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.
Rakesh Balasaheb Landge, Taluka and District Beed Vs. Maharashtra Stat ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
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...
Nikhil S/O Suresh Desai and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.H. Joshi, J.) Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners, learned APP for the respondent nos.1 to 7 and learned Advocate Shri Jivan Patil for the intervenor - Smt. Supriya w/o Nikhil Desai. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable. Service on respondent nos.8 and 9 is dispensed with. 3. This is a writ petition for habeas corpus. 4. According to the petitioners:- (a) Supriya w/o Nikhil Desai has been kept by the respondent nos.8 and 9 almost in their detention. (b) Supriya is shown on the pay-roll of the firm owned by the respondent no.8 (c) Corpus of Supriya should be produced before this Court. 5. After reading the papers, this Court had thought that it would be necessary to first examine the mobile call record of Supriya for getting primary satisfaction as to whether Supriya is freely contacting many persons and as to whether there exists something having semblance of detention. 6. Learned APP has produced the call records, copy of which is given to the learned Advocate for...
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...
Pushpadevi Babulal Punamiya (Jain) Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of I ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
ANUPAM DASGUPTA 1. This revision petition impugns the order dated 02.07.2010 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, the State Commission) in First Appeal no. 7 of 2010. By this order, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the opposite party (OP)/respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. (LIC) (and consequently dismissed the cross appeal of the petitioner/complainant) against the order dated 31.10.2009 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane (in short, the District Forum). 2. The petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum as the widow and nominee of the deceased life assured (DLA) Babulal N Punamiya, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the LIC in repudiating her claim for the three life insurance policies that the DLA had obtained from the LIC during his life time. Policy no.981227308 for Rs. 1 lakh obtained by the DLA was effective from 27.09.2000 for which the premium had been pai...
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (a Government of India Enterprise) O/O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
1. The Petitioner has challenged an Award dated 3 July 2006 passed by the sole Arbitrator appointed as per the provisions of the Contract between the parties as there arose dispute with regard to the due payment for the work done by the Respondent. 2. The operative part of the Award is as under : “1) The Respondents (M/s. MTNL) shall pay to the Claimants Rs. 11,26,478.57 (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Eight and Fifty Seven paise only) to the Claimants (M/s.Ram Builders). 2) Over and above the amount mentioned in para (1) of the Award the Respondents shall pay to the Claimants interest at the rate of 12% from the respective dates of payment to the date of Award. 3) The Respondents shall pay to the Claimants a further sum of Rs. 2,65,082/(Rupees Two lakhs sixty five thousand eighty eight two only) with 12% interest from 30.9.2000 to the Claimants upto the date of Award. 4) It the amounts as mentioned and calculated as given in para (1), (2), (3) if pa...
Ashok Pundlik Wajge Vs. Manohar Son of Sitaram Ingle and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order 25.5.1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, FC, Achalpur in Regular Criminal Case No. 101 of 1987 acquitting the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby dismissing complaint of the appellant, appellant has filed present appeal. 2. Originally, the complaint was filed against one P. Patra, Managing Director; M. Chakravarti, Director of Busy Land Development Corporation, Midnapur (WB) and present respondents who are said to be respectively the Manager and Divisional Manager of the said Corporation. However, during the pendency of complaint, appellant/complainant deleted the names of P. Patra and M. Chakravarti (original accused nos. 1 and 2) from the array of parties. Thus, the complaint was prosecuted only against present respondents. 3. One Busy Land Development Corporation opened its office Paratwada. They floated two schemes - one of accepting recurring d...
Wamanrao S/O Bakaramji Pawar, (Since Deceased), Through His Legal Heir ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 21/11/1997, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in a Special Case No. 3 of 1989, whereby the original accused Wamanrao Bakaramji Pawar, Head Constable, B. No. 755 was convicted of offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month on each count and fine in the sum of Rs. 500/- for offence punishable under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and in default of fine amount, he was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Heard submissions at the bar. 3. Facts, in nutshell, as under: - On 14/05/1987 at about 10.00 a.m., quarrel had taken place between Wasudeo Hande (PW3) and one Arun Shembe. Mr. Arun Shembe and his brother namely Sudhakar Shembe had beaten up Mr. Wasudeo (PW3) by cycle chain and in...
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Through General Manager (Anp and C), Ha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
1. The Petitioner has challenged Award dated 6 January 2009 passed by the sole Arbitrator appointed as per the provisions of the Contract between the parties as there arose dispute with regard to the due payment for the work done by the Respondent. 2. The Petitioner is a Central Government Corporation and Public Sector Undertaking. The Respondent is a contractor carrying on the construction work of reinstatement of trenches. The Petitioner appointed the Respondent for carrying out the work of reinstatement of cable trenches and allied works in view of the tender for the year 19971999. An agreement was accordingly entered into on 12.11.1997. The various work orders were issued during this period for the same, for the different area offices of the Petitioner. The Respondent carried out the work under the supervision and instructions from time to time and accordingly submitted the bills and received part payment also. 3. The Petitioner withheld certain bills/last final bills, because of &...
Punjaji and Others Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Divisio ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
R.M. BORDE, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. The petitioners are challenging order dated 09.12.2011, passed by Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, in Appeal No. 104/2011, whereby the appellate authority allowed the appeal presented by Respondent No.4 herein and quashed and set aside the decision of village panchayat expressing no confidence against Respondent No.4, in a meeting dated 26.08.2011. 3. Respondent No.4 is the Sarpanch of village Panchayat Futana. A motion of no confidence was moved against the Sarpanch by six members out of total strength of seven members, by presenting a requisition in that behalf on 20.08.2011 to the Tahsildar, Kalamnuri. The Tahsildar directed issuance of notice to the Sarpanch and convened a meeting for consideration of no confidence motion on 26.08.2011 at the office of village panchayat. The meeting was attended by six members, whereas, Respondent No.4 - Sarpan...
State of Maharashtra, Through Central Bureau of Investigation, Special ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt.19.9.1997 passed in Special Case No.16 of 1992 by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Nagpur whereby the respondent/accused Padmakar Dandekar was acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 120-B r/w. Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s. 5(i)(d), 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 2. Heard the submissions at the Bar. 3. Original accused no.2 Manohar G. Meshram had expired during pendency of the Special Case and the case had abated as against him. 4. The facts, briefly stated are thus: That the complainant Javherchand Shankarlal Sonar was serving as an Examiner in the (Inspectorate of Armaments) Directorate of Arms from 2.11.1982. In the year 1982, he was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.3, Kalyan, District Thane. He was convicted by the trial Magistrate. In an appeal in the Ses...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »