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.
M/S. Deogiri Transport, Represented by Its Power of Attorney, Prakash ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. P. S. Rao, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 30.6.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco da Gama in Criminal Case no. 551/NIA/2008/D by which respondent has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short). 3. The appellant is the original complainant. The complainant filed the above case through power of attorney holder Shri Prakash Sutar alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. According to the complainant, the accused had engaged services of the complainant for transporting iron ore since 2006 from M/s. Zeenath Transport Company Mines, Hospet to M/s. Sesa Industries Limited, Goa and while returning the complainant was transporting Met-coke for the accused from Mormugao Port Trust Harbour, V...
Manoj Shyamlal Rijwani Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) Rule. The learned APP waives service for the Respondent. Taken up forthwith for final hearing. 2. The challenge in this Petition is to the order by which the application for grant of furlough leave by the Petitioner under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 has been rejected. Perusal of the order of the Appellate Authority dated 23rd August, 2012 shows that the Appellate Authority has taken into consideration the conduct/events of the years 2008 and 2009. The ground on which the order of rejection is confirmed is that in the year 2008-2009, when the Petitioner was granted parole and furlough leave, he did not report in time, and therefore, the surety of the brother-in-law offered by the Petitioner cannot be considered. 3. In view of the averments made in the ground (B) of the Petition, we had called upon the learned APP to take instructions. On instructions from Shri Jasood Balkrishna Nana, Jail Officer (Grade-II), he states that in the ye...
M/S South Konkan Distillery and Another Vs. Santosh Prabhakar Naik and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. S. G. Bhobe, learned Advocate for the petitioners. Since respondent no.1 was the only the contesting party, notice was issued only to respondent no.1 for final disposal. Inspite of service, respondent no.1 has chosen not to put in appearance. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith. 3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge orders dated 7.6.2011 and 19.1.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao in Special Civil Suit No. 178/1994/III(O)/Regular Civil Suit No. 612/2010/III(N) by which the application filed by respondent no.1 under Order XVI Rule 6 of C.P.C. has been allowed and the application seeking review of the order dated 7.6.2011 has been dismissed. 4. The petitioners are defendants nos. 1 and 4 in the above suit filed by respondent no. 1 against the petitioners and respondent nos. 2 to 5 seeking recovery of money. 5. On 28.10.2010, the plaintiff filed an application seeking direction against defendant...
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 propert...
Vrandawani W/O Sambhaji Dalvi Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
Oral Judgment: - 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2] By the present petition filed by the petitioner (original complainant) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, she prayed that the order, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2011 on 6.2.2012, thereby rejecting the said application of the petitioner for condonation of delay, be quashed and set aside. 3] The factual matrix, which can be summarised, is as under:- The petitioner herein is the original complainant and respondent nos. 2 to 6 are the original accused in R.C.C. No. 123 of 2008 (Exh.A to the petition) filed by the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharur, which was lodged by the complainant alleging that her daughter, namely Jayshree married with accused no.1 i.e. Deepak who is respondent no.2 herein on...
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...
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 sufficient evide...
Girish Son of Sanjay Bole Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
A.P. Bhangale, J. 1. The applicant prayed for to quash and set aside FIR bearing no 44 of 2012 dated 16-03-2012 registered under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Mangrulpir Police station, District Washim against the applicant,Chaitanya Neval, Manoj Janjal,and Swapnil Tayade. 2. The case against the applicant is that a girl Miss Ekta Ajabrao Pradhan aged about 18 years resident of Shahapur Taluka Taluka Mangarulpir decided to commit suicide at her residence by pouring kerosene on her body and setting herself ablaze on 29-02-2012 at about 10.00 p.m. While she was receiving medical treatment at Sarvopchar Rugnalaya at Akola, her dying declaration was recorded by Executive Magistrate, Akola at about 7.30 a.m. after obtaining endorsement from the doctor attending the patient Ekta, about her fitness and consciousness to give statement in the nature of dying declaration. Ekta made a statement on oath that she had poured kerosene on her body and burnt herself due t...
M/S. Roman Tarmat Ltd. Vs. M/S. (indukuru Venku Reddy Constructions) I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
1.By this petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 petitioner seeks an order of injunction restraining the respondent in any manner utilizing the amount of Rs.14,59,19,989/- received by the respondent from encashment of the bank guarantee and for a direction to the respondent to secure the petitioner to the extent of the said amount by depositing the same in this court. The respondent has raised a preliminary objection about territorial jurisdiction of this court to entertain, try and dispose of the present petition filed under section 9 of the Act in its affidavit in reply. This court has thus directed both the parties to address this court on the preliminary objection raised by the respondent. Some of the relevant facts on this issue are as under: 2. By Piece Rate Work Contract executed on 16th June, 2010 at Chennai by and between the petitioner and respondent, the petitioner was awarded the project of construction of automotive test tracks at GARC, Chen...
M.M. Pangarkar Vs. Rajendra Modani
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Adv. Mr. A.R. Borulkar for the petitioner, and Adv. Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya for the respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 3. At the request of learned Advocate for the petitioner, leave granted to correct the number of the proceedings in the trial court, appearing in prayer clauses of the present petition. Amendment be carried out forthwith. 4. By the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein prays that the complaint in S.C.C. No. 6238/2011, against the petitioner, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Aurangabad, be quashed and set aside. 5. It is the contention of the petitioner, that he was Technical Adviser of Asian Electronics Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "said Company") till 1st February 2009. The petitioner resigned from the services as Technical Advisor of the said Company by resignation l...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »