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.
Ku. Kamna D/O Satyanarayan Handibag Vs. Satyanarayan S/O Chatrabhuj Ha ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 3. This Civil Revision Application takes exception to the order dated 14.12.2011, passed by the learned District Judge-1, Ambajogai in Misc. Civil Application No. 25 of 2011. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision applicant submits that the applicant is maternal uncle of Ku. Kamna Satyanarayan Handibag. It is submitted that, the application filed by the respondent No.1 for sell of land in the name of Ku. Kamna has been allowed by the trial court. It is submitted that while allowing the said application, the trial court has not taken into consideration the interest of minor child. It is submitted that it is an admitted position that the said land is purchased by the respondent for Rs.4.00 lacs and the approximate value of the said land, in the application filed before the trial Court, is shown Rs.2.00 lacs. It is submitted that the fact that t...
Mahadu S/O Onkar Patil and Another Vs. Vijay S/O Mangesh Salunkhe and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, the Additonal Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik entertained the Revision No. 2 of 2004 filed by the private respondents, herein, challenging the order of the appellate authority i.e. the District Collector, Jalgaon, after a period of eight years from the date of decision of the appellate authority. It is submitted that, when a specific point of limitation was raised before the Revisional authority, the Revisional authority, in the impugned order, has observed that, there is no any limitation for filing Revision and therefore, it cannot be said that, the Revision filed after a period of eight years is not within limitation or legal. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited my attention to the reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of SantoshkumarShivgonda Patil and others Vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and others, reported in ...
Mr. Agostinho Godinho Vs. Mrs. Maria Eufrezita Paulina Lydia Fernandes ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri R. Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri S. Chopdekar, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents no.1 and 2. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 and 2 waives service. 3. Shri R. Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that respondent no.3 is a formal party and the suit is proceeding ex-parte against the said respondent before the learned trial Court and hence notice to said respondent no.3 may be dispensed with. 4. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division at Margao dated 20/06/2012 whereby an application for adjournment filed by the petitioner came to be rejected and, as such, the evidence of the petitioner who are defendants in the Regular Civil Suit no.186/2001/C came to be closed. 5. Shri R. Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner...
Jai Jagdamba Bahu Uddeshiya Sanstha Sarjapur's Jai Jagdamba B.Ed. Coll ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.). 1. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner is a college which conducts the B.Ed. course falling within the purview of Solapur University. The college has sought to challenge a notice issued by the University on 1 June 2012 banning admissions to the college for Academic Year 201213 and has sought directions to allow it to admit students. 2. The Petitioner was granted permission by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) to start a B.Ed. College in 2005. The State Government also granted its permission. Affiliation was granted by the University for each Academic Year, subject to the condition that the Petitioner maintains the required staff and infrastructure. The Local Enquiry Committee visited the College on several occasions and found that there were several deficiencies which had not been removed. The Academic Council of the University passed a resolution on 30 April 2012 by which a decision was tak...
The Commissioner Vs. Ashiven Manohar Chougule and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard finally at the admission stage. As common issues are involved, therefore, this common judgment. 2 The Petitioner is a local body governed by the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”), has challenged the impugned order dated 21st October, 2011, passed by the Industrial Court, Sangli. The operative part is as under: “i. The applications for interim relief are partly allowed. ii. The opponent-corporation is directed to continue the applicants in service in accordance with the B.P.M.C. Act as per previous practice till the decision of these complaints finally. iii. No order as to cost.” 3 In the main complaint the basic prayer is to grant them permanency as they completed more then 240 days in service. They have filed separate applications under Section 30 (2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act) for interim rel...
H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. (Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd. Now Amalgamated with ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
Heard finally. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. Petitioner (HDFC Bank Ltd.) questions legality of order dated 5th October 2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai in the three proceedings initiated for an offence punishable under Section 138 r/w. 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, thereby the learned Judge has observed the Court at Mumbai has no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint and hence, the complaint was returned under Section 201(a) of Cr.P.C., for presentation to proper Court. 3. The Respondents M/s. New Tech Forge and Foundry Ltd. and Ors. had availed financial facilities from Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd. (For short Centurion Bank). The Respondent - Company had issued certain cheques in favour of Centurion Bank. On 23.05.2008, Centurion Bank was amalgamated with the H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. (Petitioner). After amalgamation, H.D.F.C. Bank sought to release the cheques by presenting them for collection at Mumbai. However, ...
Shiva Sahakari Up Jal Sinchan Sanstha Ltd. Vs. the Nanded District Cen ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 29th August, 2011 passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, Bench Aurangabad, in Appeal No. 26 of 2010. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is a registered society and is established to lift water from river by way of lift irrigation. The respondent No.1 is the District Central Co-operative Bank and the respondent No. 2 is the branch of the said bank. The petitioner society applied for loan of Rs.11,94,000/- to the respondent No.1 bank, through the respondent No.2. The respondent No. 1 sanctioned loan with thirteen yearly instalments with interest @ 13% p.a. for 12 years period for repayment, on condition of executing promissory notes, by the present petitioner. The petitioner society then paid initial instalment and then amount towards the price of sugar cane was forwarded to the bank by the sugar factory, w...
Devendra S. Doctor Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has essentially challenged the action of refusal to accord sanction to prosecute the Special Judge of the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, dated 3.2.2012, which decision is founded on the opinion of the learned Chief Justice of the High Court. 2. The decision is challenged on three grounds. Firstly, the Competent Authority for considering the proposal to grant sanction to prosecute the Special Judge of the Special Court, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), ought to be the Governor. Thus, the proposal could not have been terminated on the basis of the opinion of the learned Chief Justice of the High Court. Secondly, the learned Chief Justice has formed the impugned opinion without directing any enquiry in respect of the complaint against the Special Judge. Thirdly, the impugned opinion of the learned Ch...
Ganesh S/O Shalikram Kasdekar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
Oral Judgment: On 16th April, 2012 when the matter was called out none had appeared on behalf of the appellants and the matter stood over to 29th July, 2012. Again on 29th July, 2012 none was present for the appellants and, therefore, so as to decide the appeal as soon as possible, Shri. H. S. Rahangdale, learned Advocate, has been appointed (amicus curiae) to represent case on behalf of the appellants. 2. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by IInd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Sessions Trial No. 83/2004, dated 19/12/2005 whereby the appellants were convicted of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of which to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. 3. Facts stated, in nutshell, are as under:- On 11th May, 2004 at about 7:00 p.m., injured Subhash (PW5) and his wife Kantabai (PW4) w...
Mrs. Ivy C. Da Conceicao Vs. the State of Goa, Through Its Chief Secre ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) With the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.7 is taken on record. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. This petition was filed challenging the appointments of respondents no.5 and 7 as Principals of different schools run by respondent no.3. This Court on 15/09/2004, issued Rule only in respect of promotion of respondent no.7 as Headmaster. 4. As such, the petition filed by the petitioner challenging the promotion of respondent no.5 as Principal is deemed to have been rejected qua respondent no.5. 5. Insofar as respondent no.7 is concerned, the relevant prayers sought by the petitioner are as under: “(b) To quash and set aside the promotion of the respondent no.7 as Principal of the respondent no.6. (c) For a direction to hold fresh Departmental Promotional Committee to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Principal in the vacancy of the Principal with the respo...