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.
Dulharsingh Daulatsingh Jarhade Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.H. Joshi, J.) 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned APP. 2] This is a letter petition. The petitioner is a convict. He claims that he has been designated as a night watchman in the jail. 3] Petitioner was released on furlough for 30 days, and he has returned on 7.2.2012. Thereafter, on 6.3.2012, the petitioner has applied for parole on the ground that health of his daughter Sangita is unwell and special attention to her is needed. 4] Petitioner has relied upon a medical certificate, which is dated 10.4.2012 and is issued by Dr.Mrs.Deoyani Deshpande, M.B.B.S., D.A., of Aurangabad.. The text of certificate reads as follows:- "This is to certify that Smt.Sangita w/o Dulersingh Jarhade is suffering from severe Icterus and Anaemia. Her husband should be with his wife for the care of her at least one month starting from today.Sd/Dr.DeoyaniDeshpande" 5] The petitioner's request for parole has been rejected by orde...
Girjabai Sambhaji Jadhav and Others Vs. Kanta Damji Shah and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
This is a common order on the above two appeals wherein the respondents are same and the questions of facts and law involved are also same. First Appeal No.1002 of 2010 arises out of Short Cause Suit No.1228 of 1998, the subject matter of which is room No.11 in building No.443-J, situate at Sheetal Estate, Maulana Shaukat Ali Road, Grant Road, Mumbai. First Appeal No.1003 of 2010 arises out of Short Cause Suit No.1227 of 1998, the subject matter of which is room No.7 in the same building, hereinafter referred to as "the suit building". The respondents are original plaintiffs and the appellants are the original defendants. The orders impugned in the two appeals are the judgment and order dated 5th May 2010 decreeing the suits and directing eviction of the appellants from their respective premises. 2. The brief case pleaded by the respondents in their plaints in the two suits is as follows: The respondents purchased the suit building in the year 1992 vide registered Deed of Conveyance. O...
Shri Vishram Jaya Shetkar Alias Manohar Jaya Shetkar and Others Vs. Sh ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
This Second Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 30/4/2003 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao (First Appellate Court, for short) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 98/1999. 2. The said Regular Civil Appeal was filed by the defendant of Regular Civil Suit No. 83/1992/B against the Judgment and Decree dated 31/8/1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Quepem (Trial Court, for short), in the said suit. 3. The parties shall be referred to in the manner as they appear in the cause title of the said Regular Civil Suit. 4. The plaintiffs had filed the said suit, against the defendant, for damages of Rs.18,800/- and they had also prayed for interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the said sum of Rs.18,800/-, calculated at quarterly rests as from 6/10/1992 till the actual payment. 5. Case of the plaintiffs was as follows: They are co-owners in possession and enjoyment of a landed property, bearing survey no.19/17, situated at Amo...
Smt. Kausalyabai Kisan Chavan Vs. Sakharam Namdeo Gaikwad, Deceased, T ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
1 This petition is filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Accountant cum Tenancy Awal Karkun, Kopargaon on 27th December, 1980, in Tenancy Case No.89 of 1974, judgment and order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner in Tenancy Appeal No.161 of 1981, dated 16th February, 1985, and the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune in Revision Application No. MRT/AH/IV5/85 (Tenancy B94/85), dated 16th September, 1985. 2 The Petitioner is tenant and Respondents are owners / landlords of the suit property. The subject matter of the present writ petition i.e. suit land has been referred to by the learned Tenancy Awal Karkun. Suffice to note that, four small pieces of agricultural lands, situated at village Shirdi, Taluka Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar are the subject matters of the present writ petition. The suit property was allegedly leased out by deceased Jijaba in favour of the Petitioner by registered lease deed dated 18th December,...
Shaba Zulo Shet (Since Deceased, Through His Legal Heirs) and Others V ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
The above appeals arise out of common judgment and order dated 24/6/2002 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao (Reference Court, for short.) in Land Acquisition Cases No. 218/89/I, 224/89/I, 64/87, 221/89/I and 223/89/I. The M. C. A.s, tagged to the above appeals, are filed under Order XLI, Rule 27(aa) of Civil Procedure Code, for leave to tender in evidence a certificate of death regarding Satyabhama Bolnekar. By order dated 24/11/2011, this Court has directed that the said M. C. A.s shall to be considered along with the appeals. 2. Facts giving rise to the appeals, in short, are as follows: The Government had acquired land for 5 MLD Water Supply Scheme to Canacona and surrounding villages which was subject matter of L.A.C no. 64/87 and for construction of approach road to Talpona-Galgibaga Bridge on Canacona side, which was subject matter of other Land acquisition cases No. 218/89/I, 224/89/I, 221/89/I and 223/89/I. The properties involved in the acquisition, insofa...
Kishor Pandurang Garad Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
1. Heard. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, taken up for hearing. 3. This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the first information report on the basis of which Crime No. 86/2011 is registered at City Police Station, Khamgaon against 35 persons. The applicant being one of them, is seeking the relief only to his extent. His name appears as accused no.16. 4. The applicant herein has been arraigned in the list of accused in the capacity of being the Director of Shri Gajanan Urban Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Khamgaon. It is the case of the applicant that he had never applied for the membership of the said society and, therefore, there is no possibility of his being Director of the said Society. 5. The counsel for the applicant submits that upon getting the knowledge that he has been implicated as an accused in Crime No. 86/2011 registered at City Police Station, Khamgaon, the applicant had filed an application under the ...
Omprakash S/O Jiwandas Miglani Vs. Coal India Limited, a Government of ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. Rule. Shri S.C. Mehadia, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents, waive service. As the pleadings are complete, by consent of the parties we proceed to dispose of the petition finally as directed in the order dated 27.02.2012. 2. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questions refusal of the Western Coalfields Limited/Coal India Limited to pay encashment leave to the petitioner and the monetary component in terms thereof. What the petitioner has claimed in this Writ Petition is, the benefit of encashment of 219 days of Earned leave and 293 days of Half pay leave. 3. The facts which are not in dispute are as under: On 03.03.1976, the petitioner joined the Nationalised Coal Sector as Assistant Welfare Officer (Trainee) in Western Coalfields Limited at Korba and continued there till 12.06.1984. Thereafter, he was posted from 14.06.1984 to 30.06.1989 at Nagpur as Personnel Officer, Western Coalfields Ltd. He was p...
Vishnu S/O Narayan Belgumwar Vs. the State Government of Maharashtra, ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
Common Judgment: Both these appeals are arising out of the judgment and award dated 25.4.2005 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad [Reference Court] in L.A.C. No.72/1992. The First Appeal No.477/1995 is filed by the land owner taking an exception to the inadequate amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court; whereas, the First Appeal No.153/1997 is filed by the State stating that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is exorbitant. Hence both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2] Land Gat No.62 area 1.61 H.R. situated at village Lakh, Tahsil Digras, District Yavatmal is owned by the land owner. Out of this, area of 93 R was acquired for the purpose of laying irrigation canal, through the land vide notification dated 4.9.1986. The Land Acquisition Officer declared the award on 29.7.1989, fixing the compensation @ Rs. 16,000/- per hectare. Dissatisfied with this award the land owner sought reference mainly on the grounds that the...
Kashiram S/O. Tiran Bopche Vs. Ramesh S/O. Motiramji Patil
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
Oral Judgment : 1. This appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th March, 2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.9, Nagpur in S.C.C. No.514 of 2004. The complainant, being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal of Ramesh Motiramji Patil of the offence punishable under 11(3) r/w. Section 13 (1) of the Maharashtra Employees Private School (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the M.E.P.S. Act ), has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 2. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the judgment delivered by the learned trial Magistrate is bad in law in the facts and circumstances of the case. The respondent/accused ought not to have been acquitted. 3. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: That the complainant had lodged a complaint against four accused persons alleging that, when the complainant had ...
Sitaram S/O Shriramji Bhandari Vs. Bhagwan S/O Rangnath Ashtekar
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
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 30th August, 2011, passed by the Principal District Judge, Beed, in Rent Appeal No. 2 of 2007, thereby confirming the judgment and order dated 23rd May, 2007, passed by the Rent Controller/Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Beed, in File No. 98/RCA/DESK/03. 3. The revision applicant herein, is the tenant and the respondent herein, is the landlord. The respondent filed petition before the Rent Controller stating therein that, he is the owner of the suit premises as described in paragraph-1 of the petition filed before the Rent Controller. The revision applicant i.e. original respondent, is in possession of the suit premises, as tenant under the lease agreement entered into between the parties in the month of October, 1995. It was the case of the landlord that, though the lease agreement was entered between the parties in the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »