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.
Arun S/O Balkrishna Bhoyar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
Oral Judgment: The Appellant has challenged the validity and legality of the Judgment and Order dated 21st July, 1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 1995, whereby the appellant (accused) was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of which to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the appellant (accused) was however acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Facts briefly stated are as under:- Deceased Renukabai, who was sister of first informant namely; Manohar Khedikar, had married with appellant (accused) on 30/05/1994, and was residing with her husband. It is the case of prosecution that at the time of marriage, a sum of Rs. 2,000/-, gold ring and a wrist watch were given to the appellant (accused). At th...
Santosh Govind Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
PER COURT: 1. In pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 13th July, 2012, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad - respondent No.2 in this Contempt Petition is personally present in this Court. Two affidavits are filed by the Commissioner in this Contempt Petition. One affidavit has been filed on 28th October, 2011 and the additional affidavit has been filed on 16th July, 2012. Before adverting to the contents of the said affidavits, at this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to some of the provisions of the Constitution and also the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act,1949 and also the judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, which cast a duty upon the respondents and in particular, respondent No.2 to supply potable water to the citizens of Aurangabad city. There are two essential requirements of the human life - firstly, fresh air and secondly, potable water. Without these two things, human being cannot survive. The Supreme Court in various e...
M/S. Prahaar Enterprises a Proprietary Firm Through Itand#8217;s Propr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
1. Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above Petition takes exception to the three orders, the first of which is the order dated 1/2/2011 by which order the trial Court i.e. Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune issued warrant under Order 38 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Defendants which included the Petitioner, above named to furnish security for their appearance; by the second order dated 24/2/2011 the said order dated 1/2/2011 was clarified to the extent that the Defendants were granted liberty to deposit an amount of Rs.One lakh each in the trial Court or they were at liberty to file fixed deposit receipts of Rs.One lakh each in the name of the Court towards compliance of the order below Exhibit 23; by the third order dated 30/3/2012, in view of noncompliance of the said order dated 24/2/2011 warrant of arrest against Defendant Nos.1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 13 under Order 38 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure ca...
Bhanuchandra J. Doshi Vs. M/S. Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd., Member o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
1. The Petitioner, a constituent, has challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short, “the Arbitration Act”), award dated 19 September 2009 passed by a panel of Arbitrators appointed under the Byelaws, Rules and Regulations of National Stock Exchange of India Limited (for short, “Byelaws of NSEIL”), whereby all his claims have been rejected on merits. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, in view of the specific ground raised, apart from merit, that the award so passed was beyond the mandatory period of six months which is contrary to the Byelaws of NSEIL, and as there is no provision for seeking extension after expiry period; such award is illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents, however, resisted this contention. 3. In 2004, the parties entered into the relevant agreement. There is no dispute for the period upto 2007. In January 2008, in second week,...
M/S. Prahaar Enterprises a Proprietary Firm Through Itâs Propriet ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
1. Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above Petition takes exception to the three orders, the first of which is the order dated 1/2/2011 by which order the trial Court i.e. Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune issued warrant under Order 38 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Defendants which included the Petitioner, above named to furnish security for their appearance; by the second order dated 24/2/2011 the said order dated 1/2/2011 was clarified to the extent that the Defendants were granted liberty to deposit an amount of Rs.One lakh each in the trial Court or they were at liberty to file fixed deposit receipts of Rs.One lakh each in the name of the Court towards compliance of the order below Exhibit 23; by the third order dated 30/3/2012, in view of noncompliance of the said order dated 24/2/2011 warrant of arrest against Defendant Nos.1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 13 under Order 38 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure ca...
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 ...
Smt. Vimlabai W/O Janardan Mahure and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.B. Chaudhari, J.) This Intra Court Appeal is directed at the instance of the non-tribal transferees against the judgment and order dated 23.08.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.349/1992. SUBMISSIONS 2. In support of the appeal, Mr. Bhuibhar, the learned counsel for the non-tribal transferees, vehemently argued that the proceedings for restoration of land were initiated at the instance of the tribal transferor under Section 36 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, which was subsequently heard and decided by the Competent Authority i.e. Tahsildar. The said lis was between the same parties. That being so, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the instant proceeding, registered suo motu by Collector under the provisions of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, is clearly hit by the principles of Res Judicata as the issue was decided between the same parties. It is further contended on beha...
Bhanuchandra J. Doshi Vs. M/S. Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd., Member o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
1. The Petitioner, a constituent, has challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short, the Arbitration Act), award dated 19 September 2009 passed by a panel of Arbitrators appointed under the Byelaws, Rules and Regulations of National Stock Exchange of India Limited (for short, Byelaws of NSEIL), whereby all his claims have been rejected on merits. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, in view of the specific ground raised, apart from merit, that the award so passed was beyond the mandatory period of six months which is contrary to the Byelaws of NSEIL, and as there is no provision for seeking extension after expiry period; such award is illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents, however, resisted this contention. 3. In 2004, the parties entered into the relevant agreement. There is no dispute for the period upto 2007. In January 2008, in second week, the share market was quite ...
Arun S/O Balkrishna Bhoyar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
Oral Judgment: The Appellant has challenged the validity and legality of the Judgment and Order dated 21st July, 1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 1995, whereby the appellant (accused) was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of which to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the appellant (accused) was however acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Facts briefly stated are as under:- Deceased Renukabai, who was sister of first informant namely; Manohar Khedikar, had married with appellant (accused) on 30/05/1994, and was residing with her husband. It is the case of prosecution that at the time of marriage, a sum of Rs. 2,000/-, gold ring and a wrist watch were given to the appellant (accused). At th...
Santosh Govind Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
PER COURT: 1. In pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 13th July, 2012, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad - respondent No.2 in this Contempt Petition is personally present in this Court. Two affidavits are filed by the Commissioner in this Contempt Petition. One affidavit has been filed on 28th October, 2011 and the additional affidavit has been filed on 16th July, 2012. Before adverting to the contents of the said affidavits, at this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to some of the provisions of the Constitution and also the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act,1949 and also the judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, which cast a duty upon the respondents and in particular, respondent No.2 to supply potable water to the citizens of Aurangabad city. There are two essential requirements of the human life - firstly, fresh air and secondly, potable water. Without these two things, human being cannot survive. The Supreme Court in various e...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »