Mumbai Court July 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. Hushna Bano Mohamed Shakir Shaikh Vs. the State of Maharashtra Th ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
Oral Judgment: (R.D. Dhanuka, J.) Rule; with the consent of counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith. With the consent of counsel and at their request, the petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. This Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeks a declaration that an ex-parte order dated 9 December 2004 passed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and an order dated 15 October 2009 passed by the High Power Committee are unlawful and seeks a declaration that the Petitioner is entitled to one permanent residential tenement under the redevelopment scheme of Respondent No.6 Society and possession of the tenement. 3. Prior to 1993, the Petitioner was residing in Room No.541 admeasuring 10 X 10 sq.ft. at Indira Nagar Chawl, Indira Gandhi Rahiwashi Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed) situate at CTS No. 608/2 (Part), Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051. The property bearing CTS No. 608/2 (Part) was declared and was notified as a Slum under the provision...
Sadashiv S/O Bhimgauda Patil and Another Vs. Pro-interactive Services ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
Oral Judgment: (Smt. Vasanti A.Naik, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The issue involved in this petition is as to who should decide the dispute in regard to the applicability of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981. According to the petitioners, the respondent no.2 Board constituted under the Act of 1981 does not have jurisdiction to decide the question and the State Government has jurisdiction to decide the same in view of the provisions of Sections 5 and 15 of the Act of 1981. 3. The petitioner no.2 Bank had set up 33 A.T.Ms. and had also engaged certain persons for house keeping and care taking of the A.T.Ms. An inspection was conducted by the Inspector of the respondent no.2 Board on 4/10/2010 and it was found by the respondent no.2 Board that certain Security Guards were engaged at the locations where the A.T.Ms. were set up. The p...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Suhas S/O Sitaramji Tambe and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
Oral Judgment: Both these appeals are directed against the judgments and awards dated 10.12.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition Nos.1115/2005 and 1114/2005 whereby the petitions were allowed partly and compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- and Rs.7,68,400/- respectively were awarded to the claimants on account of death of Shashikala and Sitaram Tambe, who died in motor vehicular accident occurred on 14.08.2005 involving truck bearing Registration No.CG-04/G-7817 insured with the appellant. 2. The appellant put forth defence that there was breach of term of insurance policy in the sense that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving license. 3. The learned tribunal framed issues. The evidence adduced before the tribunal was oral as well as documentary. The learned tribunal accepted the defence that there was breach of term of insurance policy for the reason that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding the valid driving lice...
Surendrakumar Madhusudan Mor Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through the ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in so far as it provides for limitation of three months for filing of an application thereunder on the ground that it deprives the land holders from getting rightful amount of compensation. 2} The petitioner has also prayed that a communication dated 9th May 2011 from the Collector, Yavatmal, be set aside. 3} The petitioner submits that he owns the land bearing Gat No.128 admeasuring 5.27 hectares situated at mouza Pimpri (Hatgaon), Taluka and District Yavatmal. The respondent No.1 by the Notification dated 18th January 2003 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act), proposed to acquire 33.95 hectares land of mouza Pimpri for minor irrigation project, including 2.27 hectares land of...
The State of Maharashtra, Through Anti-corruption Bureau Vs. Khudaram ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12.1.2001 passed by the Special Judge, Nagpur in Special Case No. 4 of 1991 whereby respondent/accused has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (i) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the State of Maharashtra has preferred the present appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The facts, in brief, are as under: According to first informant Gunwant, he wanted to cut branches of trees standing on the boundary of his field. He went to the house of respondent/accused on 6.1.1990 who was, at the relevant time, working as Forest Guard. He gave oral permission to the complainant. Complainant engaged his cousin brother Vikram as a labour and after cutting, loaded the branches in a bullock cart. According to complainant, respondent-accused accosted the bullock cart on way and asked the complainant to take it to check post. At check-post, respondent/accus...
Sou. Pramila Shankar Ghante Vs. Shri Shankar Vishwanath Ghante
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.R. Joshi, J.) 1. The appellant/wife challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Pune allowing the M.J. Petition No.565/1992 of the respondent/husband. The appellant/wife is the earlier respondent in the said M.J. Petition and present respondent/husband was the original petitioner who filed the petition for nullity of the marriage and alternatively for a decree of divorce on various grounds. For the sake of clarity, the parties are being referred to as the “wife and husband” while deciding the present Family Court Appeal preferred by the wife. 2. Heard rival arguments canvassed on the earlier dates. Perused the record and proceedings including the depositions of the witnesses examined by the rival parties. This is an appeal filed by the wife challenging: “ - the judgment and decree of nullity under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of impotency under Section 12(1)(a), - and also the judgment and decree of divorce on...
Divakar Savleram Torne, Ahmednagar and Others Vs. Suresh Rafayal Torne ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
S. S. SHINDE, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 3. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 17.1.2011 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in Case No. 49-B-2009-AN. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the land bearing Gat No. 389 (old survey No. 208/05) admeasuring 2 H 2 R and agricultural land bearing Gat No. 476 (old survey No. 231/6B) admeasuring 5 R situated at village Padhegaon, Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar is the property in dispute. By virtue of coming into force the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter of the sake of brevity referred to as “the said Act”), one Mr. Savala Godaji Torne was declared as deemed purchaser of the suit property on tillers day. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioners’ forefather has also paid rent, which was fixed by the tenancy Court of Rs.50/- to the landlord continuously. More so, there was an enq...
Soma Balkrushna Dadore Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt.26.7.2004 passed in Sessions Trial No.348 of 1997 by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur whereby the appellant/accused was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused was also found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. However, the accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocities Act”). 2. T...
Rajesh Mahadeo Pakhare Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
Oral Judgment : (M.L. Tahaliyani, J.) 1. The appellant Rajesh Mahadeo Pakhare was tried for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with original accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 namely Mahadeo Punjaji Pakhare, Ramdas Shalikram Kanoje, Smt. Manjulabai Punjaji Pakhare and Smt. Pramilabai Mahadeo Pakhare. The original accused Nos. 2 to 5 have been acquitted of both the charges and the appellant has been convicted of both the charges. The learned trial Court has imposed a punishment of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the former offence and jail sentence of ten years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the latter offence. 2. The appellant has impugned the said judgment and order of the learned 3rd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati dated 13rd February, 2008. 3. The appellant ...
Shashi Leekha S/O. Shubhash Chander Leekha S/O. Shubhash Chander Leekh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Family Court, Mumbai, at Bandra, in Interim Application No. 343 of 2008 in Petition No. A-2052 of 2008 dated 25th March, 2009. By that order, the Family Court dismissed the application preferred by the Appellant for rejecting the above noted petition in exercise of powers under Order VII, Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. Briefly stated, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 5th December, 1993 as per the Hindu Vedic rites at Jammu. The parties last resided together as husband and wife in Jammu from December, 1993 till June, 2008. Two sons were born out of the said wedlock at Jammu. First son, Karam Veer, was born on 18th December, 1994, and younger son, Hirday Veer, on 9th February, 1998. The respondent filed petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and for permanent custody of the minor children, permanent alimony of `2 cro...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »