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.
Gautamchand S/O Inderchand Kochar Vs. Nishikant S/O Narayan Shastri an ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Oral Judgment: This Appeal is directed against an order of discharge in favour of the respondent-accused namely; Nishikant Narayan Shastri of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The impugned judgment and order was passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and Special Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Nagpur on 22/05/2007 in Misc. Criminal Case No.2942 of 2005. 2. Heard submissions at the bar. 3. My attention has been invited to the points for determination in the impugned Judgment, which were framed as under: - (i) Whether the holder of disputed cheque or the person who has to take the amount of the disputed cheque (payee) has filed the complaint under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused. (ii) Whether the complainant has filed his complaint within time. Both the questions were answered in negative. 4. My attention is also invited to the fact that complaint was instituted by Ajit Manikchan...
Yashwant S/O. Sambhaji Dadmal Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 14/08/2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, Chandrapur in Special Case No.6 of 1999 whereby the original accused no.1 was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.300/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. For the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the said Act, the original accused no.1 was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.300/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Accused no.2 was acquitted of all the offences with which he was charged. 2. Heard the submissions at the bar. 3. The facts, in the nutshell, are as under: On 01/09/1998, Complainant Subhash Yelpulla an auto driv...
Manik M. Ragit Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
P.C. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a declaration that all proceedings under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 stand abated in view of Section 3 and 4 of the Urban land Ceiling Repeal Act 1999. Accordingly respondents be directed to make appropriate change in the revenue record and restore the name of the petitioner therein in respect of land Kh.Nos.211 and 211/1 mouza Wadi Patwari Halka 47 Tahsil Nagpur Gramin, District Nagpur. 2. Petitioner states that this land admeasures about 3.84 H.R. It was shown in the land records in the name of the petitioner. When the returns were filed in the year 1981 it appears that an enquiry was made and a portion admeasuring 22781 Sq. Mtrs. from these khasra numbers came to be notified and declared as surplus vacant land. That order was passed on 28th December 1981. Accordingly, the petitioner presented a scheme under Section 20(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. It is stated th...
State Information Commissioner and Others Vs. Tushar Dhananjay Mandlek ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Oral Judgment: (Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.) The letters patent appeal is admitted and heard finally at the stage of admission with consent of the parties. 2. The respondent had filed an application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the sake of brevity), seeking certain information from the Public Information Officer and the Deputy Commissioner of Transport, Mumbai. Since the application was filed on 24.7.2009, normally the information ought to have been supplied to the respondent within a period of 30 days, as prescribed by the provisions of the Act. The last date for supplying the information free of costs was 23.8.2009. It appears that the appellant had issued a communication to the respondent, dated 20.8.2009 and posted on 24.8.2009, asking the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.3,310/- for the information sought by the respondent, the documents of which ran into nearly 3419 pages. The appellants did not furnish the informat...
Vinod S/O. Abhimanyu Dhore Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Oral Judgment: (M.L. Tahaliyani, J.) Appellant Vinod Dhore feels aggrieved by judgment and order dated 30.07.2012 passed by Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No.122 of 2007 the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.five thousand in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant was tried for the said offence for allegedly having committed murder of deceased Atish Armulla. 2. The appellant was friend of one Shahin and his associates. It is the case of prosecution that there was a prosecution against Mr. Shahin and others. It appears that the deceased was one of the witnesses in the said case. The appellant had sought help of the deceased to save Shahin and others. It is alleged that since the deceased did not assist the said Shahin and others in the said prosecution, the appellant had assaulted the dec...
State of Maharashtra Through Dy.Supdt. of Police Vs. Balchandra Ramdas ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Oral Judgment: This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 24th April, 2000 passed by learned Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana in Special Case No. 4 of 1988, whereby the respondent-accused was acquitted of offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1948. 2. Heard submissions at the bar. 3. In brief, the prosecution case is as under: On 01/12/1980, complainant Madhukar Janardan Misal had lodged complaint (Exh.42) with the Anti Corruption Bureau, Buldhana alleging that while he was driving tractor No. MTR 5870 with trolley No. MHV 9370 towards Buldhana, he was accosted between Maroda and Sundarkhed by R.T.O. Officer, Buldhana. There was one driver and two officers sitting in the rear side of R.T.O. Vehicle. One amongst them was Shri. Jain (respondent-accused). The accused demanded documents of tractor, driving license of the complainant and also questioned as...
Mrs. Reena Ramesh Shirodkar Vs. Ulhas Dattaram Mayekar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Rohit Bras De Sa, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. P. S. Rao, learned Advocate for the respondent. 2. By this Writ Petition the petitioner challenges order dated 7.4.2012 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa in Regular Civil Suit No. 60/2012/A by which application dated 5.3.2012 filed by the petitioner to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit has been dismissed. The petitioner is a plaintiff in the above suit filed for mandatory and permanent injunction against the respondent/defendant. After the defendant filed written statement, the plaintiff filed above application seeking to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the ground that there were formal defects in the plaint and also on the ground that there was sufficient cause. 3. The application was opposed by the defendant. 4. By an impugned order learned Judge has dismissed the application primarily on the ground that certain facts which have not been pl...
Shri V.S. Bhanse Constable R.P.F. Dog Squad Vs. Union of India Through ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties. FACTS: 2. By the present petition the petitioner has put to challenge the order No.282/2009 dated 12.12.2009, issued by the appellate authority, imposing higher punishment of retiring the petitioner compulsorily from service so also the order No.101/2011 dated 27.4.2011 of punishment by which the punishment for stoppage of three increments for three stages for three years with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. 3. The petitioner was working as a member of Dog Squad BPQ (Nagpur Division) at Ballarshah and was the handler of the dog by name 'Rover'. The petitioner has been in service for the last 20 years in the Police Force and Railway Protection Force (RPF). On 27.7.2009, his duty was from 8:00 hours to 16:00 hours, when the two dogs 'Rusty' and 'Rover' were taken by him in the ground for training when both of them were playing and fighting ...
Nav Prakash S. Pednekar Vs. Maharashtra State Financial Corporation an ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
U. V. Bakre, J. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 09/09/2003 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa (trial Court) in Civil Miscellaneous Application(C.M.A.) No. 4 of 1992. 2. In the said application(C.M.A. No. 4/1992) filed by the respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as “MSFC”) under Sections 31 and 32 of State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, against the above named respondents no. 2 and 3, the trial Court had ordered attachment of houses no. 144, 144/A and 144/B of Ward no.1 at Nagorcem, Canacona, which, in terms of the house-tax records maintained by the Canacona Municipal Council, were registered in the name of respondent no. 2. A warrant of attachment of immovable property under Order XXI, Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) was issued by the trial Court, in respect of the said houses, copies of which were duly affixed by the Bailiff of the Court on conspicuous part of the said houses; on the Court building at Canacona; and Taluka...
Dr. Devika Damji Shah Vs. Rashmi Mukesh Shah and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by defendant No.1 for dismissal of the suit and release of the assets of the deceased whose estate is being administered. The deceased was one Dr. Mukesh Ramji Shah. The plaintiff is the mother of the deceased (mother). Defendant No.1 is the wife of the deceased (wife). Defendant No.2 is the son of the deceased (son). All these parties are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased under Section 8 of the Indian Succession Act. The mother has sued for claiming her 1/3rd share in the estate of the deceased and for that purpose prayed for declaration that the will of the deceased dated 19th February, 2002 and two joint declarations dated 16th August, 2001 are illegal and void and accordingly for administration of the estate of the deceased as on intestacy, making accounts, and giving her share. 2. The will of the deceased was sought to be probated by his wife as the guardian of his son who was the sole legatee under the will. The will was exe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »