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.
Smt. Kausalyabai Kisand Dhande Vs. Shri.Fakira Daula Tadvi, Since Dece ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
This writ petition is filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Camp Jalgaon, at Bombay dated 2nd August, 1991 in No. Rev.Trb.88 of 1986. 2. The background facts as disclosed in the petition for filing this writ petition are as under: The petitioner herein is the resident of village Rozode, Taluka Raver District Jalgaon. The suit land is comprised in Survey No. 12/1 admeasuring 0 Hector 98 Ares situated at village Savkhede Khd., Taluka Raver District Jalgaon. The suit land was previously held and owned by deceased Fakira Daula Tadvi, deceased Kasam Daula Tadvi and deceased Chandkha Daula Tadvi and they have sold the suit land to Shri. Lotu Iccharam Fagade of Rozode on 15th September, 1967 for consideration of Rs.3500/- and corresponding Mutation Entry No. 875 was mutated on 20th October, 1967. Thereafter, the petitioner herein purchased the suit land from Shri. Lotu Iccharam Fagade in the year 1972 for consideration of Rs.40,000/- and correspo...
Ganesh Waman Shevgaonkar, (Deceased) Per His L.Rs. and Others Vs. Mart ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Both these writ petitions take exception to the judgment and order passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 341 of 1989 by the District Judge, Ahmednagar dated 2nd December, 1991 thereby confirming the judgment and order dated 20th February, 1989 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Suit No. 792 of 1983. 2. The present respondent i.e. original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 792 of 1983 against Ganesh Waman Shevgaonkar for possession of three rooms on ground floor of House bearing CTS No. 5933, Municipal House No. 235. During the pendency of the suit, said Ganesh Waman Shevgaonkar expired and the petitioners herein who are the legal heirs of said Ganesh have filed written statement in the said suit, denying all the contentions of the original plaintiff. 3. The plaintiff claimed possession/eviction of the said 8 khans of the premises leased on the ground of (1) personal bonafide requirement, (2) default and (3) alternative accommodation acquired by th...
Madhav Shriramji Khadse Vs. Rajiv Ramrao Ghatol and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
1. Heard Mr. P.S. Wathore, learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr. A.M. Ghare, learned Counsel for non-applicant No.1 and Mr. C.N. Adgokar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant No.2. 2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The applicant was the original accused in Summary Criminal Complaint No.1288/2008 decided by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola. The applicant was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by order dated 15-02-2010. The non-applicant No.1/original complainant filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, Akola under proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The said appeal was admitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola on 06-4-2010 by following order: “Heard Admit. Call R and P,. Issue bailable warrant of Rs.15,000/- against respondent No.1 returnable on (r/o) on dated 10-05-2010 notice to respondent No.2.” 4. On receipt of noti...
Gurudas Gaonkar, S/O Mahadev Vs. State (Through P. P.)
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7th/8th April, 2008, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao (Trial Judge), in Sessions Case No. 19/2006. The appellant, accused in the said case, was tried for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). He has been convicted for committing both the offences. In respect of the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C., the accused has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of three months, whereas, in respect of the offence under Section 201 of I.P.C., he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. The substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The appellant shall hereinafter be referred to as the accused. 2. Case of the prosecution, i...
Mahavir Aadgonda Patil Vs. Rajendra Sirendra Shetty and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Shri P.N. Kashalkar Honble Presiding Judicial Member: (1) This is an appeal filed against the under section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, since Appellant is aggrieved against the sentence awarded by the District Forum in Execution Application No.263/2010. By the said order the Forum has sentenced the Appellant to suffer simple imprisonment of one year. As such, this appeal has been filed under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (2) All facts are admitted. Non-compliance of the order was also admitted. Only thing that has been argued before us by Advocate Mr.Mangave for the Appellant is that after filing the complaint under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Forum had not recorded verification of the Complainant and directly issued process under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Appellant. Therefore, whole the procedure followed subsequently by the District Forum is vitiated in law and on this ground alone ...
Mrs. Chandrakala Prakash Kadam Vs. Asst. Engineer, Maharashtra State E ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Shri P.N. Kashalkar Honble Presiding Judicial Member: This was appeal filed in 2007 and after filing this appeal no steps were taken by the Appellant even to take circulation for first orders. As per our policy, we had placed this unattended matter before the Bench for hearing firstly on 2nd December, 2011. We directed office to issue notice to both the parties by ordinary post and the matter was adjourned to 05.03.2012. On 05.03.2012 none was present and therefore, we directed office to issue notice to both the parties and the matter was adjourned to 07.05.2012. On 07.05.2012 we awaited for postal acknowledgement and the matter was adjourned to today. Even today none is present for both the parties. Since none is present for both the parties we are inclined to dismiss the appeal for default. Hence, the order: ORDER (i) Appeal stands dismissed for default. (ii) No order as to costs. (iii) Inform the parties accordingly....
Babasaheb Hindurao Patil Partner Dudhasakhar Developers and Others Vs. ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
ORAL ORDER Per Honble Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member Both these appeals are heard together since they arise out of one and the same order and involves identical question of facts and law. These appeals arise out of order dated 30/05/2011 passed in consumer complaint no.116/2011, Dr.Ravi Marathe, Marathe Hospital and another v/s. Mr.Vinay Dattatray Dawajekar and others; passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur. It is a case of alleged deficiency in service on the part of appellants/builder to hand over possession of the agreed flat to the flat purchasers viz. the complainants. Forum settled the dispute directing the complainants to pay the balance consideration after builder completed the construction of the flat and the builder was also directed to give possession of the flat on completing its construction. Further compensation of `10,000/- towards the mental torture and inconvenience and costs of `1000/- were granted. Complainants acquiesced to the or...
Bharat Harilal Jhaveri Vs. New Era Fabrics Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
P.C. 1. The Plaintiff has filed this suit against the Defendants for recovery of Rs.82,98,646/- together with further interest on the principal amount of Rs.47,02,771/- @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till payment. In paragraph 18 of the plaint, the Plaintiff has averred that the suit has been filed on basis of the written contract, evidenced by purchase orders, invoices and the statements of account contending that it amounted to implied promise to pay and the part payments made from time to time. 2. It is the case of the Plaintiff that pursuant to the orders placed by the Defendants from time to time to the Plaintiff for purchase of Viscoprint, the Plaintiff had supplied material to the Defendants from time to time upto 28th March 2006. It is the case of the Plaintiff that various payments were made by the Defendants to the Plaintiff which are duly reflected in the statements of accounts which are annexed at Exhibit “C” to “E” to the plaint. Acc...
The Executive Engineer and Another Vs. S.P. Rokade and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
The Petitioners-Employers, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Pune, through the State of Maharashtra have challenged the common order dated 18 January 1999 passed by the Industrial Court, Pune, thereby reversed the order passed by the Labour Court, Pune. The operative part of the common order is as under: “ORDER 1. The Revision Applications 96 to 108 of 1998 are allowed. 2. The order passed by the Third Labour Court, Pune, in Complaints (ULP) Nos. 114 to 124, 129 and 130 of 1995 dt. 4-9-1998 is hereby quashed and set aside. 3. It is hereby declared that the respondent-department has committed unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act in terminating the services of the complainants. Hence, the respondent-department is directed to cease and desist from indulging in such unfair labour practices. 4. The respondent-dept. is further directed to reinstate the complainants in their original posts with continuity of service, within one month from the date...
Haridas S/O Pralhadrao Ghumare Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
Oral Order: 1] This application is filed for anticipatory bail in C.R.No. 30/2012 registered in Shivajinagar Police Station, Beed for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 [hereinafter referred to as the Act]. Both sides are heard. Papers of investigation were made available. Copies of some documents are produced by the applicant also. 2] The applicant is a Contractor and he is engaged by the State Government for transporting the food grains from Government godown to concerned Tahsil. The food grains are required to be distributed through Public Distribution System to ration card holders. The applicant was expected to lift 340 bags of rice meant for persons belonging to Below Poverty Line [BPL] from Government godown of Kedgaon, Dist.Ahmednagar. The applicant engaged one truck and the bags were collected from Government godown. On the basis of information received by MIDC, Ahmednagar police, the truck was intercepted at Dehre Toll Naka when it w...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »