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.
Nilofarnaz W/O. Nazkatkhan Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through the Secre ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Bhangale, J) : 1. Prayer in this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to quash and set aside order dated 13.12.2011 passed by the Respondent 2 Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee at Akola in case no. 3184/2011 invalidating caste claim of Petitioner as belonging to Chhaparband -VJ(A). Said order is under Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, hereinafter referred to as Act 23 of 2001 for short. On 11.01.2012, while vacating ad-interim relief granted on 28.12.2011, this Court has subjected elections to the post of Sarpanch to the result of petition. When the matter was taken up for further consideration, Adv. Haq for Respondent 3 raised a preliminary objection and urged that petition must be placed before Single Judge of this Court in the l...
Kum. Khayti Girish Purnima Kulkarni Vs. College of Architecture and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Counsel for respective Respondents waive notice. By consent, heard finally forthwith. 2. The Petitioner, by this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order passed by the Principal of the Marathwada Mitramandal College of Architecture, Pune bearing No.MM/CA/336/2011-2012 dated 10th February, 2012. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of writ to direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as duly qualified and having been properly admitted to F.Y.B.Arch. course for the academic year 2011-2012; and allow the petitioner to prosecute her studies. The petitioner, by way of amendment, has sought further relief of declaring Regulation 4 of the Minimum Standard of Architecture Education Regulation, 1983 as ultra vires Section 45 of the Architects Act, 1972 (for short, `the Act of 1972') and to quash and set aside the same. 3. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner i...
Smt. Chaitrali Prakash Borhade Alias Kum. Chitrali Nandu Kedari and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. We propose to dispose of these Writ Petitions together by this common judgment, as it involve common issues. 2. Rule has already been granted in Writ Petition No. 6638/2011. 3. Writ Petition No. 10194/2010 was ordered to be heard along with companion Writ Petition, to be taken up for final disposal. Accordingly, Rule is granted even in this Writ Petition. Counsel appearing for the respective Respondents waive service. By consent, taken up for final disposal forthwith. 4. In the first Writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner therein, who belongs to “Parit” caste, asserts that she had contested election to the office of Municipal Councillor in the General Municipal Election 2010 of Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation from Ward No. 30, Karnik Road, Kalyan, which was reserved for Backward Class, as official nominee of “Indian National Congress”. She was defeated by a narrow margin of 410 votes by R...
Sarika Suryakant Khatu Vs. the Secretary/Education Officer, (Primary) ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Counsel for respective Respondents waive notice. By consent, heard finally forthwith. 2. This Petition was heard along with Writ Petition Nos. 10194/2010 and 6638/2011, as overlapping issues have been raised. 3. In the present Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however, the Petitioner is seeking direction for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the Respondents to waive the requisition of submitting Caste Validity Certificate, issued in favour of the Petitioner, by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and instead, issue appointment order in favour of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is also seeking declaration that the Government Resolution dated 19th July, 2011 is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. Briefly stated, the Petitioner asserts that she belongs to Hindu Vaishya Wani Caste. That caste was notified as part of Other Backward Clas...
Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. Rule in Writ Petition No. 1137/2004 and Writ Petition No. 1138/2004. Rule made returnable forthwith. Counsel for the concerned Respondents waive service. 2. By consent of Counsel for the respective parties, matter is taken up for final disposal, forthwith. 3. We propose to dispose of all the three Writ Petitions by this common judgment. For, the issues raised in these Writ Petitions are over lapping. 4. The first set of Writ Petitions (WP/1137/2004 and WP/1138/2004) filed by the Petitioner Bank is for revocation of permission granted by Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority (for short “PCNTDA”) in favour of Prakash Shivajirao Shendge (Respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 1137/2004, hereinafter referred to as “Prakash Shendge”) and Vilas Dhondiram Shendge (Respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 1138/2004, hereinafter referred to as “Vilas Shendge”) to develop Plot No. 12 and Plot No. 13 respectively, and to pass an ord...
Mukhtar Ismail Shaikh @ Makdiya and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade J.) 1. The Original Accused No.2 has filed Criminal Appeal No. 247 of 2006 and Original Accused Nos.3 and 4 have filed Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2006 against the Judgment and Order passed by the Trial Court, convicting the Accused Nos.2 to 4 for the offence punishable under section 307 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code. By the said judgment and order, the Accused Nos.2 to 4 were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under section 307 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years each for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code and also imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- each and, in default, directed that they should suffer further imprisonment for six months. 2. Brief facts are as under: The prosecution case is that on 10th June, 2004 at about 17.30 to ...
Narayan S/O Tatayarao Deshmukh and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT: This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad dated 26th February, 1988 in Case No. 1979-ICHR-254, judgment and order passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Jalna dated 13th March, 1990 in Case No. 88/L.R./ICH/CR5 and further to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad dated 30th January, 1991 in Case No. 85/A/90/Jalna. 2. The petitioners herein are the resident of village Ambhoda (Deshmukh) Taluka Partur District Jalna. It appears that, during the pendency of this writ petition, original petitioner Narayanrao died and therefore, his legal heirs are brought on record and they are prosecuting this petition. The original landlord Narayan filed returns under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (For Short, "Ceiling Act"). In his returns, he has shown his total holdings to the extent of 178 Acres and 2 ...
Jayesh Dayaram Bhoir and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Counsel for respective respondents waive notice. By consent, heard finally forthwith. 2. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with prayer to issue a Writ of Mandamus and/or writ, direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and to hold that the impugned Resolution No. 25 dated 14th June, 2007 passed by the respondent No.2 and order dated 27th June, 2007 is illegal and bad in law. It is further prayed that, Resolution No. 25 dated 14th June, 2007 may be quashed and set aside. A further relief is sought to quash and set aside the order dated 27th June, 2007 issued by the respondent No.2. 3. It is further prayed that, the respondent No. 2 be directed to revive and complete the selection process initiated by the respondent No. 2 in pursuance of advertisement dated 18th February, 2006 and 21st August, 2006. There is specific prayer to hold that, the impugned Resolution No. 25 dated 14th...
M/S. Shakti Commercial Premises Society Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Counsel for the respective respondents waive notice. 2. By consent, matter is taken up for final disposal, forthwith. 3. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed principally against the decision of Respondent No. 2 City and Industrial Development Corporation (for short 'CIDCO') declining to grant No-objection certificate for grant of additional 100% FSI over basic FSI of 1.5 already available on the land bearing Plot No. 1A in Sector 19D, Vashi (for short 'said land'), despite the Government order dated 31st August, 2009 enabling the Respondent No. 3 Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (for short 'Corporation') to permit additional FSI for development of proposed IT and ITES use. 4. Briefly stated, the petitioner-Society had applied for allotment of 32 Shops, 3 Offices and 1 Canteen, constructed on the said land, in the month of November, 2003. CIDCO accepted the said Applications of the Socie...
Smt. Harsha Mahendra Gutka @ Shah and Another Vs. Mahendra Premchand S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
1. The Petitioner / Plaintiff in Testamentary Suit No.127 of 2010 is the sister of the deceased Mahendra Premchand Shah whose last Will and testament dated 25th February, 2007 is sought to be propounded. The caveatrix is the wife of the deceased. The Will has been challenged on the ground that it is forged and / or executed under duress. The Petitioner must prove the valid execution of the Will as per law. The Petitioner must show that the deceased was in sound state of mind at the time of execution of the Will. The caveatrix must prove the forgery or duress. 2. Based upon the respective pleadings of the parties Justice D.G. Karnik, framed issues on 9th January,2012 which are as follows: ISSUES 1 Does the Plaintiff prove that the writing dated 25th February,2007 is the last Will and Testament of late Mahendra Premchande Shah (testator) and the same was duly executed and attested as required by law? Yes 2 Does the Plaintiff prove that the testator was in sound state of mind when the Wil...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »