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...
Madanrao Vishwanathrao Patil and Others Vs. Suhash Anant Kulkarni and ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member (1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 20/04/2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli in Consumer Complaint No.1064/2008. (2) Facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under: Mr.Suhas Anant Kulkarni and Mrs.Vinaya Suhas Kulkarni had deposited various amounts in Recurring, Term Deposits and Saving accounts of the opponent Bank. The Opponent Nos.2 to 22 are the Directors of Opponent No.1 Bank. Opponent No.25 is the Board of Liquidators. Opponent Nos.23 and 24 are the Deposit Insurance Credit Guaranty Corporation of Reserve Bank of India and Reserve Bank of India, respectively. The Complainants had requested the Opponents to pay the amount after its maturity . However, Opponent Bank replied to the Complainants that the amount cannot be returned as the Reserve Bank of India has imposed conditions for the payment of the deposits. Hence, the Complainants filed consumer complaint contending that the deficiency in ser...
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...
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...
State of Goa Vs. Mahesh Kasar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Mr. Mashelkar, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25/11/2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji in Criminal Case No.102/06/D/C acquitting the respondent of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of I.P.C. 3. Briefly, the facts leading to filing of the appeal are as under: On 19/10/2005 at about 13.10 hours at Zuari, Goa Velha on National Highway no.17, the accused drove his Maruti Van bearing registration no.GA01-T-6603 in rash and negligent manner while proceeding from Margao to Panaji and when he reached near Zuari bridge, Goa Velha on National Highway no.17 while attempting to overtake another vehicle, dashed against motorcycle bearing registration no.GA02-H-4458 driven by PW2 - Dipesh Shah causing grievous injuries to him. Both the accused and PW2 sustained injuries and they were taken to Goa Medical Coll...
Laxman Ramchandra Kamble Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Home Sec ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
P.D. Kode, J. 1. By the present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, sent through jail, the petitioner, convict lodged at Yeravada Central Prison, Pune, has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 22nd July, 2011 passed by the respondent in respect of premature release and further directing the respondent for reconsidering his case for premature release. The Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay vide his judgment and order delivered on 19.3.1999 in Sessions Case No.1420 of 1995 has convicted the petitioner for commission of offences under section 302 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence under section 302 of IPC but has not awarded separate sentence for commission of offence under section 337 of IPC. 2. At the said trial the petitioner was tried for committing murder of his wife Smt.Shantabai and for causing burn injuries to his minor sons aged about eight years and two yea...
M/S. Indrapuram Resort Apartments, Through Partners, M. R. Ashok G. Kh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Oral Order: 1 The above group of Petitions raises a common issue and involves identical facts and are, therefore, heard together. 2 In one of the Writ Petitions out of the above group being Writ Petition No.2368 of 2012, Rule came to be issued on 16th April, 2012 and further proceedings in the concerned Suit came to be stayed. The rest of the 30 Petitions had come up for admission thereafter and in view of the Rule issued in the said Writ Petition No.2368 of 2012, it was ordered that the entire group of 31 Petitions would be heard finally which included the 30 Petitions which are pending admission. Hence Rule to issue in the said 30 Petitions made returnable forthwith and heard. 3 In spite of the notice of final disposal, the Respondent is not appearing and is also not represented. 4 The short question which arises in the above group of the Petitions is whether the Petitioner is liable to pay Court Fees under Section 6(iv) (j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 or 6(v) of the said Act....
Smt. Shakina Bi and Others Vs. Anandrao G.S. Kenkre and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri D. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri C.A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above petition challenges the judgment passed by the Development Commissioner/Secretary (Revenue) dated 3/11/2008 whereby an application dated 15/10/2003 filed by the respondents was upheld and the order dated 10/11/1986 passed by the learned Aval Karkun attached to the office of the Mamlatdar of Sanguem in case No.D.C. No.182/Cotarlim and Order dated 16/09/1993 passed by the learned Deputy Collector in case No.LRC/APPL/208/AC dated 24/06/2003 passed by the Additional Collector II in case No.19-93-LRC/2nd/APL/AC dated 24/06/2003 was set aside. The names of the petitioners were ordered to be deleted from the Record of Rights and the name of the deceased heir of the respondents namely Kashinath Shaba Sinai Salelkar was directed to be included in the Record of Rights in respect of survey no.6/0 of the village of Cotarlim in Sangue...
Ashok @ Aau S/O Pitambar Choudhary and Another Vs. the State of Mahara ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
1. Heard learned respective counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, Petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. By the present petition, filed by the petitioner, under Article 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, prayed that the impugned order dated 05.12.2011 passed by the respondent No.3 Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhusawal and order dated 19.04.2012 passed by the respondent No.2, Officer on Special Duty in Appeal No.235/2011 be quashed and set aside. 3. The petitioner is the aggrieved person against whom action under section 57 of the Bombay Police Act, 1950 has been taken by the respondents, whereas respondent no.1 is the State of Maharashtra represented through its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and respondent no.2 is the Appellate authority which has passed the impugned order dated 19.4.2012 confirming the order passed by the lower authority and the respondent No.3 is the Sub-Divisional Offi...
Balkrishna Mahadev Lad Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. This matter has been referred to the Full Bench, pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench of Mr. Justice A. S. Oak and Mr. Justice A. V. Potdar on 29th February, 2012. The said Division Bench was of the opinion that the view expressed in the decision of another Division Bench of this Court (Bilal Nazki as he then and A. R. Joshi, JJ.) in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Bapu Pandu Mali (2010 ALL MR (CRI) 120), and followed in the subsequent decision of another Division Bench of this Court (V. M. Kanade and A. M. Thipsay, JJ.) in the case of FarooqAbdul Gani Surve vs. the State of Maharashtra (2012 ALL MR (CRI) 271), was in conflict with the purport of Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) and in particular the exposition of the Apex Court in the case of State of U. P. vs. Poosu and Anr. (1976(3) SCC 1)and Amin Khan vs. State of Rajasthan (2009(3) SCC 776), which decisions were not brough...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »