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.
Vilas S/O Dattatraya Ransubhe Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through th ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Oral Judgment : [ R.M. Borde, J.] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2. The petitioner claims to be belonging to Bhavsar Kshetriya caste which is included in Other Backward Class category. The petitioner is serving as Conductor in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. The school record of the petitioner records caste as 'Hindu Maratha'. According to the petitioner, while securing admission in school, his father has erroneously recorded the entry as 'Hindu Maratha'. He further contends that old record pertaining to his father, uncle and other near relatives show that they belong to 'Bhavsar Kehstriya caste'. The petitioner has also been issued caste certificate by the competent authority. The son of the petitioner has also been issued caste certificate by the competent authority certifying that he belongs to 'Bhavsar Kshetriya caste' and his caste claim has been validated by the compe...
YasIn K. Shaikh Vs. State (Through C.B.i., Bambolim, Goa) Through P.P.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Arun Bras De Sa, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. J. Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this revision application, the petitioner takes exception to the order dated 26.8.2011 passed by the Special Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Special Case No.7/2009 to the extent learned Special Judge framed charge against the petitioner under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short). 4. The chargesheet was filed by CBI against the petitioner and two other accused who were working as Senior Manager and Officer of Canara Bank, Ponda Goa before the Special Judge for the commission of offences punishable under Section 120-B, read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. 5. Learned Special Judge after hearing learned counsel for the accused and learned Special Public Prosecutor orde...
Chetan S/O Chandrashekhar Swami Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
S.S. Shinde, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the decision of the SC, VJNT, OBC and Special Backward Class Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad dated 19th November, 2008, thereby invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that, he belongs to "Malajangam" scheduled caste, as it is evident from the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar and Taluka Executive Magistrate, Dharur District Beed dated 19th July, 1994. It is further case of the petitioner that, his caste claim was forwarded for verification to respondent No.2 SC, VJNT, OBC and Special Backward Class Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad (for short, "Committee") some time in October, 2000 by the Principal of Dayanand College, Latur. The matter was pending for considerable time before r...
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...
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 tonnes parcel space...
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...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Pradeep K. Shroff and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) The Appellant State of Maharashtra has taken an exception to the order of acquittal of the Accused by the learned Magistrate where charge against the Respondent Accused was under Section 7(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") punishable under Sections 16 and 17 of the said Act. The learned Magistrate while acquitting the Respondent Accused held that the prosecution has not examined any independent witness to prove the contents of the panchanama recorded on 19th July, 1987 regarding purchasing and collecting samples of food articles. The learned Judge has observed that there is a common panchanama of collection of sample of Tandoori Chicken as well as sample of food article "Chicken Makhanwala". The present case is in relation to the sample of Chicken Makhanwala. The finding of the learned Trial Judge is that compliance with the requirements of Sub-clause (i) of Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Sect...
Chetan S/O Chandrashekhar Swami Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
S.S. Shinde, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the decision of the SC, VJNT, OBC and Special Backward Class Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad dated 19th November, 2008, thereby invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that, he belongs to "Malajangam" scheduled caste, as it is evident from the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar and Taluka Executive Magistrate, Dharur District Beed dated 19th July, 1994. It is further case of the petitioner that, his caste claim was forwarded for verification to respondent No.2 SC, VJNT, OBC and Special Backward Class Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad (for short, "Committee") some time in October, 2000 by the Principal of Dayanand College, Latur. The matter was pending for considerable time before r...
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 Division Bench...
Krushnaji S/O Maroti Awari Vs. Amol S/O Vivek Awari
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Heard rival arguments on earlier dates on this appeal preferred by original complainant challenging the judgment and order of acquittal. 2. Perused the evidence led before the Trial Court and also perused the citations referred on behalf of the appellant. The present respondent-accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, vide order dated 14/1/2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Maregon in Summary Criminal Case No.521/2007. 3. Prior to discussing the rival submissions and in order to ascertain whether the impugned judgment and order is required to be altered and set aside, the case of the complainant is narrated as under:- During the relevant time of the year 2007 there were business relations between the complainant and the respondent-accused. One Annapurna Krushi Kendra was being run and conducted by the accused jointly with his father. Being a customer of the said shop, the complainant used to purchase fertilize...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »