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.
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...
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....
Dilip S/O Ramrao Khedekar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
Oral Judgment: 1] Heard. 2] Taken up for final hearing by consent. 3] This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by 14 applicants, who questioned the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Chikhali, whereby the learned Magistrate while allowing the petition against these applicants directed that the complaint be forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a direction to register F.I.R. and investigate the matter accordingly. The complainant was directed to provide Marathi translation of the petition for the purpose of F.I.R. 4] Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that the learned Magistrate had no power to pass impugned order in view of Section 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the offences alleged were under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Learned Advocate also submitted that the learned Magistrate could have d...
Madhukar Chokha Kakde and Another Vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societ ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.B. Chaudhari, J. ) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners who are the members of the respondent No.4 co-operative society which falls in the category of Industrial Producer's Society of Rule 10(7)(a) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules. There is a challenge to the order dated 21.05.2010 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Deulgaon Raja, District Buldhana, by which the order made by the Election Officer Shri Parteki on 19.5.2010 was cancelled and one D.T. Jadhav was appointed in his place to proceed further to complete the elections. 2. This Writ petition was ordered to be heard finally at the stage of admission in view of the nature of controversy and not only that, by order dated 14.5.2010 the results of the election were made subject to the result of the writ petition and that is why the challenge to the impugned order is required to be examined on merits. When this writ petition was filed on 14.5.2010 during vacation ...
Shri Raul Po and Another Vs. Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri S. Narvekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. The above petition challenges an order passed by the respondent dated 17.05.2005 whereby the petitioners have been inter alia directed to demolish the disputed structure without any further notice. There are further directions issued by the respondent to forthwith disconnect the electricity and water supply to the said structure. 3. Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order essentially on the ground that the petitioners have produced the material on record from the statutory Authority to disclose that the disputed structure was existing for more than 80 years. The learned Counsel further points out that the late father of the petitioners was even residing in the disputed structure for more than 75 years and that even he had sought for regularization of the sa...
Shri Upendra B. Karpe Vs. Revision Authority (Central Government), Gov ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. S. Kamat Malyekar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Assistant Solicitor General for respondent no. 1 and Mr. M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3. 2. Rule, by consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 31.1.2011 passed by respondent no. 1 as well as communication dated 5.2.2001 addressed by respondent no. 3 to the predecessor in title of the petitioner rejecting renewal application filed by predecessor in title of the petitioner. The petitioner further seeks writ of mandamus directing respondent no. 2 to consider the application dated 20.11.2006 for renewal of mining lease. Respondent no.1 has rejected the renewal application preferred by the petitioner under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals Act and Rule 54 of the Rules framed thereunder. The same has been dismissed by respondent no.1 by the impugned order dated 31.1.2011 primarily on the gr...
Abdul Jamey S/O Abdul Salam Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through the ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
Deshmukh, J. 01. These are the three writ petitions among the same parties coming up for hearing. 02. Writ Petition No. 4922 of 1997 has been filed by petitioner Abdul Jamey praying for directions to respondents to treat him as a trained teacher in the primary school and to grant approval to his appointment accordingly, with further direction to grant and release salary in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 from 17.6.1995 and payment of arrears and also seeks a declaration of confirmation pursuant to Section 5(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "MEPS Act") and rules framed thereunder viz. The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, (hereinafter, referred to as "MEPS Rules"). 03. Petitioner appears to have been appointed by Respondent No.5-Management in Respondent No.6-School under an order dated 17.6.1995 in the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2600. A proposal with regard to ...
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...
Ankush S/O Jayavantrao Gajar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2012
1. Appeal is filed against the judgment and order passed in Sessions Case no. 27 of 1994, which was pending in the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna. The trial Court has convicted all the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 306, 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment. Both sides are heard in appeal. Original record was called for perusal. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of appeal, can be stated as follows:- Deceased Rukmini @ Sumitrabai was a daughter of complainant. She was given in marriage to appellant no.1 about two years prior to the date of incident. Appellant nos. 2 and 3 are elder brothers of the appellant no.1. Accused no.4 Jayvantrao was the father of the appellants and he died during trial. All the appellants were living in joint family at the relevant time when Rukmini started cohabiting with appellant no.1. 3. After six months of the marriage, the deceased visited the house of ...
The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Shri Chandrakant Mangilal Samd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2012
A.S. Oka, J. This group of First Appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment and order. As some of the Appeals pertain to jurisdiction of learned Single Judge, an order dated 16th July, 2012 has been passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice assigning these Appeals to this Court. These Appeals consist of two groups. One group of the Appeals is First Appeal No.699 of 2002 alongwith the First Appeal Nos.1053 of 2009 to 1056 of 2009. In these Appeals, the challenge is to the judgment and award dated 21st December, 2000 passed by the learned Joint District Judge in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.264 of 1993 to 267 of 1993. The remaining Appeals out of this group of First Appeals arise out of a common judgment and award dated 30th April, 2001 in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 213 of 1994 to 232 of 1994, 128 of 1995, 129 of 1995, 72 of 1996 and 28 of 2001. All the aforesaid references are under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act&...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »