Mumbai Court December 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.
Jagjeet Singh S/O Chandan Singh Kalsi Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. R.S. Renu for the applicant and learned Counsel Mr. M.P. Badar for the non-applicant. 2. Admit. 3. The question which may come up for determination in the present criminal application is that as to whether the property seized by the officer empowered under Section 50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 becomes the Government property immediately after the seizure thereof. In the present case, Truck No. MH31DS2030 belonging to the applicant was seized during the investigation of P.O.R. No.67/2008 by the competent Forest Officer. It was alleged that the said Truck loaded with 320 bags of cement was intercepted on 29th February, 2012 near Rajura Town. It is the case of prosecution that a carcass of spotted-deer, truck and cement bags were seized under the panchanama. An offence vide P.O.R. No.67/2008 dated 29th February, 2012 was registered at the office of Range Forest Officer, Rajura for alleged contravention of provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) A...
Suman D. Mane and Others Vs. Director Grant Medical Foundation Ruby Ha ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
Milind M. Mahajan, Judicial Member: [1] Heard Mr. J. B. Gai, authorized representative of the Complainants, Adv. Dara Irani on behalf of the Opponents Nos.1, 3 and 4 and Adv. Milind M. Mahajan on behalf of the Opponent No.2 on the point of admission of the complaint. [2] This consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service vis--vis medical negligence on the part of the treating doctors and the hospital where Late Dattajirao Balwantrao Mane (hereinafter referred to as the patient for the sake of brevity) was admitted and received treatment during the period 22/10/2009 to 15/11/2009 i.e. till his death which occurred and was declared around 07:00 a.m. on 15/11/2009. [3] It is the contention of the Complainants that Late Dattajirao, a senior citizen, was under the treatment of a local doctor at Sangli and was suffering from chest congestion and breathlessness for about a period of one month from the month of September-2009 onwards. Late Dattajirao was also experiencing chro...
Subramani Mandar Konar and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
P.D. Kode, J. 1. By the present appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order delivered on 29th August, 2005 by Addl.Sessions Judge, Brihan-Mumbai in Sessions Case No.716 of 2002 convicting them for in furtherance of their common intention of committing murder of Mayadi Sohaiya Konar (hereinafter referred as deceased). By the said judgment each of them was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for one month. The said prosecution has arisen out of charge sheet filed by P.W.9 PI Mr.Desai of Parksite police station as a result of investigation of C.R.No.28 of 2002 registered upon First Information Exhibit-8 lodged by rikshaw driver at the said police station on 21st February, 2002 at 9.45 hours regarding incident occurred on same date at 9.30 am. 2. According to the prosecution P.W.4 Pechiamma and P.W.5 S.Puludyar had photographed their daughter P.W.6 Shivlaxmi about four months prior to ...
Dattatray Gopal Pasalkar (Deceased) Through Legal Representatives and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. The above Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 20/10/2008 passed by the learned District JudgeI. Nashik by which the Appeal filed by the original Defendant No.1 came to be partly allowed, and the decree of the Trial Court decreeing the suit in question by issuing the declaration, mandatory injunction, mesne profit came to be set aside, and was restricted to only restraining the Defendants from interfering with the possession of the original Plaintiffs in respect of the land bearing CTS No.180/1 shown in map Exhibit 61 including rectangular portion of land CTS No.180/1 in which the well is situated. 2. The parties trace their lineage from common ancestor one Gopalrao Gangaram Pasalkar. The original Plaintiffs and the Defendants are heirs of the daughters in law Anusayabai and Saraswatibai of the said Gopalrao Pasalkar. The original Defendant No.2 Malatibai is the daughter in law of the said Gopalrao Pasalkar, who has expired during the pendency of t...
Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansari and Others Vs. the State of Maharash ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. These two appeals arise from the orders passed by the learned Judge of the Special Court, constituted under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'MCOC Act' for the sake of brevity) in MCOC Special Case No.21 of 2006, which is pending before him. They can be conveniently disposed of by this common order, as the issues involved in both these appeals are basically the same. Disposing of the appeals by a common order will help maintaining the continuity and avoid repetition of discussion. 2. The appellants are the accused in the said MCOC Special Case No.21 of 2006. The allegation against the appellants, in brief, is that the appellants, who are allegedly members of Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) a terrorist organization had entered into a conspiracy to plant bombs in Mumbai's local trains, and that pursuant to such conspiracy, bombs were actually planted in local trains. The bombs exploded on 11 July 2006 resultin...
Santosh Haridas Bhandwalkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Mahabale ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
P.D. KODE, J. 1. By the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment, order of conviction and sentence passed on 23rd December, 2005 by Addl. Sessions Judge, Satara, convicting him for murdering his wife Dhanashree (hereinafter referred as deceased). By the said judgment he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for six months. 2. The said prosecution has emerged out of chargesheet submitted by PI Jagdale of Mahabaleshwar police station on completion of investigation of C.R.No.22 of 2004 registered with said police station upon complaint Exhibit-65 filed by the appellant reporting commission of murder of his wife Dhanashree on 27th August, 2004 at about 6.00 hours or thereabout in room No.206 of Hotel Sai Residency at Mahabaleshwar. 3. According to the prosecution the appellant alongwith his father Haridas, mother Parvati and wife Dhanashree was residing at Hingne Khurd, Sinha...
Ashok Maruti Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
Oral Judgment: (S.S. Shinde, J.) This Writ Petition takes an exception to the order dated 5th September, 2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karveer Division, Dist. Kolhapur externing the Petitioner from Kolhapur District for a period of six months and order dated 29th September, 2011 passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kolhapur. 2. The Petitioner herein received show cause notice dated 2nd September, 2011 asking him to show cause, as to why he should not be externed from the Kolhapur, Sangli, Satara, Sindhudurg and Ratnagiri Districts. After receiving the show cause notice, the Petitioner herein filed his reply. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kolhapur by his order dated 5th September, 2011, externed the Petitioner from Kolhapur District for a period of six months. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner filed Appeal before the Appellate Authority. However, the same was dismissed, hence this Writ Petition. ...
Pradeepkumar Chandrakant Shroti Vs. Salim Khan Aashique Khan (Zaduwala ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard learned Counsel Mr A.M. Ghare for the applicant and learned Counsel Mr. V.M. Deshpande for the non-applicant. 2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are independent of the civil suit filed by the applicant. They are also independent of the civil suit, if any, filed by the non-applicant for declaration of notice issued to the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to be bad in law. Therefore, there could not have been any stay on the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The impugned order passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati cannot be sustained. Criminal Applications are allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge on 8th March, 2011 in Criminal Revision Application Nos.69, 70 and 71 of 2010 is set aside. Ad inte...
Prashant S/O. Arjunlal Jaiswal Vs. Pravinchand Masram (Deleted) State ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. L.H. Kothari, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr A.V. Bhide, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Respondent Pravinchand Masram is an accused in Summary Criminal Case No.217 of 2009 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandur Railway against whom a process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been sought by the applicant. He is made respondent in the present proceedings. 3. In my opinion, it was not necessary to make him as a party respondent as he is not in picture, since the process has not been issued by the Magistrate so far. The only necessary party was State of Maharashtra. The applicant is, therefore, directed to amend the application immediately. The name of respondent be deleted and 'State of Maharashtra' be made as party respondent. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Nitin Rode waives service on behalf of respondent/ State of Maharashtra. 5. Heard Mr. Kothari, learned ...
Shaikh Muktar Shaikh Bashir Vs. Gujrat Tea Traders Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-10-2012
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The present respondent has filed a suit under the provisions of the Trade Marks and the Copy Rights Act. 3. During the pendency of the suit i. e. after the examination in chief of the plaintiff is filed, the defendant filed an application for amendment in the written statement. By virtue of amendment, the defendant sought to bring on record the factum of having obtained the certificate under the Copy Rights Act. The said amendment is rejected. Aggrieved thereby present petition by the original defendant. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the said amendment is relevant and material for effective adjudication of the dispute. According to the learned counsel the Court below has taken very hyper technical approach in rejecting the application. 5. Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that, perusal of the application, it wou...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »