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.
Sanjay S/O Baburao Shevante Vs. Sow. Sanjivani @ Padma W/O Sanjay Shev ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 2. By the present petition filed by the petitioner (husband) against the respondents (wife and son) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner prayed that the judgment and order, dated 5th August, 2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Criminal Revision Application No.40 of 2009, arising out of the judgment and order, dated 15th January, 2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rahuri in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.459 of 2004, be quashed and set aside. 3. Respondent no.1 herein filed Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.729 of 1999 in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rahuri, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking maintenance for herself ...
Rajaram M. Caisukar Vs. St. Joseph Chapel and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri P. Dangui, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents no.2 and 3. 2. The above petition challenges an order dated 4/04/2012 passed by the learned District Judge-1, North Goa, Panaji in Stamp No.233/2012 whereby an application under Section 80(2) of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the petitioner for leave to file the suit without statutory notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code came to be rejected. 3. Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order essentially on the ground that the learned Judge has dismissed the application on the ground that no urgent relief is sought against the Government. The learned Counsel has taken me through the provisions of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code and pointed out that a statutory notice has to be served on the Government before filing the suit, whereas Section 80(2) only ...
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 ...
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...
Prajapati Gunvant Keshavlal Vs. Union of India Through General Manager ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
By consent of both the parties, arbitration petition was heard finally at the admission stage and is being disposed of by this order. This petition was heard at length by this Court on 8th October, 2012 and oral order was pronounced in the court dismissing this arbitration petition and that reasons would be dictated separately. Reasons are now recorded. 2. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short ‘Arbitration Act, 1996’), the petitioner seeks to challenge an award dated 17th September, 2012 declared by the learned arbitrator rejecting a claim made by the petitioner. Some of the relevant facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 3. The petitioner is engaged in business of loading and unloading goods, parcels, etc. from and to railway wagons. 4. On 11th June, 2009, the respondent issued Allotment-cum-Acceptance letter in favour of the petitioner in respect of the loading of 23 tonne...
Dundawwa Shivappa Bagewadi Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
A.S. Oka, J. 1. By this Appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Appellant who is the victim has taken an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 22nd April, 2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gadhinglaj by which the Respondents have been acquitted of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. When the Appeal was called out, we pointed out to the learned counsel for the Appellant that for challenging the same Judgment and Order, the State had filed an Application under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CRPC”) and by Judgment and Order dated 13th September, 2010 passed by another Division Bench of this Court, the said Application was rejected. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the doctrine of merger will not apply as what is rejected is an application for grant of leave to prefer an Appeal. He urged that the ...
Balu @ Dinkar Baburao Tambe Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.M. Khanwilkar, J.) 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Mr Deshpande, A.G.P. waives notice on behalf of the Respondent-State. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. This petition, in substance, takes exception to the Inspection Note dated 2nd August, 2012 which is the basis for detaining Truck No.MH-43-E-6861. The petitioner asserts that the said vehicle belongs to him. The Authority has seized the said vehicle even though the petitioner had produced the relevant documents. The Authority has unjustly refused to release the vehicle in question. 4. The respondents-Authority, on the other hand, submits that the vehicle in question has been seized as the petitioner failed to produce driving licence of the driver. As a result, the Authority had no other option but to detain the said vehicle in exercise of powers under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Further, even after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, he failed to produce any vali...
Chandrakala Wd/O. Damodhar Lengure and Others Vs. Dinesh S/O. Rammanoh ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Oral Judgment: First Appeal No.456/2002 is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chandrapur, in Claim Petition No.51/1998 dated 7.11.2001 and First Appeal No.457/2002 is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur in Claim Petition No.11/1998 dated 8.11.2001. Both the appeals are in respect of death of one Damodhar and Ishwar occurred in a motor vehicular accident involving the jeep bearing registration No. MH-31-G-9374 and truck bearing registration no MH-34- A2933, occurred on 20.4.1997 on Chandrapur - Brahmapuri Road. 2] The learned Tribunal held that the drivers of both the vehicles i.e. the truck and jeep, were negligent and apportioned the negligence in the ratio of 70:30. Deceased Damodhar was found to be 39 years and 3 months old when died and Ishwar was found to be 38 years of age. In a claim case relating to death of Damodhar the Tribunal applied multiplier of 10, whereas in ca...
Laxman Ganpat Parekar and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. Appellants are original accused Nos. 1 to 5. They are challenging the Judgment and Order dated 01/08/2006 passed by the 3rd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, by which all the accused were convicted for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147 read with 149, 148, 323 read with 149 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs 1000/- each and in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months and also convicted them on each count by awarding separate sentence. Appellants shall, hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, be referred to as accused by their original numbers. 2. Brief facts are as under:- 3. The incident in question took place on 07/02/2004 at about 10.00 P.M. P.W. 11 - Hanumant Fadatare, P.W. 12 - Kiran Prataprao Bhosale and P.W. 13 - Shrikant Bhosale had gone to their field at about 9.00 P.M. for the purpose of ...
Omprakash J. Mehra, Prop. of M/S. Omprakash Durgada and Another Vs. Of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Oral Judgment: The Petitioner/ Applicant in this Application under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 is recalling winding up order dated 10th February, 1999 passed by this Court and also prays for dismissal of the Company Petition. 2 The Applicant is the shareholders contributories and members of a public limited company viz. Surlux diagnostic Limited in liquidation. The Respondent is the official liquidator, High Court, Bombay. The company in liquidation was incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956 and its shares were listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange. 3 On 10th February, 1999, one Mr. Omprakash Mehra proprietor of M/s. Omprakash Durgadas having his office at 40, Bharat Bhavan Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai 400 002 had filed the company winding up petition. The debt was of Rs.15 lakhs. It was ordered to be wound up and the respondent was appointed as the liquidator. 4 The case of the Applicant is that the company in liquidation was not only a profitable company, but the same was also...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »