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.
The Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. the District Collecto ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard by consent of parties finally in view of urgency shown at admission stage. 2 The impugned order is passed by the Collector/Respondent No.1 dated 5 July 2012 pursuance to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.291/2012 dated 1 March 2012. 3 The basic events as recorded in the earlier order are as under: “3 By the present writ petition, the Petitioner who has advanced loans to Respondent No.3 sugar factory, which are outstandinggggg, had challenged the order dated 27.09.2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the further order passed by the Tahsildar, Taluka Haveli on 12.12.2001 attaching the stock of sugar bags to the extent of 82092 quintal. The further action of the proposed auction of the said sugar bags is also challenged. 4 The Petitioner claims that the entire stock of sugar of Respondent No.3 Karkhana has been pledged with the Petitioner by the Karkhana by executing va...
Sadashiv S/O Ganpatrao Mahajan Vs. the Honand#8217;ble Minister for Co ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The dispute in this petition relates to the disqualification of the respondent No.4 Prafulla s/o Khushalrao Mankar, as the Director of the respondent No.3 Yavatmal District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Yavatmal (for short, “the said Bank”) under clause (ii) of Section 73EA of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, “the said Act”) on the ground that he is an office bearer of the defaulted Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society, viz. Saoner Gramin Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Ralegaon, District Yavatmal (for short, “the said Society”). 3. In exercise of the power under sub-section (1) of Section 78 of the said Act, the respondent No.2 Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Amravati Division, Amravati, passed an order on 12-5-2010 removing the respondent No.4 as Director of t...
Dr. Sujit Govind Dange and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra Through It ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
D.D. Sinha, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents. 2. The petitioner is challenging the legality and propriety of notice/order dated 21.6.2011 passed by the respondent no.3 and order dated 9.11.2011 passed by the respondent no.4. Similarly, a direction is sought against the respondent nos.2 and 3 to release and/or return to the petitioner sonography machine seized vide order dated 21.6.2011. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER : 3. Mr.Thorat, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the action of the respondent-authorities is wholly illegal, incorrect and, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. It is contended that the provisions of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 4 of the Act require the Doctor to keep a record in the clinic as prescribed under the Rules, failing which it can be presumed that the provisions of sections 5 and 6 are contravened by such Doctor. It is submitted that before dra...
Nanasaheb Alias Sharad Madhav Varade Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
A.V. Nirgude, J. 1. In this appeal, the appellant is challenging the judgment and order dated 18th December, 2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, in Sessions Case No. 07 of 2010. The learned Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default clause. 2. Facts leading to the prosecution case, in short, can be stated as under:- (a) Appellant, aged about 28 years. Deceased Maya and appellant were not spouses. They were living in relation, in one room tenement, since five years prior to the incident. The room was taken on rental basis from one Shri Wikhe, at village Loni (Bk.), Taluka Rahata, District Ahmednagar. There were few more adjoining tenements. A few days prior to the date of incident (27th November, 2009) roof of the room collapsed due to rain and they went to stay elsewhere. (b) On 27th November, 2009, at about ...
Kailash Nath and Associates and Another Vs. Girdhar Gopal Sureka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
Oral Judgment: (R.D. Dhanuka, J.) The Appellants challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18 June 2010 passing a decree against the Appellants under Order 8 Rule 5(2) and Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The suit is decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (a)(i), (a)(ii), (b), (c) and (h) for want of written statement. 2. The present Appellants are original defendants in the suit. The respondent is the original plaintiff in the suit. The parties are described in this judgment as described in the plaint. 3. In the suit, the Plaintiff applied for specific performance of the Agreement dated 10 December 1984 (hereinafter referred to as “Suit Agreement”) and for a declaration that the purported agreement dated 10 January 1994 entered between the First Defendant and the Second Defendant was sham, bogus and not binding upon the Plaintiff and for declaration that the suit agreement was equally binding on the Second Defendant and for specific performance th...
Tushar P. Shah Vs. International Asset Reconstruction Co. P. Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
D.D. Sinha, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is one of the director and guarantor of the respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 1 is a Securitization Company duly registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and assignee of the original applicant, Bank of Baroda, Chandravarkar Branch, Matunga, Mumbai. Respondent No. 3 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and a principal borrower of the respondent no.1. Respondent no.4 and respondent no. 5 are guarantors of respondent no. 2. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Bank of Baroda, the lender bank of the respondent no. 2, has filed a suit before this Court being Suit No. 5568 of 1998, during the pendency of the suit The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDB and FI Act) came into force and therefore the suit was transferred to the Debt ...
Deepak Nanku Singh Vs. the State of Goa
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
Oral Judgment: By this appeal, the appellant (herein after referred to as “the accused”) takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 1st April, 2009, passed by the Children's Court, Panaji in Special Case No.1/09, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 (“the Act” for short), read with Section 376 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-, in default, to undergo further six months' Simple Imprisonment. The entire fine has been ordered to be paid to the victim girl. 2. Pursuant to the FIR lodged by PW.2 Sunita Moolya, at Quepem Police Station on 23.3.2008, alleging that the accused had kidnapped her minor daughter, FIR was registered under Section 363 IPC and Section 8(2) of the Act at Quepem Police Station. Pursuant to the said FIR, investigation was taken up. In the course of investigation, it was revea...
Hitendrasingh S/O Bhupendrasingh and Others Vs. Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1 These Writ Petitions were to be heard finally at the admission stage and therefore, with consent of parties, we proceed to issue Rule on each of these petitions. With their further consent, we dispose them of finally by this common judgment. 2 These Writ Petitions under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India question the order dated 16.12.2011 passed by the Chancellor of Dr.Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth (for short “PDKV”), pursuant to which the appointment of each of the Petitioners either as Senior Research Assistant (for short “SRA”) or Junior Research Assistant (for short “JRA”) stands cancelled. 3 Mr.Manohar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners requested us to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 238/2012. Accordingly, it would be advantageous to refer to these facts to appreciate the challenge raised. 4 It is common ground that the PDKV is an Agricultural University and therefore, g...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Gunwant Son of Patiram Dhumbhare
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 7th August 2007 passed by the Special Judge (under Prevention of Corruption Act), Gondia in Special Criminal Case No. 1 of 2005 whereby respondent/accused has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the appellant-State has preferred the present criminal appeal. 2. Facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Kamalkumar Nagpure wanted to get his agricultural land measured since a dispute had arisen between him and adjacent land owner as to in whose field, two teak trees were standing. According to complainant, when measurement was to be carried out on 24.9.2004, accused Dhumbhare who was to perform the actual activity of measuring, demanded Rs. 5000/- from complainant to show him favour. On 24.9.2004 accused along with one Kaware came to the house of complainant. Land was measured and thereafter accused again came to the house of complai...
NitIn Ramesh Dhiwar Adult Vs. Sou. Roopali NitIn Dhiwar Adult
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
Oral Judgment: [V.M. Kanade, J.] 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant. None appears on behalf of the Respondent, though she was served. 2. The Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the District Judge-4, Pune on 7.9.2006, who was pleased to dismiss the petition for divorce filed by the Appellant herein. 3. Brief facts are as under: The Appellant is the husband and the Respondent is the wife (hereinafter the Appellant shall be referred to as “husband” and Respondent shall be referred to as “wife”). They got married on 12.11.2001. However, soon thereafter, there were disputes and differences between the husband and wife. A complaint was registered by the Pimpri Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 323, 504, r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. I The husband filed a petition for divorce in the District Court, Pune on the ground of cruelty, inter alia, it was urged in the trial court that a fal...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »