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.
Sanjay Automobile Engineers Pvt Ltd. Vs. the Superintending Engineer, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
Oral Judgment: 1 Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The order impugned is dated 2-5-2012 passed by the Learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune, by the said order, the application filed by the Respondent herein under Section 9A of the Civil Procedure Code questioning the maintainability of the suit in view of the remedy provided under the Electricity Act, 2003, came to be allowed and the Learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune has come to the conclusion that the said Court would have no jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the suit. 3 The principal relief sought in the suit is to refer the dispute arising out of the bill dated 1-11-2011 for Rs.7,47,970/- to the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell (IGRC), constituted by the Respondent licensee. 4 During the Course of the hearing of the above Writ Petition, the Learned Counsel Mr. Tanna appearing for the Petitioner fairly accepts the position that in fact the remedy for the Peti...
MomIn Education Society, Mohalla Sayadan, Nanded and Another Vs. Educa ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. Petitioner no.1 is a minority institution eligible for protection available to the minority institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution. Petitioner no.2 is the school run by petitioner no. 1 Institution. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are employed as Shikshan Sevaks in petitioner no.2 school run by petitioner no.1 Institution. 3. Petitioner Institution tendered proposal for grant of approval to the appointment of Respondent Nos.2 and 3. However, proposal tendered by petitioner Institution was turned down by the Education Officer. 4. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 approached the Grievance Committee for entertaining complaints of Shikshan Sevaks, Aurangabad, seeking relief of quashment of the order passed by the Education Officer on 14.03.2011, rejecting the proposal tendered by petitioner Institution for grant of approval to the appointment of concerned Respondents. The appeals tende...
Sahebrao S/O Kaduba Shejul and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
A.V.NIRGUDE, J. 1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Jalna, in Sessions Case No. 72 of 2009, dated 30th October, 2010, convicting the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were ordered to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default clause for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were also separately sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were directed to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each with a default clause. 2. The facts leading to the litigation can be stated as under:- There were in all four accused before the learned Sessions Court. They were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Pen...
The State of Maharashtra, Through Anti Corruption Bureau Vs. Purushott ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd September, 1998 passed by the learned Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 at Nagpur in Special Case No.19 of 1989 whereby the accused was acquitted of the offence punishable u/s.161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 2. Heard the submissions at the bar. 3. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: That the complainant Mr.Anjan Surendramohan Bhattacharya - who was Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur lodged a complaint that the accused had demanded bribe of Rs.500/- for admission of his cousin sister Ms Sushmita Guha Roy to D.Ed. Part II Course in D.Ed. College. Accused told Sushmita that she shall pay a sum of Rs.500/- to get admission in D.Ed. Part II Course. The complainant and his cousin sister were reluctant to pay the bribe, but then they decided to do so and informed the Anti Corruption Bureau. Thus, ...
The State of Maharashtra, Through Deputy Superintendent of Police Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
The appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 20/12/2007 passed by Learned Special judge, Chandrapur in Special Case No. 1 of 2002 whereby the respondent/accused was acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 7,13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Facts stated are:- Respondent/accused Narendra Mahajan was posted as Junior Clerk in the Court of 3rd Joint Judicial Magistrate, FC, Chandrapur and as such was a “public servant” within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the “Act”). One Suresh Durugkar was facing Criminal Case No. 3908 of 1997 pending on the file of 3rd Joint Judicial Magistrate, FC, Chandrapur. According to complainant Suresh Durugkar, though he was attending the dates in the said case regularly, accused used to demand money from him every time for further dates. On 26.6.2001, complainant could not attend the date owing to illness and upon enq...
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 paid with...
Sanjay Automobile Engineers Pvt Ltd. Vs. the Superintending Engineer, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
Oral Judgment: 1 Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The order impugned is dated 2-5-2012 passed by the Learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune, by the said order, the application filed by the Respondent herein under Section 9A of the Civil Procedure Code questioning the maintainability of the suit in view of the remedy provided under the Electricity Act, 2003, came to be allowed and the Learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune has come to the conclusion that the said Court would have no jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the suit. 3 The principal relief sought in the suit is to refer the dispute arising out of the bill dated 1-11-2011 for Rs.7,47,970/- to the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell (IGRC), constituted by the Respondent licensee. 4 During the Course of the hearing of the above Writ Petition, the Learned Counsel Mr. Tanna appearing for the Petitioner fairly accepts the position that in fact the remedy for the Peti...
Devnath Gunya Mhase Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State. Appellant is original Accused No.2, who has filed this appeal against the judgment and order of his conviction, passed by the 3rd Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, who was pleased to convict the Appellant/Accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 302 of the I. P. Code, sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and pay the fine. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant through jail. The original accused No.1 has not preferred any appeal. 2. Prosecution case is that son of the Appellant had married the daughter of the deceased-Rama Gopaji Mhase, and on the date of incident, the deceased came to their house and asked his daughter to bring the liquor. She, however, refused to supply liquor to him and thereafter, the Appellant and his wife brought the liquor and they all con...
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 ...
The State of Maharashtra, Through Deputy Superintendent of Police Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
The appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 20/12/2007 passed by Learned Special judge, Chandrapur in Special Case No. 1 of 2002 whereby the respondent/accused was acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 7,13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Facts stated are:- Respondent/accused Narendra Mahajan was posted as Junior Clerk in the Court of 3rd Joint Judicial Magistrate, FC, Chandrapur and as such was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the Act). One Suresh Durugkar was facing Criminal Case No. 3908 of 1997 pending on the file of 3rd Joint Judicial Magistrate, FC, Chandrapur. According to complainant Suresh Durugkar, though he was attending the dates in the said case regularly, accused used to demand money from him every time for further dates. On 26.6.2001, complainant could not attend the date owing to illness and upon enquiries, he came to know that...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »