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.
Godrej Agrovet Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-25-2012
Oral Order: 1] The petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the proceeding of S.T.C.No.162/08, which is pending in the Court of JMFC Badnapur. The case is filed by respondent no.2, public servant for offences punishable under various Sections of Insecticides Act, 1968 and Rules framed under the Act. Both sides are heard. 2] Copy of the complaint given by public servant shows that on 31/7/02, the Inspector appointed under the Special Act did the inspection of the premises of M/s Rama Sales Corporation, Badnapur. He found that the insecticide Monocrotophos 36% manufactured by Nagarjuna Agrichem Limited, Srikakulam, manufactured in June 2002 having expiry date of November 2003 were kept for sale. He had doubt about the quality of the insecticide and so he took samples of 250 ml. of the insecticide. Three such samples were collected and they were closed and sealed. One of the sample was haded over to...
Digambar S/O Pandurang Kadu Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-25-2012
1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 45/2011 which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. The trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant for offences punishable under section 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sides are heard. Original record is perused. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows. The complainant Dadasaheb Dukare is the father of the prosecutrix. The accused and complainant are residents of village Satral Tq. Rahuri District Ahmednagar. The house of the accused is situated at the distance of around 250 feet from the house of the complainant. At the relevant time, the accused was aged about 40 years and the prosecutrix was aged about 15 years. The prosecutrix is described as simpleton, little bit mentally retarded but she was studying in 6th standard in a School from Satral. 3. The incident took place on 29/11/2010. The prosecutrix left ...
Vijay S/O Arjun Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-23-2012
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. By consent both the sides are heard for final disposal. 3. Present proceeding is filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to challenge the order made by Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Shahada in Crime No. 25/2011 which is registered in Shahada Police Station. On 25/02/2011, Judicial Magistrate (First Class) first rejected the remand report given by Police for police custody and then virtually quashed the F.I.R. registered on the basis of order made by Judicial Magistrate (First Class) u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate has made the order of discharge of the accused, respondents No.2 and 3. 4. Petitioner, the original complainant has made allegations that in private complaint filed by him against accused No.1 Smt. Priyanka for offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, revenue record was produced by accused No.2 to show that he owns landed property and he can stand surety for Smt. Priyank...
Gazi SaduddIn @ Pappu S/O. Gazi Zaheer and Others Vs. the State of Mah ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-23-2012
1. Heard Adv. Mr. H.F. Pawar, holding for Adv. Mr. A.H. Kapadia, for the appellants, and learned APP Mr. D.V. Tele for the respondent. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants i.e. original accused nos.1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as per their original status i.e. 'accused'). It appears that the accused nos.1 to 3 faced the trial along with other co-accused in Sessions Case No. 12/2004. However, learned IVth Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, convicted accused nos.1 to 3 i.e. appellants herein, for the offence punishable under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each, and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months, and they were also convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 of IPC, and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of...
Executive Engineer and Others Vs. Ragho S/O Laxman Badkal and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-23-2012
Oral Judgment: These appeals and cross appeals are arising from the judgment and award passed in between 28.9.2006 to 20.10.2006 by the Reference Courts at Kelapur - Pandharkawada, district : Yavatmal. The particulars of the survey numbers, land acquired, compensation granted by S.L.A.O. and by Reference Court are reproduced in the following chart: Sr. No.First Appeal NoSurvey No./Gat No.Total area (H.R.)Area acquired (H.R.)Name of owner1234561762/07310.880.88RaghoLaxman Badkal (Respdt)2860/07304.024.02JagoLaxman Badkal. (Respdt)31486/08 cross obj. 16/11320 3171.72 2.581.72 2.58PandurangMaroti Awari (Respdt)41487/08181.621.62RajendraprasadLaxman Gaikwad (Respdt)5165/09 Cross-Obj. 22/123012.232.23Anil Bapurao Ladke (Respdt)Compensation awarded by S.L.A.O.LAC No.Date of DecisionCompensation by Reference court78910Rs.27,000/- P.H. Rs.1,500/- P.H. for P.K.135/04 [Old 71/04]29/9/06Rs.85,000 P.H.Rs.27,000/- P.H. Rs.1,500/- P.H. for P.K.141/04 [Old 77/04]28/9/06Rs.85,000/- P.H.Rs.27,000...
Chandiram Dariyanumal Ahuja Vs. Akola Zilla Shram Wahtuk Sahakari Sans ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-23-2012
A.P. Bhangale, J. 1. Appellant Chandiram is tenant while respondent/Akola Zilla Shram Wahatuk Sahakari Sanstha is landlord in respect of premises i.e. shop block in a building situated on Nazul Plot No.7, Sheet No.27/C, Old Cotton Market, Akola. Appellant/tenant was inducted in the suit premises under a Lease deed, dated 4th February, 1986 on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- payable in advance. Appellant had kept security deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- with the respondent-landlord. Appellant had actually occupied the tenanted premises with effect from 1st August, 1986. Tenancy month is governed as per English Calendar Month. Parties had agreed under the Lease deed that rent of the tenanted premises would be increased @ 20 % after every five years. Copy of Lease deed is on record which contains various terms and conditions. 2. The respondent-landlord filed Civil Suit No.22 of 2003 for eviction alleging inter alia that the appellant-tenant paid rent regularly till 31.1.1991. However, thereafter, the...
Vinod Subhas Chavan Vs. Himmatrao Deshbhartar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-23-2012
A.S. Oka, J. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking a writ of habeas corpus praying for quashing and setting aside the order passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, [Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates] Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The order of detention has been passed by the first Respondent-Commissioner of Police, Solapur, purportedly with a view to prevent the Petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has invited our attention to the grounds of detention communicated to the Petitioner in accordance with Section 8 of the said Act. He pointed out that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority is that the Petitioner is likely to revert to similar activities set out in the g...
M/S. Zapp India Limited Vs. M/S. Maheshwar Textiles
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-23-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. The above Arbitration Petition is filed by the Petitioner on 19th January, 2011, challenging the Arbitral Award dated 19th August 2009, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act). The Award was dispatched to the Petitioner by the Hindustan Chamber of Commerce on 4th September 2009. However, on 7th September 2009 the Petitioner refused to accept service of the said Award. 2. The brief facts of the matter are set out hereunder: 3. By a letter dated 2nd February 2009, the Respondent informed the Hindustan Chamber of Commerce that they have sold and supplied goods to the Petitioner at G-111, RIICO Industrial Area, Mansarovar, Jaipur-302 020, Rajasthan vide their various invoices, particulars of which were set out in the said letter and the total outstanding after giving credit for the part payment received, along with interest thereon amounted to Rs. 53,99,688/-. The Respondent requested the Hindustan Chamber of Commerce to use their good off...
Classic Steel Industries Vs. Amol Ramchandra Jadhav and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-23-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard learned Advocates for the petitioner and the respondent no.1 as also the learned APP. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties. 3. The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by the petitioner is dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Beed, on the ground that he does not have territorial jurisdiction. 4. It is not in dispute that the cheque was issued at Pune and was dishonoured at Pune, however, was deposited for collection at Beed. Notice of dishonour was issued from Beed. 5. In view of the precedent in case of K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999 DGLS(Soft.) 1015), the five facet test is laid down and it is laid down in paragraph no.16 that place of occurrence of any one amongst events would be the place of accrual of cause of action where the Court would have the jurisdiction. Applying this test, the Court at Beed certainly had ...
Shankar S/O. Nathuji Khandare Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-23-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 3. By the present petition filed by the petitioner (original accused) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 24th July 2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Court No.1, Aurangabad, below Exhibit 47/D, in S.C.C. No. 5305/2009, be quashed and set aside. 4. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their original status i.e. accused and complainant. 5. The factual matrix of the case is as under: (a) The respondent no.2 i.e. original complainant filed S.C.C. No. 5305/2009 against the petitioner herein i.e. original accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and accordingly, petitioner herein is the original accused, and respondent no.2 is the original complainant therein. According t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »