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.
Arif Ibrahim Choudhari Vs. Sau.Vahida Ayyaz Nayakwadi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
1. In view of the order passed on 05.01.2012 directing that this Writ Petition be disposed of finally at the stage of admission, Rule. 2. Mr.M.L. Patil, who has filed appearance on behalf of the contesting Respondent No.1, waives service. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been duly served. No relief is claimed against them and equally against the Respondent No.4. As far as the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are concerned, the Registry has reported that service is complete, but none has appeared on their behalf. The contest is really between Petitioner and Respondent No.1. 3. With the consent of parties, the Writ Petition is disposed of by this judgment. 4. By this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli in Election Petition No.7/2008. 5. By the said judgment and order, the Election Petition preferred by the original Petitioner i.e. ...
Narsinha N. Naik and Another Vs. the Divisional Joint Registrar Co-op ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. By this Petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, petitioners who claim to be owners of Flat No.4/99 in complex of one Prashanti Mangaldham Co-operative Society Ltd. have questioned the order passed by Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai in Revision Application No. 36/1998 dismissing their revision and thereby confirming their proclamation for sale issued on 22nd November, 1997. It is not in dispute that said proclamation is issued by the Dy. Registrar in exercise of powers under Section 156 read with Section 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,1960 and Rule 107 of 1961 rules framed thereunder. (Said Act is referred to as 1960 Act hereinafter). This Court has on 21st December, 1998 granted ad-interim relief and stayed that proclamation. Said interim order continues to operate even today. 2. Case of Petitioner is he has been placed in possession of suit flat on 7th February, 1995 by Partner of respondent no.4. T...
Kashinath Shetye Vs. the Public Information Officer and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Leave to amend forthwith. 2. Heard Shri R. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri E. Afonso, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. The above petition challenges the order dated 11/09/2008 passed by respondent no.2 and the order dated 8/04/2009 passed by respondent no.3 whereby the information sought by the petitioner at Serial No.3 in the application dated 7/07/2008 came to be rejected. 4. Shri R. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on the ground that respondent no.3 whilst passing the impugned order has misread the provisions of Section 6 subsection 2 of the Right to Information Act in holding that the petitioner has to give reasons as to why such information was required from the Authorities. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment passed by the second Appellate Authority and pointed out that the respondent no.3 has erroneously found that...
Niyaz Ahmed Vanu Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai (M.C.G.M.) and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
Chief Justice This Full Bench has been constituted for considering the following question referred by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: S.A.Bobde and R.D.Dhanuka, JJ.) by order dated 21 February 2012: Whether the work of quality audit of roads or work of similar nature involves the execution of any work or supply of any materials or goods within the meaning of Section 72 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1881 and can be awarded by the Commissioner only by inviting tenders, as contemplated by that provision? 2. The broad facts leading to the present reference are as under:- The petitioner has challenged the award of the contract by the Municipal Corporation for Gr.Mumbai for quality assurance, quality control and quality audit of road works for a sum of Rs.4.17 crore. The contract is awarded in pursuance of the Resolution dated 4 January 2012 of the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation for appointment of a world class auditor for roads. The Corporation has accor...
Subhan Mohammed Mustafa Sayyed Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2. The challenge in this Petition is to the order of externment dated 7th May 2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police by which the Petitioner has been ordered to be externed from Mumbai and Mumbai Suburban Districts. The order is purportedly passed under Section 56(A) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. We may note here that the learned APP has pointed out that there is an error while mentioning the Section and the order shall be treated as the one passed under Section 56(1)(a) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The Appeal preferred against the said order has been dismissed by the State Government. 3. An order under clause (a) or (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 can be passed only after recording a subjective satisfaction that the witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence in public for the reasons set out in Sub-s...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Laxman Kundlik Jadhav
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved by recording of the acquittal of the present respondent of the offences punishable under section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, by the learned Special Judge, Beed in Special Case No.21/2000 by his judgment and order dated 06-05-2006, the State has preferred the present appeal. 3. The allegations, in nutshell, are as under :. That, complainant i.e. PW1 Baban Shrikhande wanted that the agricultural land standing on the name of his deceased father should be mutated in his name. The accused/respondent was the then Talathi of concerned village Mandwa. The complainant, therefore, approached him on 12-12-1999 for doing the needful. At that time, the respondent/accused made a demand of Rs.600/- as illegal gratification. Thereafter on 19-01-2000, there were negotiations in which the respondent/accused asked for an amount of Rs.400/- for carrying the necessary mutation entries. It was agreed between them t...
M/S. Enpee Earthmovers and Others Vs. M/S.Resources International and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
By this common judgment, I propose to dispose of all the above Criminal Appeals as they pertain to bouncing of cheques issued in relation to the same transaction. 2. Criminal Appeals No. 6 of 2010; 7 of 2010; 9 of 2010 7 and 10 of 2010 have been preferred against the judgments/orders dated 30/9/2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ponda in Criminal Cases No. 35/OA/99/A; 34/OA/99/A; 39/OA/99/A; and 45/OA/99/A, respectively. Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2010 has been filed against the judgment/order dated 29/9/2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panaji in Criminal Case No. 254/OA/99/C. Vide the said judgments, impugned in the present appeals, the Complaints filed by the appellant against the accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (N.I. Act, for short) were all dismissed. 3. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they appear in the cause titles of the impugned judgment...
Dr. Ansari Muhammad Ismail and Another Vs. Ansari Vakil Ahmed and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The respondent no.1 is the complainant in STC No. 2821/2000 before the 5th Judicial Magistrate F.C. Dhule. The applicant in Cri.Rev.Appl.No.83/2010 is the original accused. He is applicant in present criminal revision. He is E.N.T. Surgeon and is running his clinic at Malegaon, Dist.Nasik. 3. The complainant had lodged a complaint was u/s. 138 of the N.I.Act towards dishonour of cheque issued by the accused and failure in making the payment by the accused inspite of notice. The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer SI for 2 months and to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.55,000/-. 4. The revision applicant preferred an appeal before the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Dhule against his conviction. The appeal was dismissed. Hence the accused has approached this Court, challenging the judgment passed by the Appellate Court by filing Cri.Rev.No.83/2010. 5. The complainant is aggrieved as the sentence is not adequat...
Santuk @ Bappasaheb Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent. 2. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. 3. Respondents no.2 to 5 were tried before Judicial Magistrate First Class at Selu for offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 325, 323, 504 read with sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code, in Regular Criminal Case No.60 of 2004. It appears that the charge-sheet in respect of fifth accused, namely, Kalyan Bhagwan Kharat was submitted to the Juvenile Court. 4. At the conclusion of the trial, learned Magistrate convicted respondents no.2 to 5 for offence punishable under sections 323 and 324 read with sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents no.2 to 5 of the offence punishable under section 504 read with sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. However, instead of sentencing the respondents no.2 to 5, directed their release on furnishing a bond of good behaviour of Rs.1,000/- each with one surety for good behaviour for a...
Abdul Salim Vs. Smt.Rabiya Parveen
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Mohammad Ateeque, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. A.V. Khare, learned Advocate for respondent. 2. Admitted. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. The applicant is admittedly the husband of non-applicant Rabiya Parveen. The non-applicant has filed an Application before the Family Court for grant of maintenance u/s. 125 of the Cr.P.C. The applicant is the resident of village Deoli, Tah.Deoli, Dist. Wardha. The non-applicant Mrs. Rabiya Parveen's parents are resident of Amravati. During the course of pendency of the Application for grant of maintenance, the Family Court has granted interim maintenance to the non-applicant. Written statement has been filed by the applicant in response to the application filed by the non-applicant before the Family Court for grant of maintenance. In the said written statement, a preliminary objection is raised regarding jurisdiction of Nagpur Court to hear the application of the non-applicant. 4. Learned Advocate Mr...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »