Mumbai Court September 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.
Krishnan Venugopal Vs. Antonio Joao A. Braganza and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. None for the respondents though served. 2. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa, in Regular Civil Suit No. 58/1999 dated 08.06.2007 whereby an application filed by the petitioner to get himself impleaded in the suit as pendente lite transferee came to be rejected. 3. Shri Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that the law is well settled that the pendente lite transferee can be impleaded in the suit to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the petitioner himself has filed an application to be impleaded in the suit and any decree in the suit would affect the right of the petitioner in the suit property. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned order and pointed out that the learned Judge has erroneously dismissed the application on a spacious ground that th...
Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction M/S. Jaipur Golden Tr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
1. By the above report, the Official Liquidator has sought directions from this Court as follows: (a) In view of paras 7 and 8 of this Report, whether this Honble Court would be pleased to declare the sale of the property situated at H-16, MIDC Waluj Industrial Area, Waluj, Aurangabad to Smt. Sunita V. Warke as null and void; (b) If prayer (a) is in the affirmative, whether this Honble Court would be pleased to permit the Official Liquidator to take possession of the said property situated at H-16, MIDC Waluj Industrial Area, Waluj, Aurangabad. The facts in the matter are briefly set out hereunder: 2. On 7th April 1997, Company Petition No. 327 of 1997 seeking winding up of the Company - Hindustan Transmission Products Limited (HTPL) was filed /presented. Smt. Sunita V. Warke (the occupant) claims to have paid an aggregate sum of Rs. 30 lakhs to the Company between 14th May, 2007 and 26th September 2007 towards the purchase of the Companys leasehold rights in respect of Plot No. H-16, ...
Union of India, Ministry of Railways, Through Dy. Chief Engineer Vs. D ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
Oral Judgment: 1] These appeals are directed against the judgments and awards passed between 9.1.2006 and 7.5.2007 by the Ad-hoc District Judge, Amravati on the references sought by the land owners whose lands situated at village Shirala, tahsil and district :Amravati were acquired for the public purpose Narkhed Railway Route. 2] Details like survey number, gat number, area acquired, names of the owners, compensation fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer etc. are reproduced below in tabular form:Sr.No.F.A.NoSurvey No./ Gat No.TotalAreaAreaAcquiredName of ownerCompensationawarded byS.L.A.O.LACNo.Date ofDecisionCompensationby Referencecourt1785/0816141.09H.R.1.09 H.R.DineshPanjabrao Patiland another (Res)69,000/- P.H.32/0303/05/071,00,000/- P.H.2786/0816021.34H.R.1.34 H.R.PurushottamKrishnaraoBijagare(Res)69,000/- P.H.34/0304/05/071,00,000/- P.H.3787/0810291.21H.R.0.56 H.R.Ibrahim KhanChhotekhan(Rres)69,000/- P.H.47/0304/05/071,00,000/- P.H.4792/0815961.22H.R.0.38 H.R.Shankarrao...
Kashinath Jairam Shetye and Another Vs. the State of Goa, Through the ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. Menezes, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs : a. for any appropriate writ, order or direction directing and commanding the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to carry out and conduct a fair, proper and wholesome investigation into the offences registered vide Crime No.113/2009 of the Pernem Police Station, and thereafter to file a report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure within 3 months, and to take all such other action as law mandates in that regard, or, b. In the alternative for any appropriate writ, order or direction directing and commanding the Respondent No.1 to transfer the investigation into the matter to the CID-Crime Branch, or any such other independent investigating agency, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit; c. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to ca...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Bijendra Prasad S/O Trimak Prasad Pande and O ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
Oral Judgment This appeal is arising out of the judgment and award dated 20.7.1991 passed by the Civil Judge, senior Division, Wardha in L.A.C. No.1/1986 whereby the reference sought by the land owners was allowed partly. 2] For the construction of Dham Irrigation Project the lands situated at village Masod, tahsil and district Wardha were acquired vide notifications dated 12.2.1976 and 15.7.1976. The Special Land Acquisition Officer held enquiry under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and declared its award. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer the land owner sought reference for enhanced amount of compensation. The state opposed the reference on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was just and adequate. 3] Learned Reference Court formulated necessary issues. Evidence, oral as well as documentary was adduced before the Reference Court. After considering the same, the learned Referen...
Dhuplal Son of Tilakchand Nagpure Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard rival arguments on this criminal appeal, preferred by the convicted accused/appellant, challenging the judgment and order of conviction in Special Case No.29/1995. 2. Perused the record and proceedings and the relevant documents in the matter. The impugned judgment and order was passed on 20.8.1998 by the Special Judge, Gondia, whereby the accused was acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for seven days. 3. Prior to ascertaining whether the Special Court had properly appreciated the evidence brought before it, the case of the prosecution as narrated before the trial Court so also as mentioned in the First Information Report c...
Baliram S/O Hausaji Ingole and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
Oral Judgment: 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for hearing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties finally. 2] By the present petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order, dated 19.6.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basmat, below Exh. 24, in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2012. 3] The brief facts in nut shell, which gave rise to the present petition, are as mentioned below. Respondent no.2 Radhabai Keshav Ingole is the first informant, who has filed the complaint against the petitioners and co-accused on 12.9.2011. It is alleged therein that on 12.9.2011 at about 8.00 p.m. the informant along with her husband, namely Kishan had dinner and were sleeping in the court yard, situated in front of their house. At this juncture, the n...
Kishor S/O Ravindra Zope and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Thro ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. By consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. This petition challenges the legality and correctness of the order dated 19th September, 2011, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Jalgaon, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2011, holding that the appeal was not maintainable, and that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to decide the Misc. Civil Appeal. 3. Facts leading to the litigation, in short, can be stated as under:- “The petitioners have lands at village Pimpri Sekam, Taluka Bhusawal, District Jalgaon. Respondent No.3/licensee-company proposed to erect towers in the lands for transmission lines. Initially there was some resistance from the petitioners for the respondent No.3. So, respondent No.3 made an application to the Collector under the provisions of Rule 3 of the Works of Licencees Rules, 2006 (made under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003) (henc...
Smt. Padma Srinivas Mahale and Others Vs. Collector and District Magis ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri V.A. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in First Appeals No.20/2007, 21/2007 and 180/2007, Shri J.P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in First Appeal No.178/2007, Shri A. Kakodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent no.1 and Shri M. Amonkar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.2. 2. All the above appeals were taken up together for final hearing and disposal taking note of the fact that all the Counsel appearing for the respective parties have pointed out that the issues involved in all the above appeals are similar and, as such, the same can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that in all the above appeals, land belonging to the appellants was notified by the Government of India under Section 3 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 on 16/03/1992 restricting the user of such land under Section 7(b) of the sai...
Union of India Represented Through Chief Engineer and Another Vs. M/S. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
R.D. Dhanuka, J. Both these Appeals arise out of the same order and were therefore heard together and are being disposed off by a common order. Appeal No. 121 of 2009 is filed by the Union of India (UOI) challenging the order passed by the Learned Single Judge refusing to set aside some of the claims awarded in favour of the Respondent. Appeal No. 782 of 2010 has been filed by the Contractor challenging the Order passed by the Learned Single Judge setting aside one of the claims awarded by the Arbitrator in favour of the Contractor. Since these are cross appeals, we will refer to the parties as ‘the contractor’ and ‘UOI’. 2. On 21 December 1995 UOI invited tenders for replacing of BER A.C Plant at NAD, Karanja. The Contractor submitted its tender on 5 February 1996. UOI issued an acceptance letter on 9 April 1996 in favour of the Contractor. The contract was awarded at Rs.86,13,066/-. The date of commencement as provided in the Work Order was 24 April 1996 and t...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »