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.
AshwIn Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Anti Corruption Bureau, N ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 12/07/2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Nagpur in Special Case No. 18 of 1997, whereby the accused was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The accused was also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs 2000/and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for nine months. 2. Heard the submissions at the bar. 3. The facts, in nutshell, are as under: The accused was working as a District Manager, Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis and Nomadic Tribes development Corporation Ltd., Nagpur. On 22/06/...
State of Maharashtra, Through Deputy Superintendent of Police Vs. Shri ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
1. The State of Maharashtra has challenged validity and legality of the Judgment and order dated 19/10/2000 passed by the Special Judge, Wardha in Special Case no. 4 of 1993 Whereby the learned Special Judge was pleased to acquit the respondent/ accused of the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1) (d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Heard the submissions at the Bar. 3. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- The accused was serving as a Junior Engineer in the year 1992 in the Office of the M.S.E.B., Wardha Maneri. For the distribution of the electricity, Village Jalgaon, Tahasil Arvi Dist. Wardha was within the local limits of the M.S.E.B.s Office of Wardha Maneri. Some agriculturists, including Complainant Devidas Chendbaji Wasule had applied for supply of electricity to their well, where they got fitted electric Motor Pump. Devidas owned field bearing Survey No.384, admeasuring 11 acres of land containing the Well. On 25/01/1991, he had applied for supp...
Smt. Ashwini W/O Anil More and Others Vs. Shankar S/O Kundlik Bhange a ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
Oral Judgment: The claimants had filed petition U/Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of death of deceased Anil, who died in an accident with the truck owned by the present respondent No.1 and insured by the respondent No.2. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition. Being dissatisfied by the amount of compensation awarded, the claimants have filed the present appeal. 2. Shri Chavan, the learned counsel for appellants submits that there is record to show that the deceased owned buffaloes and cows for running the milk business. The receipts from the market committee are produced on record. The learned counsel further contends that the deceased was also doing fruit business and was running the business in the name and style as Satish Fruits. There are receipts to that effect produced on record. But the Tribunal has not considered the same. The Tribunal has also erroneously observed that the claimants admitted that the fruit business is going on. In fact, the said suggestio...
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...
Shobha Ugamraj JaIn Vs. M/S Rajeshree Enterprises and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service on the part of builder/developer for not handing over possession of the flat agreed to be purchased by the complainant. 2. It is the case of complainant-Smt.Shobha Ugamraj Jain (hereinafter referred to as complainant) that she agreed to purchase flat No.302 having carpet area of 847 sq.ft. situated in Mumbadevi Tower, Charai, Dist. Thane for total consideration of Rs.18 Lakhs. Said transaction is witnessed by registered agreement dated 28/02/2007. Complainant had paid entire consideration and which is witnessed by receipt dated 16/07/2007. She also paid Rs.79,010/- as an advance payment towards maintenance for one year on 24/05/2007. Possession was agreed to be delivered within 18 months. However, since the possession is yet to be delivered, after giving a notice dated 04/04/2009, this consumer complaint was filed on 11/03/2010 praying for following reliefs :- a) Refund of Rs....
Bindu Kumar Mehta Vs. Rishiket Prakash Gujar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
Oral Order: 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, who is the accused no.3 in Criminal Case No.1009/SS/2011, pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 48th Court, Andheri prays that by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 17 December 2011 rejecting the discharge application filed by the petitioner, and the order dated 2 February 2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dismissing the Criminal Revision Application No.105 of 2012, be quashed and set aside. 2. The said case is in respect of an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint has been filed by the respondent no.1 herein. The respondent nos.2 and 3 herein are the accused nos.1 and 2 respectively in the said case. When the trial before the Magistrate was proceeding, the petitioner, on 17 December 2011, made an application for discharge which was reject...
Ayushakti Ayurved Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Uniliver Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. This reference before the Division Bench arises from an order dated 4 July 2012 of a learned Single Judge, Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.R.Gavai. On 16 September 2011, an order was passed by Shri Justice S.J.Vazifdar in the suit, in the following terms: "2. The evidence shall be recorded on commission. Mr.Vikram Sathye, an Advocate of this Court is appointed as Commissioner for recording evidence. The parties shall tender their documents before the Commissioner. The parties shall be entitled to raise their objections, oral and documentary before the commissioner. The parties are at liberty to cross-examine the witnesses without prejudice to their objections which shall be decided at the final hearing. The costs of the Commissioner shall, in the first instance, be shared by the parties equally and the same shall be subject to the final orders in the suit." Orders similar to this order were passed by the learned Single Judge in various other suits. 2. Mr. Justice S.C....
Kishore @ Sundar S/O Rupchand Gujar Vs. Archana W/O Kishore @ Sundar G ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the parties. 2. This Civil Revision Application takes exception to the judgment and order dated 17th February, 2012 passed by the District Judge, Dhule below Exhibit-17 in Civil Appeal No. 96 of 2007. 3. It is the case of the revision applicant that, the applicant is the original petitioner having filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 96 of 2007 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule for annulment of marriage under Section 12A of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is the case of the revision applicant that, the marriage of the applicant was performed with the respondent on 22nd May, 2003 at village Bhanashiwara, Taluka Newasa District Ahmednagar. Since the first day of marriage, the respondent refused to have sexual intercourse with the applicant. The respondent never attained menses. In spite of such a deformity and situation, the applicant extended his co-operation to the respondent and took the respondent to Dr...
Purushottam S/O Shankar Ghodgaonkar Vs. Gajanan S/O Shankar Ghodgaonka ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
1. This petition takes exception of the order dated 7.7.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chopda, thereby allowing application Exh.154 filed under Order XIII Rule 3(1)(a) of C.P.C., in R.C.S. No.167 of 2000. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 3. The background facts, leading to file this petition, as disclosed in the petition, are as under:- The respondent No.1 herein has filed a suit for partition against the petitioner and other respondents herein. The petitioner appeared in the said suit and while he was under cross examination, the respondent No.1 sought to produce documents contending that it were reserved for cross examination of the petitioner. The petitioner had objected to produce the documents for the first in cross, however, the said application was rejected on 25.10.1996. The petitioner had challenged the said order in this Court by filing writ petition No. 869 of 1997 and the said writ petition came to be allowed by ...
M/s Hotel Shobha, through Its Proprietor: Shri Atul Virendrakumar Jais ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1 Both appeals arise out of the common judgment and order, therefore, they were heard together and can be disposed of by common judgment. 2 These appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are directed against the judgment and order dated 27.06.2012 of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3440/2011. That Writ Petition was filed by the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 in LPA No.278/2012, who are original Petitioners and they impugned the order passed by the Respondent No.1 State Government dated 30.10.2010 in Revision Application by which the Revisional Authority has set aside the orders dated 20.02.2010 and 22.06.2010 of the Collector, Nagpur and the Commissioner, State Excise respectively. The Revision Application before the Minister was filed by the Appellant before us in LPA No.278/2012 as its application seeking FLIII licence was rejected. 3 The facts leading to the filing of these Appeals are that the Appellant in LPA No.278/2012 made an application for gran...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »