Mumbai Court November 2012 Judgments
State, Through P.i. Others Vs. Naresh Shigaonkar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
This common judgment shall dispose of all the above Criminal Appeals. 2. The Collem police had filed charge-sheet against 18 accused persons (respondents) for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 120-B, 451, 427, 435, 436, 506(II) r/w section 149 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short), which had culminated into Sessions Case no. 9/2006, disposed of by the learned Adhoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Margao. 3. Case of the prosecution, in short, was as follows: On 19/4/2004, between 14.30 hours to 17.00 hours at Jungle Cafe, Bazarwada, Collem, the accused persons and other villagers of Collem hatched a criminal conspiracy and with their common intention formed an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object pelted stones at the complainant, Shri Joseph Barreto and his labourers, damaged the fencing, criminally trespassed into his property and set fire to his store room, huts, Scorpio jeep bearing registration no. GA-01-S-3913 and other articl...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash S/O Shyamrao Belkhode Vs. Abdul Sayeed Shaikh
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns an order passed by the trial Court on 20.02.2012, allowing an application filed by the respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. A suit was instituted by the petitioner against the respondent for recovery of an amount of Rs.64,100/-. 4. The respondent filed the written statement and denied the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner filed the evidence on affidavit on 10.10.2011. The examination-in-chief of the petitioner was complete on 20.06.2010 and the cross-examination was also completed on 10.10.2011. On 03.11.2011, the respondent-defendant filed an application for amendment of the written statement. By the proposed amendment, the respondent wanted to plead that the petitioner-plaintiff had not maintained the ledger and accounts regu...
Tag this Judgment!Jagan Ganpatrao Taklikar Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary, Min ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
Oral Judgment: (Gavai, J.) Rule, made returnable forthwith. By consent, taken up the matter for hearing. 2. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.2147/2005, thereby dismissing the original application filed by the present petitioner challenging the order of termination dated 12.08.2005. The facts in brief giving rise to the present petition are as under. 3. The petitioner came to be appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 18th December, 1972, on the basis of his claim of belonging to Halba - Scheduled Tribe. The caste claim of the petitioner came to be invalidated on 3rd March, 2000. Being aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed W.P. No.1737/2000. The said petition was disposed of on 13.06.2001, thereby given liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to his employer. However, it appears that his representation was rejected. In the meantime, the departmental proceedings came to be initiated against the petitioner on th...
Tag this Judgment!City and Industrial Development Corp of Maharashtra Ltd Vs. Narendra V ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member 1. This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 19/02/1999 passed by District Forum, Mumbai Suburban in consumer complaint No.456/1996. 2. The facts leading to this appeal can be summarised as under:- The original complainant/respondent had applied for flat vide application dated 15/07/87 to the original opponent/appellant. The scheme wherein the complainant/respondent had applied is known as Demand Registration Survey 1987. The complainant/respondent initially paid Rs. 7,500/- through demand draft to the opponent/appellant. The complainant/respondent had applied for hire purchase scheme under Priority-II. According to the complainant/respondent, price of the tenement would be around Rs. 2,47,500/-. On or about 28/06/1996 the complainant/respondent received a letter from opponent/appellant which states that the complainant/respondent was successful in the allotment of tenement and after reading the letter, complainant/respondent came to know that the term...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Kolhapure and Another Vs. Nirmal Lifestyle India Pvt Ltd
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member 1. Mr.Satish Kolhapure and Mrs.Shilpa Kolhapure (hereinafter referred to as complainants) have filed a consumer complaint against Nirmal Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as opponent) under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on 07/04/2010. The complaint was registered and numbered as Complaint No.54/2010. 2. Brief facts leading to this complaint can be stated as under:- On 14/03/2009 complainants booked a flat bearing No.1804 admeasuring 835 sq.ft. carpet area (1197 sq.ft. saleable area) in the building known as Delight, City of Joy, to be constructed by the opponent on plot of land bearing No.CTS No.661/1/7 J.P. Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai for consideration of Rs. 59,35,923/-. Initially, complainants made payment of Rs. 5,93,000/- and the opponent issued receipts dated 19/04/2009, 14/05/2009 and 28/05/2009 and the remaining amount was to be paid after...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Changu Karnekar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) The Appellant/original accused has directed this Appeal against the Judgment and order dated 29th April, 2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad in Sessions Case No.2 of 2003. By the said Judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default R.I. for three months. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under: On 26th July, 2002, P.W. No.1, complainant Mohammad Tohid Khan was travelling by train from Mumbai to Patna. One Mohammad Akbar Khan i.e. the deceased was also travelling along with him in the said train. So also P.W.No.2 Mohammad Sahabuddin was also travelling in same compartment of the train in which P.W. No.1 Complainant Mohammad Tohid Khan and Mohammad Akbar Khan were travelling. One red bag on which Reebok was written was hanging on a hook i...
Tag this Judgment!Xyz Vs. Mohamed Aslam Sheikh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant. None appears on behalf of the Respondent though he is served. 2. Appellant in this Family Court Appeal is challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mumbai dated 17/11/2004 whereby the Petition filed by the Appellant for declaration that she is not a legally wedded wife of the Respondent and that she had never married the Respondent and the purported marriage be declared as null and void. The Family Court Appeal was admitted on 11/1/2005. After the appeal was admitted, Respondent was served and he engaged an advocate to appear on his behalf. Vakalatnama was filed by the said advocate which was duly signed by the Respondent. His advocate however expired in 2009 and therefore notice was issued to him to enable him to appoint another advocate. Despite best efforts taken by the Appellant to serve the Respondent, he could not be served. An app...
Tag this Judgment!Balasaheb Ranoji Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
A.R. Joshi, J. Heard rival submissions on this Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant/orig.accused against the judgment and order of conviction dated 28th April, 2004 passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No.52 of 2003. For the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, the appellant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- in default to suffer RI for one year. Further, for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC, the appellant/accused was sentenced to suffer RI for six months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as under :- Appellant/ accused and victim Ratanbai were acquainted to each other. Ratanbai was running a tea-stall in the locality of Powar Colony on Panchgaon Road, Kolhapur. Accused was also working there as a building labour. Accused and one of his friends wanted the meals on daily basis and they were introduced to one Suman Na...
Tag this Judgment!Shantaram Babu Longale Vs. Balaram Krishna Patil and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
The appellant filed Regular Civil Suit No. 71 of 1981 against the defendants for specific performance of the contract and for declaration. The appellant/plaintiff has entered into an agreement on 18th March, 1980 with the respondents/defendants for the purchase of the land bearing Gat No. 47, Hissa No. 1(a) situates at village Garpoli, Taluka Karjat, District Raigad admeasuring one acre and 20 gunthas, out of total land admeasuring 2 Hectares 40R. At the time of execution of the Agreement of Sale, the full consideration of amount of Rs.6,000/- was paid by the appellant to the respondents. However, the land was coming under the scheme of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'. So the agreement was executed on the condition that the defendants would obtain requisite permission for transfer of the suit land from the Collector. Despite repeated request of the appellant for execution of the sale deed, the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Pandurang Chimanpandey Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) The Appellant original-Accused has directed this Appeal against the Judgment and order dated 30th June, 2004, passed by the learned 5th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.447 of 2003. By the said Judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, R.I. for one month. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under: "The complainant P.W.No.1 Anil Indalkar was working as welder in Rajpal Garage. This Garage was situated at Bibavewadi, Pune. P.W.No.2 Dyaneshwar M. Panchal was also working as a welder in the said Garage. The deceased Jagannath Taide was working as a watchman in the Rajpal Garage. The Appellant was working as a cleaner in the Garage. Some days prior to the incident, the Appellant had come to the Garage after consuming liquor. The watchman i.e. the deceased Jagannath ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »