Mumbai Court June 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.
Gurunath Ganesh Redkar and Others Vs. Balkrishna Jaiwant Redkar and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-13-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellants and Shri P. Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. The Second Appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial question of law by Order dated 30.10.2007: 1) Whether in view of the fact that there was no specific time limit fixed for the performance of the agreement and the appellant had been put in possession of the property to be sold their counter claim for specific performance which was filed within two years of the repudiation of the Agreement by the Respondent could be said to be barred by limitation and unreasonably delayed? 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that a plot surveyed under no. 56/1 of Curchorem Village along with a building situated therein was agreed to be sold by Balkrishna Jaiwant Redkar vide Agreement of Sale dated 06.04.1969 to the late Gurudas to the deceased appellant no. 1 for a total sum of Rs.60,000/- out of which an amount of Rs.10,000/- ...
Vaibhav S/O Khushalrao Tijare and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-13-2012
Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, J. 1. Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 27.1.2012, rendered in Sessions Case No.124/2010, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur. The appellants in both these appeals were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 5 read with Section 25 (1)(a) of Arms Act. 2. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.57/2012 is convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and is sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. He is also convicted for offence punishable under Section 201 of I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. He is also convicted for offence punishable under Section 25 (1)(a) of Arms Act and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default rigoro...
Vijay S/O. Bansilal Gaud Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-13-2012
1. The writ petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India and under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. Other two proceedings are filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the relief is claimed of quashing criminal proceedings bearing S.T.C.C. Nos. 2189/1997, 1589/98, 2151/98 and 2087/98. These cases are pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule and the cases are filed against the petitioner for offence punishable under section 66 (1) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. Both the sides are heard. 2. On the basis of specific information received against the petitioner raids were effected by Dhule Police Station on many occasions on bicycle shop of the petitioner. On each occasion, the petitioner was found present in the shop and from his possession some pouches of tablets containing Bhang were recovered. In the first raid dated 10.9.1997, such 57 pouches were recovered, in the raid dated 4.9.1998, 70 such pouches were recovered, in the raid date...
Rajkumar Harwani Vs. Sagar S/O. Mohandas Tolwani and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-13-2012
1. The petition is filed for quashing the order of issue process made in S.C.C. No. 5520/2010 by 7th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad. In a private complaint filed by respondent No. 1 for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the order under challenge is made. Both the sides are heard. 2. The order is challenged only on one ground viz. non compliance of the provision of section 202 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The J.M.F.C. has issued process after examining the complainant under section 200 of Cr.P.C. and order of issue process is made on the basis of this examination and the relevant documents filed by the complainant. 3. By way of amendment which came into effect from 23.6.2006 underlined portion came to be added in section 202 (1) of Cr.P.C. :- "202. Postponement of issue of process.- (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under s...
Ramesh Hilal Ahire Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-13-2012
1. Aggrievedby the conviction for the offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and consequential sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/, the present appeal is preferred by the original accused. 2. The prosecution case in short is as under: The prosecutrix about 35 years old lady is a completely hearing and speech impaired lady. She as well as her husband used to reside away from her elder sisterinlaw in the village as detailed in the F.I.R. The prosecutrix as well as her husband used to beg in the village to earn their livelihood. In the circumstances, on 8th March, 2010 at about 4.30 p.m., the complainant lady was given information by the villagers that the prosecutrix was weeping in her home. The complainant lady, therefore, went there. She found that the prosecutrix had swollen face and certain blood stains on her blouse. The complainant lady, therefore, enquired with the proecutrix by gestures to find out as to w...
Shri Jitendra Raghuraj Deshprabhu and Others Vs. Shri Vasudeo Rajendra ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-13-2012
A.P. Lavande, J. Heard Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for respondents no.1 to 5, Mr. S. Mahambrey, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents no.6 and 9 and Mrs. Agni, learned Amicus Curiae. None present for respondents no.7 and 8 though served. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs : (a) This Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 08/02/2012 (ANNEXURE “D” to the Petition); (b) This Court also be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, declaration or direction that Article 30 of the Devasthan Regulations is ultra vires to the Constitution of India. 4. Briefly, the facts relevant for disposal of the writ petition are as under : The petitioners are the Mahajans of respondent no.8 Deva...
State of Goa, Represented by Executive Engineer Vs. M/S. Heera Constru ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-13-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Ms. S. Mordekar, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent though served. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment dated 28/01/2009 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa at Margao in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.99/1998, whereby the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the appellant came to be dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that in view of the dispute between the parties an Arbitrator came to be appointed on 7/05/1996 to adjudicate upon such dispute raised by the respondents. The submissions were duly raised before the sole Arbitrator and an award came to be passed on 8/11/1997 adjudicating upon the claim put forward by the respondents. An award was filed before the learned Civil Judge on 24/12/1997 and the notice came to be issued to the appellant. The appellant raised objection to the award under the provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940. The pro...
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kausabai and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-2012
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Judicial Member: Oral: 1. The original respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have preferred this appeal aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the District Forum, Nanded, whereby insurance amount of Rs. 1,00,000 with cost of Rs. 2,000 and compensation of Rs. 5,000 towards mental agony has been granted to the original complainant. 2. We have heard Advocate Mrs. Deepa Chapalgaonkar holding for Adv. Mr. S. G. Chapalgaonkar for appellant. None for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3. We also perused the papers placed before this Commission. The original complainant Kausabai who is the respondent No. l in this appeal filed the complaint before District Forum, Nanded claiming compensation from the appellants herein and the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that her husband Pandurang Surnar died on receiving electric shock when he was going to the field. The cause of his early death is that, the electric wire on the way was hanging due to breaking from electric line and her husband ca...
Starlite Components Ltd. and Another Vs. Commissioner of Central Excis ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan 1. There are two appeals, one filed by the Revenue and the other by the appellant, M/s.Starlite Components Ltd., Nashik against the order-in-appeal No. No.AKP/18/NSK/2012 dated 27/02/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Nashik. 2. The facts relevant for consideration of this case are as follows: 2.1 The appellant, M/s.Starlite Components Ltd., Nashik imported Energy Efficient Lighting Fixtures (Portable lamps working on dry battery) Torch of various models under Bill of Entry No.5529072 dated 21/12/2011. The examination of the import consignment carried out by the Customs Officers revealed that the product is fully functional and electrically charged and is in retail packing. As the consignment is intended for retail sale and the goods have been notified under the provisions of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 they directed the appellant to declare the retail sale price on the goods and accordingly, on the insis...
M/S. Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. Represented by Its Managing Director, ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-12-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri V. Palekar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mrs. A. Agni, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal has been admitted by this Court on 22/10/2008 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the Directors drawing remuneration in excess of the statutory maximum could be counted for the purpose of arriving at the statutory minimum number of employees for deciding coverage?” 3. Shri V. Palekar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants also filed the above Miscellaneous Civil Application No.801/2008 to produce additional documents under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code. 4. This Court by order dated 5/03/2010 directed that the said application be decided at the time of the disposal of the appeal. Hence, the learned Counsel addressed submissions in support of their rival contentions on the above appeal as well as the said application. 5. Shri V. Palekar, the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »