is true that the Judge will not get influenced only because his staff, is involved as party to the proceeding, this circumstance needs to be considered from the view point of other side and the Judge is required to step in the shoes of the party and then think about th...
Abhishek S/O Ravishankar Agrawal Vs. Mahesh Kumar Agrawal and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally as a notice of final disposal was issued to the respondents by an order dated 6.8.2012 and the respondents are duly served with the notice. 2. In my view, the impugned order dated 22.5.2012 rejecting an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 70 of the Bombay Public Trust Act is vulnerable for the simple reason that instead of deciding the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the Joint Charity Commissioner dismissed the application on the ground that the appeal was not tenable against the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner under section 70 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. It appears that the petitioner had challenged the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Bhandara on 12.5.2010 in an appeal under Section 70 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. Since there was some delay in filing the appeal, an application for condonation of delay i...
Jatinder Pal Singh Arora Vs. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
P.N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member 1. Complainant has filed this consumer complaint against M/s.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Dadar Division, Dadar (W), Mumbai alleging deficiency in service on its part. According to complainant, he is a proprietor of M/s.Guru Nanak Rubber Works having its factory at Compound K.P.Chugh Industries, L.B.S. Marg, Sonapur Lane, Bhandup (w), Mumbai 400 078. Opponent is the Insurance Company and complainant had insured his premises, machinery, stock, etc. with the opponent by taking Fire Policy No.124201/11/98/00473. According to complainant, fire took place on 30/10/1997 and he filed claim with the opponent being no.11/98/00003. The complainant states that on 30/10/1997 at about 11.00 p.m. at night, fire took place in his company premises. His watchman who was residing near the factory had seen the fire and shouted for help. The complainant was contacted by his watchman on the telephone. The Complainant then immediately rushed to the factory. In the m...
M/S Vinyl Chemicals (India) Ltd Vs. National Insurance Co Ltd
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
Narendra Kawde, Member 1. All these appeals have been filed challenging the orders dated 30/11/2010 passed in consumer complaint nos.176/2007, 177/2007, 178/2007, 179/2007, 180/2007, orders dated 21/12/2010 passed in consumer complaint nos.181/2007, 182/2007 and 183/2007 and orders dated 27/12/2010 passed in consumer complaint nos.184/2007, 185/2007, 186/2007, 187/2007, 188/2007 and 189/2007 by the South Mumbai District Forum (herein after referred as District Forum in short). All the consumer complaints are dismissed by the District Forum and, therefore, original complainants/appellants preferred these appeals which are disposed of by this common order. These appeals have been filed separately against each impugned order on the ground that the deficiency in service on the part of respondent/National Insurance Co. Ltd. (herein after referred as Insurance Co.) was not properly appreciated by the District Forum though the cargo i.e. chemicals (Acetic Acid Glacial/Vinyl Acetate Monomer) w...
Vishwanath S/O Dohanya Pawara and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
Oral Judgment: 1] Heard respective learned counsel for the parties. 2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties taken up for final hearing. 3] By the present application filed by the applicants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants prayed that the proceeding bearing R.C.C. No. 12 of 2009 filed by respondent no.2 herein i.e. original complainant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nandurbar under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code be quashed and set aside and the applicants be acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 4] The factual matrix of the matter are as follows:- The applicants herein are the original accused in R.C.C. No. 306 of 2008 filed by respondent no.2, namely Smt. Latika i.e. original complainant in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nandurbar, on 26.9.2008. After inquiry under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure...
Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika and Another Vs. the Secretary, Bar Counci ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 49(1)(ah) of the Advocates Act, 1961, the Bar Council of India framed Rule 49 under which there is a prohibition on an Advocate being a full time salaried employee of any person, government, firm, corporation or concern, so long as he or she continues to practise. Upon taking such employment, an Advocate is required to intimate that fact to the Bar Council on whose rolls the name appears. Thereupon, such a person would cease to practise as an Advocate so long as he continues in employment. An exception was engrafted into Rule 49 as it was originally framed in regard to a Law Officer of the Central Government or the Government of a State or of any public corporation or body constituted by the State who is entitled to be enrolled under the rules of the State Bar Council made under Section 28(2)(d) read with Section 24(1)(e) despite being a full time salaried employee. The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa framed rul...
Ramesh Balaji Ekhande Vs. Namdeo Ganpat Gite and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr.Thorat learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr.Nighot for Respondent No.1. 2. A short contention of Advocate Thorat on behalf of the Appellant (Original Plaintiff No.5) is that the impugned Judgment dated 17.3.2008 passed by the District Judge 3 Nasik in Civil Appeal No. 125 of 1996 remitting the controversy back to the trial Court is perverse and shows total non-application of mind. He submits that the Appeal arises out Special Civil Suit No.57 of 1990 which has been disposed of finally on 1.2.1996 after recording of compromise. Thus, against the compromise decree Regular Civil Appeal was not maintainable. He has taken the Court through the relevant provisions to substantiate his contentions. In alternative and only to demonstrate that the controversy is now rendered infructuous and remand is only an empty formality, he has also invited attention of the Court to necessary facts. 3. Learned counsel Nighot has submitted that Respondent No.1 is one of the Plai...
Mohd. Rafique and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard finally, by consent. Heard Mr. S. Zia Qazi, learned Advocate for petitioners and Mr. S.S. Doiphode, learned APP for respondent-State. 2. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No.62/2010. The said Criminal Revision Application was filed by the present petitioners feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Murtizapur while disposing of the Application filed by the police under section 169 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth abbreviated to “Cr.P.C”) 3. At the outset, it may be mentioned there that the petitioners and and one Abdul Aahad were accused in Crime No. 3065/2009 for the offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 of Murtizapur Police Station. During the course of investigation they were arrested. The investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer revealed that there was no su...
Santoshkumar S/O Nandkishor Pande and Others Vs. Vinaykumar S/O Sattya ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. This second appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 6-3-2012 passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, thereby partly allowing Application No.42 of 2005 filed by the respondent No.1 and his deceased-father under Section 41D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 for removal of the appellants as Trustees of Om Shri Sainath Baba Sewa Sanstha, Civil Lines, Gondia, a Public Trust bearing P.T.R. No.F-2689(B). 2. On 19-3-2009, seven charges were framed against the appellants in the proceedings under Section 41D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act as under: “1. That you the non-applicants made persistent default in the submission of accounts/report on return. 2. That you the non-applicants continuously neglecting your duties thereby committed breach of trust. 3. That you the non-applicants committed malfeasance and misfeasance. 4. That you the non-applicants have misappropriated the trust fund. 5. That you the non-applicants dealt improperly with the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »