Mumbai Court September 2012 Judgments
Babu S/O Ramjan Laluwale and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and A ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 4. The marriage between deceased Yusuf Ramjan Laluwale and respondent No.2 herein viz. Malanbee took place on 14.5.1999. Applicant No.1 Babu is brother-in-law of respondent No.2 Malanbee, whereas applicant No.2 Ramjan is father-in-law, applicant No.3 Shabanabano is wife of applicant No.1 Babu, and applicant No.4 Fatobee is mother-in-law of said respondent No.2-Malanbee. It is submitted that the husband of respondent No.2 viz. Yusuf expired during pendency of criminal appeal No. 17 of 2008. 5. A complaint was lodged by respondent No.2 Malanbee with Hingoli Rural police station alleging therein the cruelty and harassment caused to her by the present applicants and her deceased husband. Accordingly, offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P...
Tag this Judgment!Sahebrao S/O. Dattu Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
1. The revision is admitted. By consent, notice after admission of revision was made returnable forthwith and both the sides were heard for final disposal of the matter. 2. The proceeding is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 153/2004, which was pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. In the Trial Court, the present respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were charged for offence punishable under section 302 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. All the accused, including respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were charged for offences punishable under section 304-B, 498-A and 34 of I.P.C. All the accused are acquitted of these offences. Original complainant has filed the present proceedings. Heard the advocate for complainant, advocate for the accused and the learned A.P.P. The learned A.P.P. supported the original complainant. The original record is perused by this Court. 3. The deceased Suwarna was niece of the complainant. The father of the deceased was a real brother of the complainant and he had died 3...
Tag this Judgment!Angad S/O. Nagnathrao Kathale Vs. Kishan S/O. Baburao Suryawanshi
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
1. Heard Adv. Mr. S.T. Veer for the applicant, and Adv. Mr. Hiraji Gaikwad for the respondent. 2. For the reasons stated in the present Application, leave granted and the present Application be treated and numbered as Criminal Appeal. 3. Admit. 4. Adv. Mr. Hiraji Gaikwad waives service of notice after admission. 5. By the present appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the order below Exhibit 1 in STCC No. 241/2008, dated 30th June 2010, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Renapur (District : Latur), thereby dismissing the complaint of the appellant (original complainant), in default, and thereby consequently discharging the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. 6. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their original status i.e. complainant and accused. 7. The factual matrix which gave rise to the present appeal are as follows: The appellant (original complainant) is a consumer...
Tag this Judgment!Aparna D/O Krishnakumar thete @ Aparna W/O Mukesh Sedamkar and Others ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
1] Heard the learned Advocates at length. 2] Above two (2) Writ Petitions and Civil Application in the decided Writ Petition No. 4072 of 2011 were heard together from time to time. Those were reserved for orders. 3] Thereafter, learned Advocate for the petitioner made a motion for taking cases on board, as the petitioner desired to place on record certain documents in Writ Petition No. 6422 of 2012. Therefore, the Writ Petitions were taken on board. The petitioner has sought leave to amend the petition. Leave was granted. Petitioner has added certain averments and certain documents. On the date of hearing, petitioner has also filed Civil Application No. 9666 of 2012 in Writ Petition No. 6422 of 2012, by which the petitioner has prayed for taking in safe custody certain registers which constitutes documentary evidence of petitioner’s grievance against the Respondent No. 4. This application was heard with the Writ Petitions. 4] Two (2) Writ Petitions and Civil Applications are hear...
Tag this Judgment!Pralhad S/O. Babanrao Thombre Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Oral Judgment: 1.Heard Adv. Mr. A.D. Aghav for the petitioner, and learned APP Mr. N.R. Shaikh for the respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for parties, taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 3. By the present petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 13-7-2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Basmath, in Misc. Criminal Application No. 141/2012, and the judgment and order dated 23-8-2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and District Judge-1, Basmathnagar, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 16/2012, be quashed and set aside, and the respondent be directed to release the vehicle of the petitioner, bearing No. MH-15/E-6626 i.e. Tavera Jeep. 4. The petitioner contends that he is doing business of vehicle sale, purchase and transport and he is having vehicle bearing No. MH. 15/E-6626 i.e. Tavera...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Mohanlal Girdhani Vs. M/S. Percept Picture
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard finally by consent at the admission stage. 2. The Petitioner has moved this Petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (for short 'Arbitration Act'), alleging that there is an arbitration agreement which permit the Petitioner, who is the Writer member, to lodge a complaint before the Writers' Association as well as Producers' Association (IMPPA). Except averments, there is nothing on record. The Petitioner however, indicates that a complaint dated 8th September 2012 filed before the Writers' Association (Dispute Settlement Committee). A similar application dated 11th September 2012 is also filed before the IMPPA. The case is that all these applications could not be considered, since the Tribunal/ Committee are not available for adjudication and as there is urgency, in view of the fact that the Film called "KAMAAL DHAMAAL MALAMAAL" is due to release on 28th September 2012. It is also averred that his idea/script got registered in the year 2008 ...
Tag this Judgment!Shaikh Noor Shaikh Nanhu Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Adv. Mr. A.S. Lomte for the petitioner, learned APP Mr. N.R. Shaikh for respondent no.1, and Adv. Mr. S.S. Rathi for respondent no.2. Nobody for respondent nos.3 to 5, though served. Learned Advocates for respondent no.6 absent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Advocates of parties, taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 3. Leave to amend the prayer clauses granted to the extent that instead of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jintur, it be shown as Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Jintur. 4. By the present petition filed by the petitioner (original accused no.4), under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, he has prayed that the order dated 20th January 2012, passed below Exhibit 125 in Regular Criminal Case No. 65/2000, by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Jintur, be quashed and set aside. 5.The respondent no.2, Jintur Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Jintur, has filed private complaint before l...
Tag this Judgment!Shaikh Iqbal Muzawar Vs. Abitalib Malik
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Heard Mr. Vaz, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 26/03/2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji in OA Case No.945/2008/B acquitting the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short). 3. The appellant is the complainant and the respondent is the accused in the above case. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. 4. The complainant filed the above criminal case against the accused for dishonour of cheque dated 21/02/2008 for an amount of Rs.67,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank which according to the complainant, was issued by the accused towards repayment of the loan taken by the accused. The cheque was presented by the complainant for payment. The same was dishonoured on 11/06/2008 with an endorsement 'insufficient funds'. Thereaf...
Tag this Judgment!indur Kartar Chhugani and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
A.R. Joshi, J. 1. By this common judgment and order the above-numbered proceedings are disposed of together as it involves common and overlapping questions. 2. Rival arguments were heard on earlier dates. Perused the order dated 30.1.2006 which is impugned in Criminal Appeal No.688 of 2006. Said order was passed by the then learned Judge of Special MPID Court and Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay. Said order was passed below show-cause notice issued to one Indur K. Chhugani in C.R. No.47 of 2004 registered by EOW, through CB, CID, Mumbai against said Indur K. Chhugani, his wife and his son. 3. At the threshold, it must be mentioned that there is specific order of this Court dated 9/9/2009 of another Division Bench by which certain directions were given for not taking up the criminal writ petition for final hearing at the instance of the petitioner unless he vacates the Flat Nos.501 and 502. The said order dated 9/9/2009 was passed by the Division Bench (Shri B.H. Marlapalle and...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaykumar Hariram Sahu and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Rule. Counsel for the Respondents waive service. By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, by consent and on the request of learned counsel. 2. A delicate and sensitive issue arises before the Court in this case. It concerns the regulation by the State of the transplantation of human organs. The case traverses medicine, social ethics and law and has profound human implications. The noted German philosopher, Hegel, is attributed with the thought that "genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong but conflicts between two rights." Whether the First Petitioner should or should not be allowed to donate a kidney necessary to save the life of the Second Petitioner is an agonizing question falling in the same genre. Both the Petitioners are men of modest, if not humble means. One seeks to donate his kidney to the other, stating that they are bound by a bond of attachm...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »