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.
Hemant Kawadu Chauriwal and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
Oral Judgment: (M.L. Tahaliyani, J.) 1. These two appeals are being decided by the common judgment as they arise out of the conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharkawada (Kelapur) in Sessions Trial No.64/2004. The appellant Hemant Kawadu Chauriwal in Criminal Appeal No.53/2007 and the appellant Sau. Vachhalla Kawadu Chauriwal in Criminal Appeal No.70/2007 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge along with accused No.2 Kawadu Ambar Chauriwal, accused No.3 Vasanta Kawadu Chauriwal and accused No.5 Sau Vanita Chandrakrushna Chauragade for the offences punishable under Sections 304B read with Section 34 and Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Hemant in Appeal No.53/2007 was also in alternative tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. On conclusion of trial the appellants and other accused were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the ...
Prabhakar Raghu Shetty Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
P.C. This Petition, received through Jail, takes exception to the decision of the District Judge, dated 18th November, 2011, imposing punishment of deduction of 30 days of remission period, as a result of overstay of Furlough period, by the Petitioner, for about 16 days. 2) It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was released on Furlough on 8th August, 2010 and the period was to expire on 31st August, 2010. However, the Petitioner applied for extension of time, to the Appropriate Authority. The Appropriate Authority rejected the said application on the finding that the Petitioner has already availed of one extension in the year 2010. That finding was on the basis of the factual position that the Petitioner had availed of Furlough in February, 2009, which was to expire on 12th March, 2009, but, at his request, it was extended from 13th March, 2009 till 26th March, 2009. He was again released on Furlough on 8th December, 2009, which period was to expire on 21st December, 2009. But, once...
Shri Banwarilal L. Saini and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
Oral Order: Heard. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. The petitioners are the accused nos.1 and 3 in Criminal Case No.11/SS/2012 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 71st Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai. The case is in respect of an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and arises on the basis of a complaint filed by the respondent no.2 herein. One Amit Saini is the accused no.2 in the said case. He is the son of the first petitioner (accused no.1) and the husband of the second petitioner (accused no.3). After examining the respondent no.2 on oath in accordance with the provisions of section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate issued process against all the three accused mentioned as such, in the complaint. The petitioners challenged the issue of process against them, on the ground that the cheques in question had been issued only by the accused no.2 and not by the petitioners or any of th...
NitIn Shankar Deshpande Vs. the President of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
DR. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. Oral: 1. In these proceedings which have been filed in the public interest, the Petitioner has sought an appropriate writ, restraining Respondents 5 to 9 from pleading or acting before any Court or before any other authority in India, except the Supreme Court of India or any other High Courts, other than the High Court of Judicature at Bombay “in view of the provisions of the Constitution of India”. Respondents 5 to 9 are enrolled as Advocates on the rolls of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. Each of them was appointed as an Additional Judge of this Court. Each of them tendered his resignation during the course of the term of appointment as Additional Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The most recent of the resignations was that of the Ninth Respondent on 8 May 2012, while the farthest in point of time, is that of the Fifth Respondent, who demitted office fourteen years ago. All of them have reverted to practise at the Bar. The ...
Shri Jaidev Arjun Vengurlencar, Alias, Mr. Zoidev Arjuna Vengurlencar ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Decree dated 13.02.2007, passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Civil Suit No. 278/2004. The Appellant filed the suit on the basis that he is the owner in possession of two properties situated at Village Velim, being 1/48th share of the landed property “Valado de Bapsoro” or “Valado Babsorecho Band” bearing survey no. 341/10 admeasuring 150 square metres with an area of 248 square metres being depicted as water and another portion of the same property bearing Land Registration No. 4364 surveyed under no. 341/11 which have been referred to as suit properties. It is further the case of the Appellant that an area of 113.85 square metres is depicted as water along its western boundary in the plan prepared by the Survey Department and f...
Union of India Vs. M/S. Quick Communication Systems Pvt Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
The petitioner (The Chief Project Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai through the Union of India), has challenged Award dated 26.12.2008 passed by the learned Arbitrate Tribunal, by filing the present petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Arbitration Act). 2} The summary of Award is as under: “CLAIMANT'S CLAIMS: Claim No.Brief DescriptionClaims as per Terms of ReferenceClaims as Modified vide CD IIIAmount Awarded1Work done not paid10,16,800/-10,16,800/-9,40,580/-2Payment of 6th Bill6,61,180/-6,61,180/-5,75,431/-3Refund of Security Deposit10,88,100/10,88,100/10,88,100/4Loss of Profit18,43,285/-18,43,285/-2,00,000/-5Loss of Advance38,60,700/-38,30,172/-1,00,000/-6Loss due to Infrastructure4,50,000/-4,50,000/-75,000/-7Under utilization of labour51,35,775/-42,11,397/-Nil8Under utilization ofoverheads25,67,888/-21,30,480/-50,000/-9Loss of business opportunities25,67,888/-WithdrawnNil10Interest24%P.A.24%P.ANil11Cost of Litigation5,00...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›