Mumbai Court August 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.
Suresh Motwani and Another Vs. Devidas Thawani and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2012
The petitioners questioned issuance of process for offence under Section 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This Court has, on earlier occasion considering age of the complainant, huge amount of payment as deposits being involved, waiting since 2002 for the cheque dated 29.3.2002, parties were asked to ensure settlement, however, it did not materialised. 2. In a complaint against Sun Earth Ceramics Ltd. and others, the petitioner was one of accused. The case is, deposit of Rs.30,00,000/- vide cheque on the basis of negotiable instrument and the company towards repayment and in discharge of liability of said deposit drew, issued and handed over a cheque bearing no.31151 dated 29.3.2002 drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Fort, Mumbai. After ensuring statutory compliance since the payment was not made, the complaint as stated above is filed by respondent no.1. The learned Judge has issued process by order dated 13.6.2002. In another matter the cheque issued was for Rs.15,00,000/- a...
Jaysukh Raghla Patel Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2012
Oral Judgment: 1 This appeal is today fixed for final hearing. By this appeal, the appellant has taken an exception to the Judgment and order dated 20th April 2007 passed by the learned District Judge in a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 2 The land subject matter of the reference was notified by a notification under section 4(1) of the said Act dated 6th March 1995. By an Award made on 28th February 1996 the market value at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per Acre was offered. By the said award, compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- was granted for standing trees. The statutory benefits were also offered. The appellant claimant accepted the compensation amount without recording any formal protest. On 1st March 1996, an application under section 18 of the said Act was made by the appellant seeking enhancement in market value. 3 A Reference was made to the District Court which was contested by the respondent by filing written statem...
M/S. Jagson International Ltd. Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2012
Oral Judgment: The Petitioners/original claimants have challenged Award dated 15 April 2008 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, whereby dismissed all the claims of the Petitioners. 2 On 9 July 2002, the Respondents invited tenders under International Competitive Bidding for Charter Hire of Offshore Rigs of various types such as, slot/mat and cantilever type jack up and floaters (hereinafter referred to as tender). 3 On 8 October 2002, the Petitioners submitted its bid. On 30 November 2002, the Respondents awarded the tender to the Petitioners for a period of three years. On 6 January 2003, the Respondents issued a firm order for charter hair of rig Jagson Pioneer for a firm period of three years. 4 The relevant terms and conditions of the special conditions annexed to the Tender are reproduced for sake of brevity as under: Clause 1.5.3 : Contractor shall offer the drilling unit for inspection and complete readiness of rig in all aspects to the satisfaction of operator including conformity...
Pushpasen Madhavrao Vasaikar and Another Vs. Ganpat Mahadev Patil and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2012
Oral Judgment: On the last date, the submissions of the learned counsel for the legal representatives of the petitioners and the learned counsel for the legal representative of the first respondent were heard. The petitioners in this petition are the plaintiffs and the respondents in this petition are the original defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to with reference to their status before the Trial Court. 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit before the Trial Court for possession of the house bearing House no.1746 more particularly described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. In the plaint, the plaintiffs relied upon a rent note dated 3rd January 1956 executed by and between the second defendant and the first respondent. Under the rent note, the suit house was let out to the first defendant. In the suit, it was contended that the second defendant was the predecessor of the plaintiffs who sold the larger property by sale deed dated 20th January 1961 to the...
Himanshu @ Hemant @ Rajendra Bhatt Vs. the State of Maharashtra (at th ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2012
The petitioner questions order of the Sessions Court in Sessions Case no.468 of 2005 dated 31st January,2011 passed in Miscellaneous Application no.233 of 2009 deleting Section 255 of IPC and wants that the trial be conducted by the Court of Magistrate. The petitioner is one of the accused in the Sessions Case. 2. The Chief Manager of Bank of Baroda has lodged complaint against twenty five borrowers on 3rd September,2004, that such persons produced forged documents with the bank and obtained loan giving rise to C.R.no.702 of 2004 of Goregaon Police Station. On examination of the accounts, it reveals that the petitioner has availed loan of Rs.12.50 lakhs from the said bank by submitting forged documents of M/s.Regal Enterprises and Hermitage Constructions to purchase the property at Shivling, Kashimira, Mira Road, Thane. The investigation indicates, the properties were not in existence. The franking impressions, stamp duty receipts, registration receipts of sale Agreement were forged/bo...
Maharashtra Tour and Travels and Bus Owners Association, Through Chief ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-17-2012
A.H. Joshi, J. 1] Public Interest Litigation No.32/2011 is filed by association of Contract Carriage Bus Operators. Its members own bus or buses and they run those for carrying passengers between fixed destinations after availing permit. In this petition, one Shri Rakesh Omprakash Agrawal, who is shown to be Chief Secretary, represents the petitioner. This petition is drafted in vernacular (Marathi) and is argued in Marathi by him. 2] Main prayer in the petition is aimed at challenge to taxation of the buses owned by the members of the petitioner association and classifying the same in the category of Item No.VII of First Schedule attached to Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958. 3] Rule has been issued and reply has been filed. 4] In the midst of hearing, in order to narrow down exact challenge, this Court had permitted Shri Rakesh Omprakash Agrawal representing the petitioner to reformulate and place on record description of exact scope and the compass of challenge. This Court had als...
Kailas S/O Jagannathrao Kharjule Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-17-2012
A.H. Joshi, J. 1. The petition is coming for final hearing. Claim in the petition is for compensation for illegal detention. 2. Rule was issued, and the respondents are served. Affidavit in reply is filed. The petitioner has also tendered the rejoinder. 3. The petition contains averments as regards confinement as follows:- ............ ........... 3. The police personnel of Local Crime Branch, Nanded under the head of respondent no.4 had been at the shop of petitioner at about 1.00 p.m. on 14.2.2011 and taken him at Nanded and detained him. The petitioner asked about his arrest but instead of giving any reply, the respondent no.4 initiated the physical and mental torture to the petitioner. The petitioner was severely beaten by respondent no.4. The very purpose of beating the petitioner by the respondent no.4 is of unlawful gain. The respondent no.4 insisted him to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- otherwise the petitioner would have been involved in the illegal activities falsely. 4. The p...
Sau. Laxmibai Shantaram Doke Samajvikas Prathisthan and Another Vs. th ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-17-2012
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 1. In W.P. 6136 of 2010, the Petitioner has commenced a Marathi medium primary school in 2008l. Arguments are advanced on the strength of this petition in remaining petitions. However, we find that in W.Ps.6153, 6155 and 6186 of 2010 the very same petitioner institution has started Marathi medium secondary schools. Permission was sought after the Schools were already established in 2008. Rejection of such permission vide communication dated 4.6.2010 in WPs. 6136,6153,6155 and 6186/10 by the State and letter of Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmadnagar dated 28.5.2010 in WP 6136/10 and the letter dated 7.6.2010 by Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmadnagar in WP 6153,6155/10 and dated 18.6.2010 in WP 6186 of 2010 are questioned in these matters. All these petitions also contain a prayer to declare part of Section 18(1),18(5),19(1) and 19(5) of the Right of Children to Free and Com...
Ajay Son of Kishanrao Losarwar and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-17-2012
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Heard respective Counsel. 2. In Writ Petition No. 7596 of 2006, this Court has already issued Rule on 18th August 2009. As common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions, we also issue Rule in Writ Petition Nos. 6231 of 2010 and 7404 of 2010, and make the Rule returnable forthwith. 3. These three writ petitions are filed by Private Secretaries to Hon. Judges at Aurangabad contending that special pay of Rs. 400/- paid to them as Personal Secretaries prior to their promotion as Private Secretaries was rightly added to their total salary in said cadre before working out their fixation and entitlement in promotional cadre and its deletion subsequently with an order for recovery of the alleged excess paid is unsustainable. The reliance by High Court Administration or Registrar on government resolution dated 8.6.1995 issued by GAD read with later resolution dated 20.7.2001 of Finance Department to urge that after release of the benefits under Assu...
Pramod S/O. Kalu Kendale and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-17-2012
A.V. Nirgude, J. 1. Both these appeals can be decided by this common judgment. Criminal Appeal No.363 of 2010 is filed by original accused Nos.1 to 11 and 16 of Sessions Case No. 1 of 2008 and Criminal Appeal No.391 of 2010 is filed by original accused No.13 of same case. 2. The appellants were convicted for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 307, 323, 324, 325 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- with a default clause for offence punishable under section 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. They were also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each with a default clause for the offence punishable under section 307 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. They were further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years for offence punishable under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, but they w...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »