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.
Parisar Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
1. Heard. Admit. By consent of parties appeal is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and Order dated 30.6.2011 of the First Appeal Court, Pune in Civil Appeal No.293 of 2008 thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed in R.C.S No.725 of 2000 passed by the trial Court. 3 The appellant is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 working for the conservation of nature and environment. The respondent is a Corporation established under the Bombay Provincial Corporations Act, 1949. (Hereinafter called as BPMC ACT) The respondent-Corporation took a decision to construct new roads running parallel to river Mutha in the heart of the Pune city. The suit road is one of such roads and its construction started in the year 2000. The said decision was detrimental to the existence of river Mutha, so appellant society filed a suit for declaration that the Corporation has no right to construct road or structures in Mutha riv...
Sharad S/O Rajaram Takarkhede [Through L.Rs.] and Others Vs. State of ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
Oral Judgment: These two appeals arise from the judgment and award dated 30.11.1996 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati in L.A.C. No.92/1992, whereby the quantum of compensation for the land acquired was enhanced @ Rs.67,500/- P.H. The land bearing survey no.190/1 mouja Jarud, Taluq Warud, area 1.52 H.R. out of total area of 2.62 H.R. was compulsorily acquired for the public purpose i.e. rehabilitation of the flood affected persons. Notification under section 4 of the Land acquisition Act was published on 21.10.1991. The award was declared on 10.3.1992. Questioning adequacy of the amount of compensation the reference was sought by the land owner/ respondent. Few sale instances were relied upon. Considering the same and particularly the factors like situation of the land and purpose for which it was found suitable i.e. for rehabilitation, the reference court fixed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.67,500/-. Questioning the adequacy of the quantum of compensatio...
Tushar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.H. Joshi, J.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties. 2. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant, learned APP for the respondent no.1 and learned Advocate for the respondent no.2. Perused the FIR. 3. Substance of the FIR is summarized as follows:- (a) Husband of the informant Sangita namely Janardhan Shinde used to run the institution called Hari Mauli Balak Ashram. (b) He had incurred heavy debt while doing so. (c) The said debt was in the shape of loans from various persons, who are 15 in number and named in the FIR, including present applicant. (d) The debt carried interest. (e) The money lenders had pestered and insulted Janardhan Shinde towards his failure to repay. (f) Janardhan Shinde had to make arrangement of money for payment of fees of his daughter's education, which he was not able to arrange. (g) On account of frustration due to insult, because of failure to arrange fo...
Status Construction Pvt Ltd. and Another Vs. Sankalp Apartment Chs Ltd ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member: [1] Adv. Vikramaditya Deshmukh instructed by I. R. Joshi and Co., is present on behalf of the Appellant. Adv. Uday B. Wavikar is present on behalf of the Respondent No.1. Notice after admission was sent to Respondent No.2, which as per India Post report was duly served on the Respondent No.2 but the Respondent No.2 is absent. Under the circumstances, appeal to proceed in absence of the Respondent No.2. Heard both the learned advocates. Perused the record. [2] This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 2/5/2011 passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bandra (hereinafter referred to as the Forum for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.90 of 2006, Sankalp Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Mr. Mukesh Motilal Garg and Another. As per the impugned order, in effect, the Appellants/original Opponents Nos.1 and 2 were directed to refund to the Respondent No.1/original Complainant Society, ...
Ravindra Narottamdas Merchant Vs. Niranjan Narottamdas Marchant and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard by consent of the parties finally. BACKGROUND: 2. Both the counsel made their respective submissions and the matter was closed for orders on 31.08.2012. The parties were directed to file written notes of arguments. However, as noted and as there was no arguments made with regard to the Chamber Summons and the Notices of Motions referred in last paragraph of order dated 5 August 2005, the matters were listed for clarification on this part; and for supply of copies; and for re-hearing as those matters were not part of the main hearing. On 5 October, 2012 the time was sought to file the same and it was accordingly extended. The Office was also directed to place all these Notices of Motions and the chamber summon along with the main matter on 10.10.2012. The time was sought again and accordingly the matter was adjourned for 19.10.2012 for rehearing. 3. The parties filed the additional compilations of documents. The parties were also directed to file a short synopsis an...
Trilok Baburao Deshpande Vs. Municipal Corpn of Gr.City of Pune
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr.Khaladkar for the Petitioner and Mr.Khadapkar for the Respondent-Corporation. 2. The matter was heard for sometime yesterday and came to be adjourned to today for delivery of Judgment. 3. The Petitioner-landlady has questioned the revised assessment of her property under section 406 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act. That Appeal was allowed by the Small causes court Pune on 30.6.1989. Aggrieved thereby the Respondent-Municipal Corporation filed further Appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge Pune. That Civil Appeal No.882 of 1989 has been allowed on 22.9.1995. The landowner thereafter has filed the present Petition. 4. On 23.1.1996 this Court has issued Rule in the matter and refused to grant any interim relief. Apart from other contentions, learned counsel for the Appellant has urged that the Appeal filed was statutory and the Small Causes Court ought to have called for the records of assessment from the Municipal Commissioner. The asses...
Shaikh Akhil Shaikh Jamil and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides by consent for final disposal. 2. The present proceeding is filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of Sessions Case No.98/2012 filed against the applicant for offences punishable u/s 366, 511 etc of the Indian Penal Code. The application filed for discharge before the trial Court is rejected by the trial Court. 3. The papers of investigation carried out by police are produced before this Court. This Court has perused the same. 4. The incident took place on 15/04/2011 after 22.30 hours. The complainant Farzana was present in her house situated at Dilras colony, Aurangabad with her daughter / prosecutrix. In the F.I.R. given on 16/04/2011 she made allegations that at the time of incident 3 to 4 youngsters entered her house and they were holding swords. They had come in one car of which number is given in the F.I.R.. Initially, they had taken name of son of the complainant and so the door of the house was opened by the complainant....
Mangesh Shrinivash Salkar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
P.C. Heard Mr. Saraogi, the learned advocate for the Applicant and Ms. Mhaispurkar, the learned A.P.P. for the Respondent - State. 2. The Applicant is one of the three accused in Sessions Case No.128 of 2012, pending before the Sessions Court at Dindoshi. The allegation against the Applicant and the other accused is that they have committed offences punishable under Sections 302 of IPC and 201 of IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the Applicant had illicit relations with the sister of the deceased-Babu Salkar. This relationship was disliked by the deceased Balu Salkar. The Applicant therefore decided to murder the said Balu Salkar, and for that purpose he took help of one Maruti and one Santosh (co-accused). The prosecution case is that on 5th February, 2012, the Applicant and the co-accused Maruti went to the residence of the deceased and took him out for some work. The deceased did not return home and, therefore, his wife made inquires with several p...
Ranapratap Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
A.H. Joshi, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. In our order dated 30.10.2012, we had recorded observations as follows:- "4. We call upon the learned APP the question as to propriety of conducting the separated trial against the applicant/accused in the background of fact finding done by the Sessions Court in Sessions Case No.110/2009 that the death-subject matter to be homicidal is not proved, particularly when no other evidence may nor can be tendered." 3. Learned APP was called upon to respond and make submissions on aforesaid observations. 4. Learned APP addressed the Court, summary whereof is as follows:- (i) Absconding accused cannot take benefit of judgment of acquittal in favour of other accused, and (ii) He will have to face the trial whenever he is arrested. 5. Insofar as propositions advanced by learned APP are concerned, there is no dispute or doubt about the same. 6. The finding recorded by the trial court in Sessions Case No.110 of 2009 holding that the death-subj...
Shriram Abhiman Patil Vs. Chhabubai Wd/O Subhash Bhuyar and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri J.J. Chandurkar, the learned Advocate, appearing for the appellant and Mrs. Mahashabdhye, Advocate holding for Shri M.A. Vaishnav, the learned Advocate, appearing for the respondents. 2. In Regular Civil Suit No.101 of 1989 for recovery of possession of the field Survey No.57/2, admeasuring 7 acres and 32 gunthas of village Kushta. The learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Achalpur, passed a decree on 23-12-1996 for recovery of possession of the suit field by the plaintiff from the defendants. Separate enquiry into the mesne profits is also ordered under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure from the date of filing of the suit till actual delivery of the possession. 3. In Regular Civil Appeal No.17 of 1997 the learned Additional District Judge, Achalpur, has set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed. Hence, this Second Appeal by the original plaintiff. 4. On 4-9-2006 t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »