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.
Prashant S/O Gyaneshwar Hajare Vs. Narayan S/O Sadashiv Bondre and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
Oral Judgment: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 12.1.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No.649/1999. 2] On 26.3.1999, Vasant, a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing registration no. MH-31-V-7106, while proceeding on Nagpur - Bhandara Road, met with an accident. Vasant sustained serious injuries and succumbed to them. He was unmarried. His parents lodged claim for Rs.2,50,000/-. The tribunal after considering the evidence brought on record, held that the claimants are entitled to receive compensation from Prashant owner of the vehicle. The tribunal considered the income of the deceased and after applying multiplier of 17 granted total amount of compensation of Rs. 2,16,000/- inclusive of no fault liability amount. This judgment and award is questioned in this appeal mainly on the ground that the tribunal committed an error by deducting only 1/3rd income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, and furt...
Meenatai W/O Mahadev Nagargoje Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
Admit. By consent heard both the sides for final disposal. 2. The revision is filed to challenge the judgment and order of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Beed delivered in S.C.C. No.1429/2007 in a private complaint filed for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by respondent No.2. The petitioner is convicted and sentenced. Criminal Appeal No.30/2009 filed in Sessions Court, Beed is dismissed and both the decisions are challenged in the present proceeding. Both the sides are heard. Original papers are perused by this Court. 3. It is the case of complainant that the accused was known to him for about 7 to 8 years and due to this acquaintance, he gave hand loan of Rs.40,000/- to the accused in September, 2006 in his house. It is his case that the amount was to be returned within 4 to 5 months but the amount was not returned and so the complainant started making demand of the amount to the accused. It is his case that on 01/03/2007 when he demanded mon...
Anant Raghunath Sawaikar and Another Vs. Shrihari Bal Vidhyadhar Upadh ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the petitioners. None appears on behalf of the respondents, though served. 2. By order dated 30/08/2012 passed by this Court, the parties were put on notice that the petition may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 3. When the matter was called out on 23/10/2012, respondents did not choose to put in appearance. Hence, the matter was adjourned to give an opportunity to the respondents to put in appearance. 4. When the matter is called out today, none appears on behalf of the respondents. Hence, Rule. Heard forthwith. 5. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 31/07/2012 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ponda in Regular Civil Suit No.71/2009/A by which respondent no.3/ defendant no.3 has been permitted to file additional written statement. By application dated 21/01/2012, the plaintiffs requested learned trial Court to discard the additional ...
Homraj Hansaram Bisen and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Its ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging legality and validity of the Government Resolution dated 29.11.2010. The petitioners in all these petitions are either teachers or non-teaching staff employed by private school managements. Indisputably, when the petitioners were appointed in the schools in which they were appointed initially, were not admissible to hundred percent grant-in-aid at the time of their appointment and also on 1st November 2005. The Government of Maharashtra under various Government Resolutions has made applicable the provisions contained in the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules to the full-time teachers and non-teaching staff in the non-Government/private aided schools. The last of such Pension Scheme was framed under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. 2. The Union of India vide Notification issued by its Finance Department dated 22.12.2003 has made applicable Defined Contributory Pension S...
Vidarbha Co-operative Marketing Society Limited Vs. NitIn S/O Panjabra ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. T.U. Tathod, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr.Manish Gupta, learned Advocate for the respondent. 2. Admitted. Heard finally by consent. 3. The applicant is the complainant before the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No.423/2003 and respondent is the accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque in question was dated 27th November, 2002 for the amount of Rs. 1,40,000/-. The case of the applicant before the trial Court was that it was dishonoured on 27th November, 2002 itself. However, the intimation given to the applicant by the Bank i.e. Amravati District Central Cooperative Bank, Main Branch, Amravati was dated 5th November, 2002. 4. This mistake in the date of intimation received by the applicant from the Bank, was noticed by the applicant at the fag end of the trial and when the final arguments were in progress. The applicant, therefore, moved the learned trial Court for production of original ...
Vip Builders and Developers and Another Vs. Amol C. Naik and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
S. B. Mhase, President [1] Heard Adv. S. B. Prabhavalkar on behalf of the Applicants/Appellants and Adv. Digamber Thakre on behalf of the Non-Applicant/Respondent in MA/12/232 in A/12/760 and Adv. Smt. Panchashila Narawade on behalf of the Non-Applicants/Respondents in MA/12/239 in A/12/770 to MA/12/242 in A/12/773. [2] This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal. Surprisingly, in the prayer clause of the delay condonation application though there is a prayer for condonation of delay, the period of which the delay is being sought to be condoned is not stated. In prayer clause of the delay condonation application reference is made to paragraph (08) of the said application. Paragraph (08) of the said application points out that there is a delay of two years and ten months in filing the appeal. Delay is calculated from the date of order. It is further stated that if the delay is to be calculated from the date of knowledge, there is a delay of approximately sixt...
Husseinbhai M. Bagasrawalla and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) The Petitioners claiming to be owners of a plot of land bearing C.S. No.3B/730 admeasuring 9514 sq. mtrs, situated at Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya Marg, Tardeo, Mumbai, have inter alia challenged a decision of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, contained in a letter of the Chief Engineer dated 5 May 2012 calling upon them to resubmit a proposal for development in accordance with a notification of the State Government dated 19 March 2012. In consequence the Petitioners seek an order directing the Municipal Corporation to revalidate a letter of intent for construction of a multistoried parking lot and a direction to the Municipal Corporation and its officers to scrutinize and sanction the plans without reference to a proposed modification of the relevant Development Control Regulations. 2. On 28 October 2008 the Municipal Corporation brought into effect the provisions of Development Control Regulation 33(24). DCR 33(24) contemplates the g...
Shobha Madhusudan Sheth Vs. Sandeep Shyam Bhanushali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
The Plaintiff, who is the daughter of the deceased, has sought to probate the Will of her deceased mother dated 22nd March, 1999. The deceased expired on 22nd May 2003. The Defendant is her brother. Two other sisters and a brother have also been served citation. They have not filed any caveat within time. The Defendant filed the caveat and has contended that the stamp paper on which the Will has been executed is backdated and is invalid. The Will has not been notorized and it has not been validly executed. Upon such defence the only issue that arose and which the Plaintiff was to prove was relating to the validity of the execution of the Will. 2. Issues came to be framed on 25th November, 2010 and are answered as follows: 1) Whether the last Will and Testament of the deceased Prabhavati Dattatray Bhansali dated 22nd March, 1999 was validly executed? No 2) What relief, if any, is the Plaintiff entitled to As per final order 3. Issue No.1: The Plaintiff has examined herself, a Doctor who...
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mrs.Jyoti Niranjan Vaswani and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
Oral Judgment: By earlier order, we directed that the appeal shall be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. Accordingly, appeal is taken up for final hearing. 2. By this appeal, the appellant who is the insurer has taken an exception to the Judgment and Award dated 20th December 2011 passed by the learned Chairman of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai. The Respondent nos.1 to 4 are the original claimants who filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereafter referred to as the said Act) claiming compensation on account of death of one Niranjan Vaswani in a motor accident. Respondent no.5 is the owner of the offending vehicle. We find that on application made by the appellant under section 170 of the said Act, the Tribunal had granted leave to defend the claim application to the appellant by taking up defences available to the respondent no.5. Therefore, it is not necessary to serve a notice of this appeal to the respondent no.5. 3. The case ...
Pandurang Vinayak Deokar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
Oral Judgment: (P.D. Kode, J.) 1. By the present appeal, the Appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 20th August, 2004 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur convicting the Appellant for committing the murder of his wife Nirmala and thus for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and, in default, to undergo S.I. for one month. 2. The said prosecution has arisen out of a charge-sheet submitted by Tembhurni Police Station as a result of investigation of Crime No. 116 of 2003 registered with the said police station on a complaint -Exhibit -23 lodged by the mother of the deceased PW 5 Mandakini Mhaske. According to the said complainant, her daughter Nirmala had married the Appellant about 9 years prior to the date of lodging the said complaint. The said marriage was out come of love affair in between them. According to the Complainant, the Appellant...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »