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.
Sou. Devibai Narayandas Chhabda Rural Education Society and Another Vs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) 1. The First Petitioner was conducting a college of engineering in the district of Satara. The First Petitioner submitted an application to the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) for permission to conduct two courses leading up to the award of a degree of Masters in Engineering in the subjects of Computer Science and Heat Power Engineering. The AICTE granted approval to the Petitioner on 10 May 2012 with an intake of 18 students for each of the two courses. The Government of Maharashtra in the Higher and Technical Education Department granted its permission on 30 June 2012 for academic year 2012-13 and consequential approval was granted by the Directorate of Technical Education on 22 August 2012. The Government Resolution had inter alia prescribed compliance with the terms and conditions as may be specified by the Directorate of Technical Education. The approval granted by the Directorate specifically required affiliation to the ...
Orbit Super Market Private Limited Vs. Smt. Mukta Arvind Bobde and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
Oral Judgment: Since the writ petitions arise out of the order passed by the first appellate Court on 22/12/2011 partly allowing an application filed by the tenants under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is common, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.1402/2012 is the landlord and had filed Regular Civil Suit No.373/2000 against the petitioners-tenants in the Court of Small Causes Court, Nagpur for eviction and possession. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the trial Court directed the tenants to hand over the vacant possession of the property to the landlord. The tenants challenged the judgment and decree dated 28/04/2010 in Regular Civil Appeal No.401/2010. Along with the appeal, an application was moved by ...
Rajan Chawla and Another Vs. Lisbon John Miranda and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
1. The Petitioner in Guardianship Petition No.25 of 2012 is the maternal grandfather of the minor child, Angelina Miranda who is 3 years 9 months of age (grandfather). The Petitioner in Guardianship Petition (L) No.163 of 2012 is the paternal aunt of the said minor child (aunt). 2. The mother of the minor child has expired. She died an unnatural death. The father of the minor child (who is the Respondent in Guardianship Petition. No.25 of 20012) has been accused of murdering the mother of the child. A charge under Sections 302 and Section 498A of the IPC has been framed against him. The criminal prosecution is pending. His initial bail application was rejected on 27th June, 2012 pending investigation of the case against him. His second bail application has been rejected on merits. A criminal revision application filed against the said order has been rejected on merits yesterday by the Sessions Court. The father of the child is in jail custody since the incident which took place on 25th...
Suresh Baban Kakodkar and Another Vs. State of Goa and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
Oral Judgment: (U.V. Bakre, J.) Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mrs. S. Mordekar, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 3. None present on behalf of the respondent No.2. 2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs: (a) That this Hon'ble court be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction or order commanding the Respondents no.1 to 3 to grant permission for construction of Residential Building and compound wall in plots 6-B and of 7-B of survey No.143/1 (part) of Cacora Village, Quepem Taluka as per the lay out plan approved by Town and Country Planning Department Quepem vide their letter No.TPQ/CT Q-CCR 143/05/237, dated 30/03/2005, (b) Further any other writ, direction, order setting aside the impugned letter of the Respondent no.2 dated 21.6....
Prabha Wd/O Ramesh Arora Vs. Bhagwandas S/O Santomal Pamnani
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Counsel Mrs. S.P. Deshpande for the applicant and learned Counsel Mr. R.B. Gaikwad for the non-applicant. 2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Applicant Prabha Arora has moved the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class for certain reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned Magistrate had granted certain reliefs at interim stage. The said order was challenged by the applicant before the Sessions Court in appeal. The non-applicant also moved independent appeal before the Sessions Court. As such the applicant and non-applicant both were not satisfied with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The applicant was not satisfied with the amount granted to her. She wanted enhanced interim maintenance. The non-applicant wanted that order to be scrapped. 4. While deciding both the appeals the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 8th May, 2012 dismissed the appeal filed by the appl...
Shivdas Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
Oral Judgment: Admitted. Heard finally by consent of parties. Heard Mr. B.N. Mohta, learned counsel for the applicant; Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, learned APP for respondent No.1 and Mr Giramkar, Adv.h/for Mr Lohiya, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 2. The applicant feels aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 12th March 2012 in Revision Application No.612/2011. Said Revision Application was filed by the respondent no.2-Aniruddha against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, in Summary Cri. Complaint Case No.12791/2010. The order of the learned Magistrate is runs as under : "Accused and his learned Adv. present while complainant and his learned Advocate absent. Today the case is fixed for evidence and order on Exh.15. The complainant absent and not filed his evidence affidavit till 2.40 p.m." "Hence the complaint stands dismissed under Section 256 Cr.P.C." 3. The respondent No.2-Aniruddha Kamble was the complainant in said Summar...
Dr. Prakash Mutagi, Asst. Professor of Goa Engineering College Vs. Sta ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mahambrey, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents no.1 to 3 and Mr. Ferreira, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent no.4. None appears on behalf of respondent no.5. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks direction to respondent no.4 to issue ex-post facto concurrence to his tour to France in order to facilitate the clearance of TA/DA final bill and direction to respondents no.1 to 3 to release and pay to him his salary for the month of December, 2006 and to pay all his consequential dues to which he is entitled in view of voluntary retirement. 3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:- In the year 2003, the petitioner was serving as Assistant Professor in Goa Engineering College. All India Council for Technical Education granted approval to the petitioner for attending International Conference at Paris for presentation of paper on a particular subject. An amoun...
Rekha Rajendra Magar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Oral Judgment: (V.K. Tahilramani, J.) The appellant-original accused herein is a lady. She has directed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 31.10.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.143 of 2002. By the said judgment and order, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302, 307 and 309 of Indian Penal Code. For offence under section 302 IPC, the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default RI for one year. For the offence under section 307 of IPC he was sentenced to RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default RI for one year. For the offence under Section 309 of IPC the appellant was sentenced to RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.300 in default to suffer RI for three months. Learned Sessions Judge directed the substantive sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under :- The appellant w...
Vinod Vasant Mahadik Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Appellant has been convicted by the 4th Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai by his judgment and order dated 14.11.2005 for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine amount of Rs.1,000/- and, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. The Appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, has preferred this appeal which was admitted in the year 2005 and is pending since then. The Appellant is in jail from the date of his arrest and has already undergone eight years and nine months of actual imprisonment and if taking into consideration his remissions, he has actually undergone 11 years and 1 month of imprisonment. 4. The prosecution case in brief is that the Accused and the deceased who was his ...
Satish Hiranna Pujari Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
Oral Judgment: V.M. Kanade, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Appellant has been convicted by the Sessions Court vide judgment and order dated 29th April,2004 for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default, to further suffer R.I. for six months. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the Appellant was residing with his wife and two children on the mezzanine floor of a room which was given by PW- 2 Smt. Indrava Madhukar Upaskar on rent. According to the prosecution, on the date of the incident, the PW-2 had seen the Appellant -Accused in the house along with his wife at 7.00 p.m. and, thereafter, she went to sleep at 9.00 p.m. and at 1 0'clock she went to the house to ask for some food since her grand-son was hungry and saw that the door was bolted from outside. She, thereafter, opened the door ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »