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.
Rizwan Hawaldar Khan Vs. the Deputy Director of Education and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2012
PC : 1. The Petitioner was employed as a Laboratory Assistant with the Fourth Respondent, which at the material time, was an aided institution. The Third Respondent, which conducts the school, addressed a communication to the First Respondent on 2 February 2007 for the grant of its no objection for a change of affiliation from the SSC Board to the ICSE Board. The First Respondent, it is common ground, granted its no objection. The Court is informed by counsel for the management that the school stopped accepting aid from the State Government from 2007. On 4 August 2008, the Principal of the School addressed a communication to the School Inspector stating that the Petitioner was not willing to join the ICSE section but preferred absorption in any other government aided school. The management, therefore, requested the Education Inspector to find for the Petitioner a proper fitment and absorb him in a government aided secondary school. The Petitioner also addressed a letter on 1 February 2...
Dr. P.B. Desai Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2012
1. The original accused no.1 (Dr.Desai) impugns conviction recorded by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai on 5.7.2011 and confirmed in criminal appeal no.432 of 2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for an offence under Section338 read with Section 109 of IPC, directing to suffer SI till rising of the Court and to pay Rs.50,000/- as and by way of compensation, in default to suffer SI for Three months. FACTS : 2. P.W.1 Padamchandra Singhi as complainant, initiated prosecution through Azad Maidan Police Station against accused no.1 and Dr.A.K.Mukherjee. In 1987, the complainant, due to aggravated physical condition of his wife Smt.Leela took her to New York for treatment of cancer and on the basis of the biopsy of the cervix, the Doctors in New York declared her case to be absolutely inoperable. The patient was brought to Bombay, advice of Dr.A.K.Mukherjee was taken as she started bleeding from vagina. Consequently, she was admitte...
Sunil Gudlar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Anti-corruption Branc ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-15-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 2. Rule. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this revision application, the petitioner challenges the order dated 01/09/2012 passed by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Court, Mapusa in Special Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.28/12 extending time by 90 days to file chargesheet in terms of Section 36-A(4) of the N.D.P.S.Act ('the Act' for short). 4. The petitioner was arrested on 06/03/2012 in Case No.RC3(A)/2011/CBI/ACB/Goa pursuant to handing over of the investigation by State of Goa to CBI in connection with Crime No.5/2010 registered at Anti Narcotic Cell Police Station, Goa. On 23/08/2012, the Investigating Officer filed an application purporting to be under Section 36-A(4) of the Act seeking time to file chargesheet. Thereafter, on 01/09/2012, learned Public Prosecutor filed report in terms of Section 36-A(4) of the Act and after hearing t...
Ashutosh Arvind Ruia and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2012
Oral Judgment: Rule. 2. Learned A.P.P. waives service for first respondent and advocate appearing for second respondent also waives service. The matter is taken up forthwith for final hearing. 3. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the prayer is for quashing proceedings initiated on the basis of offence registered under Section 498-A r/w. section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The second respondent is the complainant. 4. The first applicant and the second respondent are husband and wife. Second applicant and third applicant are the members of the family of the first applicant. There is an affidavit-in-reply filed by the second respondent in which it is stated that she alongwith first applicant have moved a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in Family Court at Bandra. Second respondent has relied upon the consent terms filed in the Family Court, a copy of which has been annexed to the...
Smt. Vijaya Vasant Nikam Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for State. Rule. Learned A.P.P. waives service for the Respondents. Taken up for hearing. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that though the petitioner has made a complaint dated 26th August, 2011 with Vadgaon Nimbalkar Police Station, Taluka Baramati, District Pune alleging the commission of cognizable offence by certain persons, no action has been taken on the basis of said complaint. On the last date, we directed the learned A.P.P. to take instructions. However, the learned A.P.P. states that concerned Officer has not given instructions. 3. It will be necessary to make a reference under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as said Code). Sub-section 1 of Section 154 uses the word shall. Sub-section 1 of Section 154 came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court. I...
Keshav Chandraparakash Chauhan and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2012
Oral Judgment: Rule. Learned A.P.P. waives service for first respondent. Learned Advocate appearing for second respondent waives service. Taken up forthwith for final hearing. 2. Prayer in this application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is for quashing the proceeding of criminal case initiated on the basis of offence registered at the instance of the second respondent. 3. The first applicant and the second respondent are husband and wife. The second and fifth applicants are the members of the family of first applicant. 4. The prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings for offences under Section 498-A, 406 and 509 of Indian Penal Code is made on the basis of subsequent settlement between the first applicant and second respondent. Second respondent has filed an affidavit-in-reply dated 30th August, 2012 in which she has accepted that the first applicant and herself have decided to file a joint petition before the concerned Family Court for obtaining a divorce by mut...
Ansari Mohd. Zubair Vs. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.A. Sayed, J.) 1. The case of the Petitioner is that he was admitted to the BAMS course in the Respondent No. 3 college from the management quota which was reserved for OBC. The Petitioner claims to belong to the 'Momin Ansari' caste which is recognized as an OBC in Uttar Pradesh from where he originally hails. According to the Petitioner, the said caste is recognized as OBC in the State of Maharashtra also and the same benefits as available in Uttar Pradesh are also given in the State of Maharashtra to the said caste. The Petitioner submitted his Application for enrollment and eligibility in the prescribed form to Respondent No. 1 University on 15/16 December 2010. However, Respondent No. 1 vide its decision dated 24 December 2010 held that the Petitioner did not fulfill the criteria for registration and enrollment. Respondent No. 1 observed that the Petitioner had not submitted his caste validity certificate and that the Petitioner had secured less than 50% marks in ...
Sunil Gudlar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Anti-corruption Branc ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-15-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 2. Rule. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this revision application, the petitioner challenges the order dated 01/09/2012 passed by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Court, Mapusa in Special Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.28/12 extending time by 90 days to file chargesheet in terms of Section 36-A(4) of the N.D.P.S.Act ('the Act' for short). 4. The petitioner was arrested on 06/03/2012 in Case No.RC3(A)/2011/CBI/ACB/Goa pursuant to handing over of the investigation by State of Goa to CBI in connection with Crime No.5/2010 registered at Anti Narcotic Cell Police Station, Goa. On 23/08/2012, the Investigating Officer filed an application purporting to be under Section 36-A(4) of the Act seeking time to file chargesheet. Thereafter, on 01/09/2012, learned Public Prosecutor filed report in terms of Section 36-A(4) of the Act and after hearing t...
Dinesh Narayan Shet S/O Narayan Shet Vs. Ms. Geeta Gurudas Chari
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-15-2012
Oral Judgment Heard Mr. T. Pereira, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Advocate for the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 26.4.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco da Gama in Criminal Case no. 62/OA/NIA/2009/B, acquitting the respondent/accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short). 3. The appellant is the complainant in the above case. It is the case of the complainant that the accused approached the complainant to provide financial assistance as the accused was in urgent need of some amount. The complainant knew the accused for last six years. The complainant provided advance of Rs.28,800/- (Rupees twenty eight thousand eight hundred only) to the accused which she promised to return within two months. The accused issued post dated cheque dated 2.4.2009 drawn on HDFC, Bank Porvorim. The cheque was dishonoured for...
Rajesh Bhagwandas Soni Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-15-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard learned respective counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. By the present criminal revision application, the applicant herein questioned the correctness and legality of the conviction imposed upon the applicant for the offence p/u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentence inflicted upon him to suffer S.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rs. Eleven lacs only) in default to suffer S.I. for four months and directed to pay amount of Rs.10.00 lacs to the complainant towards compensation out of the said fine amount by way of judgment and order dated 27.02.2009, rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalna in STCC No.3200/2004 and confirmation thereof by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in Criminal Appeal No.22/2009 dismissing the appeal preferred by the applicant by judgment and order dated 3.4.2012. (The parties herein after are referred to as ...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »