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.
Shankar Panditrao Tokalwad Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Oral Judgment: 1] Heard respective learned counsel for the parties. Leave to correct affidavit in reply granted. 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 preferred by the applicant (husband) i.e. original accused no.1 against respondent no.2 (wife) i.e. original complainant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant prayed that permission be granted to the parties i.e. applicant and respondent no.2 to compound the matter and they be permitted to settle the dispute as per compromise i.e. Exh.11 in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2007 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar, and also prayed to quash and set aside the order, dated 21.7.2012 passed below Exh.11 in the said appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar, as well as prayed that criminal proceedings (Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2007) pertaining to Crime No. 68 of 2005 f...
State of Goa Vs. Dinesh Raikar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Oral Judgment : Heard Mr. Lawande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Mr. Kamat, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 30.09.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Canacona in Criminal Case No. 41/S/07, acquitting the respondent of offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 134(a) and (b) of Motor Vehicle Act. 3. The respondent was prosecuted on the allegation that on 24-05-2007 at 11:45 hours at Saleri, Cola, near fish market, the accused was driving the rickshaw bearing No. GA-02 U-1090 which was proceeding from Canacona to Cola side and on reaching at Saleri, Cola, drove the rickshaw in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a pedestrian girl, Ms. Anisha Pagi, aged about 8 years who sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital; the accused ran away from the spot without giving first ...
Narayan Ganesh Gadekar Vs. Smt. Parvati Sagun Gadekar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Shivan Dessai, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. J. Lobo, learned Advocate under Legal Aid Scheme for the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 5.2.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pernem in Private Criminal Case No. 7/P/2007 acquitting the respondent of the offence punishable under Section 500 of I.P.C. 3. The appellant is the original complainant who filed the above Criminal case alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 500 of I.P.C., on the ground that on 9.3.2006 the respondent/accused had filed a false report at Pernem Police Station alleging attempt to rape by the complainant. 4. After verification, substance of accusation was explained to the accused and the accused claimed to be tried. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and examined Mr. Rajendra Kashalkar as PW2. 5. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused in...
Prabhakar S/O Rushi Nandanwar and Others Vs. Joint Commissioner and Vi ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties. 2. Since the factual and legal position in all the three petitions are identical, we have heard all these matters together and are disposing of the same by this common judgment and order. 3. Though all the petitioners who have entered into their services on the basis of their claim of belonging to Scheduled Tribe. have approached this Court being aggrieved by the orders of the Scrutiny Committee, they have given up the challenge to the order of the Scrutiny Committee and have restricted their claim in the petition only to protection of their services. 4. The facts are not in dispute. All the petitioners claimed to be belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe. Their entry in the service is on the basis of their belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. Their claims came to be referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee which have been invalidated. The petitioners have now restricted their claim to pr...
Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan and Another Vs. Asadullah Khan Alias Sameer Kha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Chief Justice This appeal is directed against the order dated 13 April 2012 of the learned trial Judge of this Court declining to grant the appellant-plaintiffs’ prayer for appointment of Court Receiver with a direction to put the appellant-plaintiffs back in possession of the suit premises and the suit office and by which the learned trial Judge has vacated the ad-interim order of appointment of the Court Receiver, passed on 14 and 16 December 2011. During pendency of the appeal, the said ad-interim order of appointment of Court Receiver was continued from time to time. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal was taken up for final disposal. 3. Appellant No.1 Khushnuma Khan, aged 40 years is the wife (third wife) of deceased Ibrahim Khan and appellant No.2 Raghib Ibrahim Khan, aged 16 years is the son of Ibrahim Khan through appellant No.1. Ibrahim Khan married appellant No.1 on 18 December 1993. In the present suit filed on 12 December 2011, the a...
Mohammad Yunus Abdul Mannan Shaikh Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 21/2012 which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar. The appellant is convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under section 489 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts leading institution of the appeal can be stated as follows. The incident took place on 25/09/2011. The original complainant Ravindra Shende owns a shoe shop near S.T. stand of Newasa (Khurd). On that day when he and his employee Mayur Pandit were present in the shop at about 4.30 p.m., one unknown customer entered the shop. He said that he wanted to purchase a pair of lady Chappal. After showing various Chappals to him, he approved one Chappal. For making payment of the price of pair of Chappal, Rs.100/-, the customer gave currency note of Rs.1,000/- denomination. The complainant returned the amount of Rs.900/- to the said customer. 3. After some time of leaving of the customer, the complainan...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Nagorao S/O Vithobaji Motghare
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Oral Judgment: 1] Heard rival submissions on this appeal preferred by the State challenging the judgment and order of acquittal of the respondent-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2] The only question, that arose in the present appeal, is whether the finding arrived at by the trial Court on Point no.3 is correct or not and whether it is required to be altered. Said point no.3 raised by the trial Court is as under:- “Whether prosecution has proved that the accused is public servant.?” Answer-No. 3] In fact, the first point in controversy decided by the trial Court was in the affirmative, inasmuch as the trial Court had held that the prosecution has proved that the accused had accepted Rs.100/- as illegal gratification, otherwise than the legal remuneration and he was public servant and thereby he committed offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 198...
Aditya Birla Chemicals (India) Ltd. Vs. Tata Motors Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
By this Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short ‘Arbitration Act, 1996’) the Petitioner (Original Respondent) seeks to challenge the award dated 9th August, 2011 made by the Learned Arbitrator by which claims made by the Respondent is allowed. Though both the parties have argued at length, all the issues raised in the petition, in view of the fact that I have decided to set aside the impugned award on the plea of limitation raised by the Petitioner decided by the Learned Arbitrator, I am not dealing with all other submissions advanced by the parties except submissions on issue of limitation. 2. Some of the relevant facts relating to the issue of limitation are as under:- 3. By a Sanction Letter dated 5th May, 2000, the Respondent granted in principle permission to extend the lease finance assistance to the Petitioner for plant and machinery for an amount not exceeding Rs.80,00,000/- on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. 4. ...
Sanjeev Bhagwanrao Kokil Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 4.5.2012 in Original Application No.174 of 2011. The Tribunal rejected the Original Application preferred by the petitioner challenging the letter dated 7.2.2011 issued by Respondent No.2 and consequential order of Respondent No.1 published on 5.4.2011. The factual matrix as reproduced by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment is not disputed. The same reads thus: “2. The Applicant was posted as a Senior Police Inspector at M.R.A. Marg Police Station, Mumbai. By a letter dated 24th January, 2011, Respondent No.2 conveyed to Respondent No.1 the approval of the State Government to a proposal to transfer the Applicant for posting in Amravati City and to replace him at M.R.A. Marg Police Station, Mumbai by Respondent No.3. Accordingly, Respondent No.1 published an order in the Police Notice dated 25...
Shivraj S/O Bhaurao Patil (Hotalkar) Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.H. Joshi, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. The applicant is a former Councillor/ Member of Zilla Parishad, Nanded. He was also the Chairman of the Education Committee of the Zilla Parishad. 3. The First Information Report is lodged by one Shri Ram Pawar, who was Education Officer of Zilla Parishad for long duration before date of his lodging the F.I.R. 4. In the First Information Report, it is alleged by the complainant that:- (a) The applicant is instrumental in tampering of the minutes pertaining to Resolution No.97 of the proceeding of the meeting of the Education Committee held on 19.11.2008. (b) By said tampering, the name of educational institution namely Mahatma Phule Gramin Vikas Sevabhavi Sanstha, Sonawala, Taluka Jalkot, District Latur is inserted at Sr.No.8 in the list of the institutions in whose favour the sanction for opening further classes i.e. 5th to 7th was recorded in the minute book. (c) In order to cover sa...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »