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.
Dhudku Ganpat Mahajan Vs. Prabhakar Madhavrao Deshpande and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
The present respondents are the original plaintiffs. They filed suit for possession, declaration and damages. The suit fields are agricultural lands bearing Sy. No.1/2 and Sy. No.54/3. 2. It is contended by the plaintiffs that, one Madhav Martand Deshpande was the mortgagee of deceased Ganpat Motiram Mahajan i. e. these properties were mortgaged by Ganpat Motiram to Madhav Martand. Said Madhav Martand filed suit bearing R.C.S. No.606/1937. The suit came to be decreed. The decree holder filed Regular Darkhast No.1097/1944. In the darkhast proceedings the said agricultural lands were sold by auction. The plaintiffs purchased the suit agricultural lands in auction held in the said darkhast on 21.03.1955. The sale was confirmed on 25.06.1955 and the sale certificate was issued in favour of plaintiffs. Since then the plaintiffs are the owners of the property purchased in auction. 3. In the said darkhast proceedings bearing R.D. No.1097/1944, the defendant No.2 claimed to be the tenant. The ...
Domnic Bento D'Mello Vs. Village Panchayat of Anjuna and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
Oral Judgment: Both the above petitions have been taken up together for hearing as both the learned Counsel point out that the facts in both the petitions are similar though they pertain to two different structures. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. Learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondents. 3. The above petitions challenge the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, North Goa, Panaji whereby an application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner to prefer a revision challenging an order passed by the Director of Panchayat came to be rejected. 4. Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that initially though certified copy of the impugned orders were collected by the petitioner, but however on account of his depression he had to proceed abroad and immediately after he returned he took steps to file the revision application. The learned Coun...
Union of India Through Its General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai Cs ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
Oral Judgment: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 20/4/2006 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Claim Application No.15/OA-II/ RCT/NGP/04 thereby awarding compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of death of one Mundrika Paswan who left behind him a widow - claimant no.1 and minor son - claimant no.2. On 6/11/2003 the deceased was travelling by Trivendram - Gorakhpur Express train. He boarded the train for going to Chapra. He was holding valid ticket. When the train was passing through platform no.1 of the Ajni station, due to heavy rush in the compartment and sudden jerk he lost his balance and fell down from the running train. 2. The respondents resisted the claim by filing written reply. Their defence was that because of carelessness of the deceased, he fell down from the running train and as such it was not an "untoward incident". 3. The learned tribunal considered the evidence while reaching the finding that death of the decease...
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, governed by the Maharashtra Agricultural Un...
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...
M/S. Sas Motors Ltd. Vs. Mhasku Kalu Bokade and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member 1. These are nine appeals filed by the appellant against the common order dated 26/05/2010 in consumer complaint Nos.269to277/2007. 2. The facts leading to these appeals can be summarsied as under :- All the original complainants are the agriculturists. Opponent No.1 is a tractor manufacturing company and opponent No.2 is the dealer. All the original complainants have purchased the tractors of Angad Company manufactured by opponent No.1-S.A.S. Motors Ltd. from opponent No.2 who is authorized dealer. It is the allegations of the complainants that at the time of purchase of the tractors, opponent No.2 had stated them that the tractor is ideal for agricultural purposes. They have given them guarantee and warrantee also. However, when they have started using the tractor for ploughing, it has not given satisfactory result. The diesel consumption was more than promised by the manufacturer and parts of the tractors were duplicate. At the time of using the tractors, t...
Prabhakar Ramchandra Desai and Others Vs. Kamalakant Rajaram Parab and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Rule. With the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The challenge in the above petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 22.6.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vengurla. The said order in terms of Clause 4 thereof mandates the Bailiff to follow a particular course of action in identifying the 10 ft. wide road starting from Adeli Zarap Road leading to Kamalivir Village. The above petition, in a way, exemplifies the manner in which an order passed by this Court is sought to be over reached by the Respondent Nos.13 to 15. The Respondent Nos.13 to 15 herein are the proponents of the application Exhibit 122 which has been filed by them in which the impugned order has been passed. The other respondents are the decree holders and out of them the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are represented before this Court. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner herein that the s...
Unique Delta Force Security Private Ltd. Vs. Sumeet Facilities Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
Oral Judgment: By the above Company Applications, the Applicants have sought the following relief: “The order dated 25.06.2010 passed by this Court (Coram: S.J. Vazifdar, J.) in above referred Company Scheme Petition No. 266 of 2010 and Company Scheme Petition No. 267 of 2010, thereby allowing the said Company Scheme Petitions, may kindly be recalled and/or set aside and the status of the Resulting Company and the Demerged Company may kindly be restored to its original status as it was prior to the Scheme proposed for approval.” 2. According to the Applicants, the Demerged Company - Sumeet Facilities Pvt. Ltd. and the Resulting Company - Unique Delta Force Security Private Ltd. are under a common management and it was believed that the Scheme would result in the following advantages: (I) Consolidation of Facility Service Business into a single entity and thereby streamlining business verticals; (ii) Pooling of resources and focussed management attention into sep...
Rukhamini Pandurang Sansthan and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
Oral Judgment: This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.9.1995 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal in Special Civil Suit No.86/1994, thereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants herein, for the reliefs of possession, mandatory injunction, came to be dismissed. 2] The suit property is the land bearing Plot No.1 in Nazul Sheet No.44 of village Pimpalgaon. One Shriram Yadavji Sonar was the original owner of land survey no.53, area 23.23 Acre-Gunthas (A.G.). On 19.2.1904 he executed a will bequeathing this entire field in favour of Rukhamini Pandurang Sansthan, at Yavatmal. Later on Rukhamini Pandurang Sansthan became a public trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act bearing registration No.A-145/Yavatmal. Out of the total area of 23.23 A.G. one acre on South-Eastern corner was put to non-agricultural use after obtaining necessary permission vide revenue case No.2/XXVIII/1930-31 which is the subject matter of the present suit. In the year 1962...
Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram and Another Vs. Honand#8217;ble 7th Adhoc Ad ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
1. Respondents no. 2 and 3 herein (original plaintiffs) filed application under Order 39, rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure before 5th Jt Civil Judge, JD, Nagpur in Regular CS No. 21 of 2001 against present appellant no. 1 (who was added as defendant no. 7) for breach of injunction order dated 28.8.2001 passed by 8th Additional District Judge, Nagpur whereby defendants were directed not to erect any permanent structure in the common space around their flats and to maintain status-quo as on that date till decision of suit and they were also directed to allow the plaintiff and his agents to approach the plaintiff’s water meter for repairing it if and when necessary. Present appellant no. 1 being subsequent purchaser of the property was added as defendant no. 7 to the suit on 16.1.2003. He was thus aware of the order passed by the said appellate Court. Inspite of that, according to plaintiffs, taking advantage of summer vacations, appellant no. 1 demolished chamber and drainage...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »