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.
Sadanand Shivaji Kadam Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) By this Appeal, the Appellant has taken an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 30th May, 2012 passed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the Appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code as well as for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”). For the offence punishable under Section 447, the Appellant has been convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. For the offence under Section 302 of the IPC, he has been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. FACTS OF THE CASE: 2. The case of the prosecution i...
Shantaram Narayan Raut Vs. the Additional Collector and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
Oral Judgment: 1 Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, heard finally. 2 By this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Additional Collector, Nashik District, Nashik dated 05.03.2012 on the Dispute Application No.2/2012 which order is confirmed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik by his order 28.03.2012 in Appeal No.44/2012. 3 The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to this Writ Petition filed an application bearing Dispute Application No.2/2012 against the Petitioner invoking the jurisdiction and authority of the Additional Collector, Nashik under Section 16(1) and (2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short “the Act”). 4 The allegation contained in this application briefly is that by virtue of Section 16 of the Act, the elected member can be held to be disabled from continuing as such if at the time of his election or appointment he was su...
Mahadeo S/O Maruti Bhanje Vs. Balaji S/O Shivaji Pathade and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
U.D. Salvi, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been referred to us to answer the following questions of law; i] Whether the view taken by learned Single Judge of this Court in “ AjitNarsinha Talekar Vs. Smt. Nirmala Wamanrao Kakade and others” 2010 (5) Mah.L.J. 481, “ BhagwandasKanhaiyyalal Bubna Vs. Shyamsundar Wasudeo Bubna and others” (2010 (1) Bom.C.R. 218, and “ Vinods/o Khimji Lodaya and another V. The Chief Executive Officer and others (Civil Revision Application No. 123/2009), is legal and proper and the trial in civil suit commences on the date of the framing of the issues or that it commences from the date of filing of affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief? ii] Whether proviso appended to Order-VI Rule-17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is attracted after framing of the issues or it will come into play only after stage of filing of affidavit/s in lieu of examination-in-chief of witnesses? 2. Proviso to Order-VI Rule-17 of the Code of Civil Procedure...
Yamunabai Namdeo Dhumal Vs. Ratnakar Vithoba Paymode and Others
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 application, preferred by the applicant (original complainant) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he prayed that the impugned order, dated 21.9.2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parner in R.T.C.No. 159 of 2001 below Exh.91 be quashed and set aside and also prayed that the said application Exh.91 be allowed. 3] The brief facts in nut shell, which gave rise to the present application, are as follows:- The applicant, who is the first informant, lodged the complaint/first information report against the respondents/accused on 2.9.2001, which was registered under C.R. No. I-212 of 2001 against the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 37(1)(3) of the Bombay Police Act. It is alleged by the compl...
Sadanand Shivaji Kadam Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) By this Appeal, the Appellant has taken an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 30th May, 2012 passed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the Appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code as well as for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC). For the offence punishable under Section 447, the Appellant has been convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. For the offence under Section 302 of the IPC, he has been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. FACTS OF THE CASE: 2. The case of the prosecution is that the dec...
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 the stipulated date of comple...
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...
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...
Shantaram Narayan Raut Vs. the Additional Collector and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
Oral Judgment: 1 Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, heard finally. 2 By this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Additional Collector, Nashik District, Nashik dated 05.03.2012 on the Dispute Application No.2/2012 which order is confirmed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik by his order 28.03.2012 in Appeal No.44/2012. 3 The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to this Writ Petition filed an application bearing Dispute Application No.2/2012 against the Petitioner invoking the jurisdiction and authority of the Additional Collector, Nashik under Section 16(1) and (2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short the Act). 4 The allegation contained in this application briefly is that by virtue of Section 16 of the Act, the elected member can be held to be disabled from continuing as such if at the time of his election or appointment he was subjected to any...
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...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »