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.
Ravikant Lakshminarayan Zanwar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) Rule. In view of the order passed on 01.03.2012 and by consent of the parties, we proceed to hear and dispose of the petition at the stage of admission. 2. This is a Writ Petition by a person claiming to be owner of Survey No.120, Sub-division No.1A, 2 and 3, admeasuring 2 H. 47 R of Mouza Rahatgaon, District Amravati. This land is within the municipal limits of the Amravati Municipal Corporation. This land was reserved for play ground and for primary school. 3. The respondent no.2 is the Planning Authority and the petitioner has stated that the reservation in terms of the above public purpose was sanctioned w.e.f. 25.02.1993, however, as no steps were taken for acquisition of the petitioner's land either by way of an agreement or by resorting to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 a notice came to be served calling upon the Planning Authority to take requisite steps in terms of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning A...
Bhagwan S/O Haribhau Rathod Vs. Ashok S/O Santram Pawar
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
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 of the petitioner th...
M/S. Puran Automobiles, Shahagunj Aurangabad, Through Its Partner, Aur ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 3. This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 29.11.2011 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune. 4. The brief facts, as disclosed in the petition, are as under:- 5. The petitioner is a partnership firm. The petition is filed through one of the partners. The petitioner had applied for loan to the respondent Bank. The respondent Bank granted the loan. It is the case of the petitioner that on 5.7.2010, the respondent Bank obtained certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the Societies Act) for recovery of the amount. On 9.2.2011, on the basis of the sale certificate, the respondent Bank started recovery proceedings by publishing auction notices. Earlier to that also, on two occasions, notices were published. It it the case of the petitioner that as the said notices have been publis...
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...
Mrs. Ratnaprabha W/O. Dr.Ramakant Nilkanthrao Ghuge (Pangrekar) Vs. St ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
P.C. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State. Perused the application, reply filed by the State and rejoinders filed by the applicant as also documents filed below Criminal Application No.709 of 2012. 2. Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No.2/12 registered with Police Station, Malegaon District Washim for the offences punishable under Section 302, 201, 435, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5 and 25 of the Arms Act. 3. Applicant had moved before the Sessions Judge, Washim vide Misc. Criminal Application 284 of 2012 in which she had prayed for interim anticipatory bail also. That prayer was rejected and, therefore, applicant filed Criminal Application (ABA) No.204 of 2012 before this Court. This Court (brother M.N.Gilani, J) on observing that main application was still pending, did not entertain the application and expected the learned Sessions Judge to decide the application of the applicant fi...
Sardarsinha S/O Gopalsinh Gour and Others Vs. Swarupsinh S/O Gopalsinh ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties heard finally. 2. This Civil Revision Application is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 28th June, 2011, passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mukhed, below Exhibit-49 in Regular Civil Suit No.69 of 2009. 3. The respondents herein, are the original plaintiffs, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 69 of 2009 for partition and separate possession to the extent of area mentioned in the plaint with further prayer to hold that, 9 sale deeds mentioned in the plaint, are not binding upon the original plaintiffs. In the said suit, the revision applicants herein, filed detailed written statement and raised points that, as per the Bombay Court Fees Act at the time of praying partition of house property, the price of the suit property should be considered on the date of filing the suit and not on the day of purchase of the suit house. The said property should be valued by the office of Sub-Registrar and the Court fe...
Dr. U.A. Vinay Kumar Vs. His Excellency, the Chancellor, Goa Universit ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
A.P. LAVANDE, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is as under: The Government of Goa issued notification dated 01/12/1984 in which The Goa University Act, 1984 ('The Act' for short) was published. Pursuant to the said Act, the Goa University- respondent no.2 was established in June 1985. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Philosophy at respondent no.2 University on 25/09/1987. In the year 1988, respondent no.2 published several Statutes made by it from time to time. On 05/02/1992, the University published 1991 Regulations. Regulation 3B read with note 2 provides for further promotion from the post of Lecturer to Lecturer (Senior Scale) and relaxation for three years for Ph.D. According to the petitioner, he became eligible for the promotion to post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) with effect from 06/07/1992. On 27/06/1994, the petitioner was promoted as Lecturer (Senior Scale) with retrospective effect. On 19/06/1996, the petitione...
Devgiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Another Vs. Smt. Zubidabegum W/O ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, the Revision Application is taken up for final hearing. Heard both sides. 2. The respondents-plaintiffs instituted a suit against the petitioner-bank and the Special Recovery Officer, so also against the original defendants 3 and 4, claiming a declaration that the attachment of land belonging to the plaintiff to the extent of 4 H out of land gut no.59 of village Jambhali, Tq.Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad, owned and possessed by the plaintiff, is null and void and subsequent sale in favour of defendant no.3 is also null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff also claims a decree of recovery of possession of 4H of land of gut no.59. It is the contention of the plaintiff that she is the owner of the property. She is neither a borrower nor a guarantor in respect of the transaction allegedly entered into by M/s. Iceberg Refrigeration Company with petitioner-bank. The property belonging to the plaintiff has been attached ...
Shri Machindra S/O Santaram Kutwad Vs. Sharad S/O Khanderao Survase an ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, the Petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner herein is the claimant in Land Acquisition Reference no.456 of 1999 pending before the Court of Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Latur. It is claimed by the petitioner that some agricultural property situated at village Harangul (Bk.) have been acquired by the State for Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation and an award has been passed in the year 1998. The petitioner/claimant being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, tendered an application to the Collector, seeking reference of the matter to the civil Court for determination of market value of the acquired land. The Collector referred the matter to the civil Court and on receipt of the reference, same is numbered as L.A.R. no.456 of 1999. Respondents 1 to 3 are third party applicants, wh...
Rakesh Balasaheb Landge, Taluka and District Beed Vs. Maharashtra Stat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
JUDGMENT (Per U.D. Salvi, J.). 1. Heard. Perused petition along with annexures thereto, affidavit-in-reply and the record produced by the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by mutual consent of parties. 3. Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India have been invoked to seek quashing of the notification dated 25.6.2012 issued by the respondent for imposing penalty of cancelling the achievement of the petitioner in 12th Standard (Science) examination conducted by the respondent in February/ March 2012 and for further prohibiting the petitioner from sitting for the said examination till October 2012, and to seek the directions for declaration of the result of the petitioner in the said examination. 4. The impugned notification was issued on the ground that the students named therein including the petitioner had resorted to wrongful act or misconduct in the course of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination held in February/ March 2012. The g...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »