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.
Shaikh Shakil S/O Shaikh Shafi Vs. Mahesh S/O Omprakash Biyani (Ca) an ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
Oral Judgment The present appellant has filed suit for specific performance of contract. The present respondents filed an application for rejection of plaint U/O 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (herein after referred to as "C.P.C." for the sake of brevity) on the ground that the plaintiff has not complied with the provisions of Order 7 Rule 3 of the C. P. C. So also suit is bad on account of non joinder of necessary parties as is contemplated under Order 1 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. The Trial Court allowed the application filed by the defendants and rejected the plaint. Aggrieved thereby the present appeal. 2. Shri Rathi, the learned counsel for respondents submits that the agreement of sale was in favour of two persons and only one person has filed the suit. The other person in whose favour the alleged agreement was executed was not made plaintiff, nor the defendant. In view of that, the suit was not maintainable. The learned counsel further contends that the property is not demarc...
Ashok Suryabhan Kale and Another Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 2/1993 which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. Both the appellants are convicted for offences punishable under sections 411 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal, can be stated as follows:- The incident of dacoity took place in the farm house of one Ganga Teli and the farm house is situated in village Dhamori. The incident took place on night between 2.11.1991 and 3.11.1991. Shobhabai was sleeping in this house along with her daughter and mother, at the relevant time. Assault was made by the dacoits on all the members of family and the dacoits took away the ornaments from the persons of lady members. The crime at C.R. No. 100/1991 came to be registered in respect of this incident for offences under sections 395 and 457 of I.P.C. in Sillegaon Police Station. 3. P.S.I. Gaikwad made initial investi...
Bhaskar Zumbar Kale and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 164/1999, which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad. The Trial Court has convicted the appellants for offences punishable under sections 457, 394 of Indian Penal Code. Both the sides are heard. 2. The facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows:- The complainant was living with her husband in a shed situated in village Savargaon, Tahsil Kallam, District Osmanabad. The incident took place on the night between 23rd and 24th of August 1999. Some persons knocked the doors of the house of the complainant Jaishree at about 3.00 a.m. As they were giving threats and they were using force, the door of the shed was opened. Four persons, who had covered their faces by using pieces of clothes or blanket/rugs entered the shed and they robbed gold ornaments and cash amount of the family of the complainant. Force was used by these persons to create terror. Ornaments like Bor...
Ramdarsh Shardaprasad Mishra and Another Vs. Divisional Joint Registra ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.B. Chaudhari, J.) 1. A common judgment and order dated 25.6.2012 in Writ Petition Nos.2490/2012 and 2491/2012, passed by the learned Single Judge, is under challenge in these two letters patent appeals. 2. In support of the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant in both the appeals made the following submissions. (A) The members of the Managing Committee of respondent no.4 - Co-operative Society are 13 from the elected category and 2 from the nominated category and thus, the strength of the Committee is 15. The motion of no confidence was passed against the appellants with 9 votes. According to Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the appellant in both appeals, it is an admitted fact that the notice of motion of no confidence was given to only 13 elected members of the Committee and the 2 nominated members, namely one from a District Central Cooperative Bank and the other, namely the representative of District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies were not at all ...
Smt. Tulsabai Wd/O Motiramji Tidke, Dead Through Lrs. and Others Vs. S ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
1. This is an appeal under section 72 (4) of the Bombay Public Trust Act (for short “Act of 1950”) taking an exception to the judgment and order dated 12/8/1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nagpur in M.C.A. No.519/1990 thereby confirming the order dated 1/9/1990 passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner in Appeal No.72/1993. 2. The facts are thus: One Adkuji Palandurkar owned the house bearing No.866, Ward No.29, Circle No.17/23 at Nagpur. He died leaving behind him widow Manabai, son Shivram and two daughters namely Kasabai and Sarswatibai. Shivram died issue less in the year 1941. Manabai died in the year 1952. Kasabai died in the year 1959 and left behind her son Motiram who died in March 1972 and daughter Sakhubai. Tulsabai is the widow of Motiram. Saraswatibai died in the year 1972 leaving behind her son Rajaram who also died in the year 1972. For better appreciation, the concerned genealogical tree is reproduced below: TABLE 3. Controversy i...
Ramesh Shivji Upadhyay Vs. Central Government of India Through Nationa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
P.C. 1. Heard learned amicus curiae and the Special Counsel for the respondents. 2. Two reliefs have been claimed in this petition received through jail. The first relief is to direct the respondents to hand over the mobile set of the petitioner which was recovered from him. The second relief is to direct the respondents to supply copy of the Narco-Analysis test report pertaining to the petitioner. 3. As regards the first relief, we fail to understand as to how the Court can accede to that relief when the petitioner is in jail. It is not the case of the petitioner that the mobile set should be handed over to some relative of the petitioner to be carried outside the jail. In any case, since the mobile set has been recovered from the petitioner by the police and is subject matter of pending trial, it cannot be handed over to the petitioner till the conclusion of the trial or until an order for return of property is passed by the appropriate Court. We are, therefore, not inclined to acced...
Ramesh K. Patel Vs. Prashant J. Patel of Mumbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
The Petitioner, has invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act) thereby challenged award dated 16 April 2009 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited (for short, “NSEIL”) based upon its rules, byelaws and regulations. 2. The Petitioner appointed the Respondent as its share and stock broker to effect transactions in Securities at NSEIL. The Petitioner appointed M/s. JHP Securities Private Limited to effect transactions in Securities at Bombay Stock Exchange Limited (for short, “BSEL”) As alleged, M/s. JHP Securities Private Limited are associated with each other and also share common office. 3. The Petitioner got the I.D. Code. There arose dispute in relation to the transactions. The Respondent, therefore, invoked Arbitration and filed an application on 28 August 2008 for recovery of Rs.5,67,834.59 with 18% interest and costs. The last transaction as stated to be on the N...
Anand and Another Vs. Govind and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 8.11.2011, passed by the learned C.J.S.D. Nilanga below Exh.51 in Special Civil Suit No. 44 of 2010. 3. A limited grievance, raised in this petition, is that the application filed by the petitioners herein for recalling the witnesses i.e. P.W.1 and P.W.2 for cross examination after filing of written statement by original defendants i.e. petitioners herein has been rejected on the ground that once the witnesses are cross examined, there is no power vested in the Court to call the witnesses for examination or re-examination by the plaintiff or defendants, as the case may be. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Supreme Court in case of K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy [2011 (11) SCC 275] had an occasion to deal with the provisions of O.18, R.17 and has taken a view that the inherent power of the court is not affected by the express power con...
Dattatraya Hari Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. Heard. We have appointed Shri Arjun S. Pawar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant. He has taken us to the judgment and order of the Trial Court and the notes of evidence and other documentary evidence which is brought on record. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that the Appellant-Accused was suspecting his wife's chastity and used to harass her from time to time. She, therefore, came to her matrimonial house and her father had permitted the accused-Appellant and his wife to reside in one room of the house. According to the prosecution case, on 25.2.2005, when the wife of the accused went to sleep in the evening, the accused tried to strangulate her and she, therefore, rescued herself from the clutches of her husband and went to the house of neibour - Mahadu Ghodwinde. She called the wife of Mahadu Ghodwinde and one more lady and asked them to persuade the accused to behave properly and not to suspect her chastity. According ...
Bhagwan S/O Haribhau Rathod Vs. Ashok S/O Santram Pawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 3. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 8.8.2009 passed below Exh.23/B and the order of ‘No. W.S.’ dated 17.2.2007 passed below Exh.18, in Misc. Civil Application No. 19 of 2006, by the learned District Judge-1, Ambejogai. 4. The background facts of the case, as disclosed in the writ petition, are as under:- It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent herein filed Misc. Civil Application No. 19 of 2006, before the learned District Judge, Ambejogai under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956. The petitioner herein was respondent in the said application. Though the petitioner caused his appearance, did not file his say, as a result, the averments in the Misc. Civil Application as also the affidavit of the evidence at Exh.5, filed by the respondent herein, and the contents in original application, remained uncontroverted. It is further case...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »