Mumbai Court November 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.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sumita w/o Bhojraj Muneshwar (Ap ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-06-2012
Oral Judgment: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.03.2011, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yavatmal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.91/2007, filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimants. 2. On 23.07.2005 on Ralegaon-Wani road, an accident had occurred involving a Motor Cycle bearing registration No.MH-29-K-1891, driven by one Dharampal, the deceased and a Matador bearing registration No.MH-31-M-5833. In the said accident Dharampal sustained fatal injuries and died. The dependents of the deceased lodged a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Claims Tribunal. The learned Claims Tribunal on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, held that the deceased died in the motor vehicular accident involving a motor cycle and a matador. As regards the income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal assuming it to be Rs.3000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd from the same, towa...
Kiran Natthu Patil and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-06-2012
1. Heard learned Adv. Mr. R.S. Shinde for the appellants, and learned APP Mr. B.J. Sonwane for the respondent. 2. By the present appeal, filed by the appellants i.e. original accused nos.1 to 3, they have taken exception to the judgment and order dated 29-12-2004, rendered by the learned IInd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, in Sessions Case No. 87/2003, thereby convicting them for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, and sentencing them to suffer simple imprisonment for three years, and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for nine months, each, and also convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, and sentencing them to suffer simple imprisonment for five years, and to pay fine of Rs. 7,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple simple imprisonment for one year and three months, each. 3. The appellants are hereinaft...
Kishor Rambhau Kinkar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-06-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Bhangale, J.) The following appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since the facts and offences are interrelated. Criminal Appeal No.542 of 2010 : KishorKinkar (original accused No.2) has filed this appeal feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha dated 26.8.2010 in Special Case No.17 of 2009. Upon his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 176 read with Section 202 of the Indian Penal Code, accused Kishor Kinkar has been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Criminal Appeal No.623 of 2010 : SachinLandge (original accused No.1) has filed this appeal feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha dated 26.8.2010 in Special Case No.17 of 2009. Upon his conviction for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)...
Rajesh Verma Vs. Rushabh Enterprises Thru Propertor Mr Jagat Parikh
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-2012
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member (1) Mr.Rajesh Varma (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) has filed a Consumer complaint against M/s.Rushabh Enterprises through Proprietor Mr.Jagat Parikh (hereinafter referred to as the Opponent) under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint was registered as Complaint No.195/2011 and notices are served to Opponent. The notices issued were returned back with postal remark left and hence, the Advocate for the Complainant had sought permission to publish notice through newspaper. Accordingly the public notice was published in daily Loksatta and Free Press Journal. Acting upon the affidavit of the Complainant that the Opponent has been served through paper publication it is declared that the Opponent is duly served. The Opponent remained absent though duly served and hence, the matter was proceeded ex-parte. (2) The facts in brief of the complaint can be summarized as under: The Complainant had booked a residential flat bearing no.503 on the 5th...
Baburao Ganpatrao Shirole and Others Vs. Deccan Education Society and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-2012
(Oral Judgment): Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. Heard Mr. Thorat, learned senior counsel and Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. Since all these petitions arise out of various orders passed in a single suit and parties to the suit are being same, I propose to dispose of these writ petitions by passing this common order. 4. Writ Petition Nos. 5822, 5828 and 5829 of 2012 arises out of trial court’s order rejecting the applications for bringing legal heirs of deceased plaintiff Nos. 2, 3, 8 and 9 on record. Writ Petition Nos. 4180 and 4181 of 2012 arises out of an order, whereby the legal heirs of deceased plaintiff Nos. 7 and plaintiff Nos. 10 and 12 are allowed to be brought on record. Writ Petition No. 4179 of 2012 arises out of an order of rejection of an application filed by defendant No.1 for dismissing the entire suit as abated. 5. For convenience, the parties to the p...
Mrs. Snehalata Hindurao Deshmukh and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-2012
SadhanaS. Jadhav, J. Rule. 2. The learned APP waives service for Respondent No.1State. Learned Counsel appearing for the second Respondent waives service. Taken up for hearing forthwith. 3. The Applicants herein are original Accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 in C.R. No.I-151 of 2011 registered at Upnagar Police Station, Nashik. The daughter in law of the Applicant No.1 namely, Jayashree wife of Satwik Deshmukh lodged a report at Upnagar Police Station, Nashik on 15/5/2011 alleging therein that she was married to Satwik Deshmukh on 13/12/2009. The marriage ceremony had taken placed at Nashik. After her marriage with Satwik, she joined the company of the Applicant No.1 and other members of the family at Kolhapur. According to her, on 26/12/2009 her husband Satwik left for United States of America. Thereafter, the Applicant No.1 and the husband of the Applicant No.1 started taunting the complainant on the ground that they were not given due respect at the time of marriage; that they were not bestowe...
Charansingh @ Cheru @ Chadar Baraskar @ Pawar @ Rajput Kanjarbhat Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-2012
P.C. The appellant was convicted by the Addl.Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri in Sessions Case No.26 of 1997 of offences punishable under sections 395 of the IPC, and sentenced to suffer RI for five years, and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer RI for three months. It is not in dispute that, at that time, the appellant was already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life, as was imposed upon him by the learned Sessions Judge, Alibag in Sessions Case No.137 of 1996 decided on 30 September 1998. The Sessions Judge had convicted the appellant of offences punishable under section 396 of the IPC, 395 of the IPC r/w section 397 thereof and section 342 of the IPC. The Learned Sessions Judge imposed a sentence of Imprisonment of Life for the offence punishable under section 396 of the IPC, and sentences of imprisonment for different terms with respect to the aforesaid other offences. These sentences were to run concurrently. The Addl.Sessions Judge while convicting the appellant in ...
Santosh Maruti Walanj Vs. Manoj Sadashiv Jadhav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Learned Counsel for the respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides. 2. By this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, in Gram Panchayat Appeal No.441 of 2011 dated 31st h December 2011. That appeal challenges the order dated 25th July, 2011 of the Collector, Thane in Gram Panchayat Appeal No.14/10/11. 3. The petitioner is a member of the Gram Panchayat Shelar Taluka Bhivandi, District Thane. The elections of the said Gram Panchayat were held on 24th October, 2010. The petitioner was elected from Ward No. 6-f which was reserved for Scheduled Caste. It is the case of the petitioner that he attended first General Body Meeting of the Gram Panchayat held on 14th November, 2010. His first term of office commenced with effect from this date in terms of Section 28(1) of the Bombay Village Panchay...
Kumar J. Sujan and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-2012
A.S. Oka, J. 1. The Petitioners were arraigned as Accused in a complaint filed by the second Respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 Negotiable Instruments Act,1881. The complaint was based on dishonour of two cheques of the aggregate amount of Rs.14,35,000/-. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the Petitioners. The first and the second Petitioners (second and third Accused) were sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment till rising of the Court. The Petitioners (first to third Accused) were jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- to the Complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( hereinafter referred to as the said Code) within a period of three months from the date of judgment. In case of the default of payment of compensation, the first and the second Petitioners were sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. A criminal Appeal was preferred by the Petitioners befor...
Suresh S/O Krishnarao Pardhekar Vs. Sheikh Mehaboob S/O Sheikh Hasan
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-05-2012
Oral Judgment: RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner impugns two orders dated 15/02/2012 and 11/07/2012 rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner for permission to tender the certified copies of the judgment and decree in Special Civil Suit No.168/1999 and Small Causes Civil Suit No.25/1994. 2. The petitioner is the original defendant. A suit was instituted by the respondent-plaintiff under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 for eviction and possession. It was the case of the respondent-plaintiff that the petitioner was in arrears of rent and the respondent required the suit premises for his bona fide occupation. It was the case of the respondent that the suit premises were required for the business of his sons. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent on the ground of bona fide need on 14/09/2009. The petitioner chal...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »