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.
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...
Technocraft Toolings Vs. Dhropadabai Wd/O Ambadas Lahane and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
Oral Judgment: The employer has assailed the judgment delivered by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation thereby allowing the application for compensation filed by the claimants. 2. Shri Pawar, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimants are not entitled to receive the compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The deceased was an insured person as defined in Sec. 2(14) of the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 (hereinafter referred as to "E.S.I. Act" for the sake of brevity). The claimants were the dependents of the deceased as laid down in Sec. 2(6A) of the said Act. By virtue of Sec.53 of the E.S.I. Act, the claimants are not entitled for any amount. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of A. Trehan Vs. Associated Electrical Agencies and another reported in 1996 (4) S.C.C. 255. The learned counsel also submits that the death of the deceased was not caused by an accident arising out of or in the course...
Sai Shradha Developers and Others Vs. Ravindra Ganpatrao Bharitkar and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties heard finally. 2. The petitioners herein, who are the original plaintiffs, have filed Special Civil Suit No.35 of 2008 for specific performance of the agreement of sale against the respondents. It is the case of the petitioners that, Ganpatrao Raoji Bharitkar, entered into an agreement of sale for consideration of Rs. 71,00,000/- and an earnest amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was paid on 2nd June, 2005. Ganpatrao had executed agreement of sale on 9th June, 2005. Thereafter, the petitioners paid amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- by way of Demand Draft dated 9th June, 2005, Rs.20,50,000/- vide Cheque dated 11th August, 2005 and further amount of Rs.20,50,000/- vide Cheque dated 20th October, 2005. Total consideration paid was Rs.71,00,000/-. However, unfortunately, before the sale deed can be executed, said Ganpatrao Bharitkar died on 8th November, 2005. The petitioners requested the respondents to execute the sale deed, ...
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, ...
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 deposits...
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...
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...
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 Sarpanch of v...
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...
Sub Post Master Post Office, Ladhewali and Another Vs. Santosh Kaur
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER 1. For the reasons stated in the application and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the delay of 35 days in filing this revision petition is condoned. 2. The two petitioners herein were OPs-1 and 2 respectively before the District Forum and respondent is the original complainant in this case. The respondent Mrs. Santosh Kaur filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the petitioners pleading that her husband Sh. Parminder Singh deposited Rs. 1 lac under Time Deposit Scheme for one year vide account No.30257 on 25.1.2008 with petitioner No.1 and the maturity date was 25.1.2009. The husband of the respondent died on 9.3.2008 and the intimation regarding his death was given to petitioner No.1 verbally when petitioner No.1 advised the respondent to take refund of the amount on maturity with full interest. On maturity date, i.e., 25.1.2009, the respondent visited the sub-post office to take refund of...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »