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.
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...
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Mirabai Wd/O Ganpat Khank ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
Oral Judgment: Both these appeals are arising out of judgments and awards dated 06.10.2001 passed in Claim Petition Nos.112/1996 and 113/1996. Both these claim petitions arose out of the motor vehicular accident occurred on 16.12.1995 on Chinchpalli to Mul road near village Chinchpalli within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Mul involving motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-34/1332 and Truck bearing registration No.MH-34/A-3005. The motorcycle was driven by one Ganpat. The motorcycle was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Limited whereas the truck was insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd.- appellant herein. In the accident, Ganpat and both the pillion riders died. Therefore, their case is that on account of negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle, the accident occurred. The appellant also took plea that the truck was not insured with them. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. filed reply and denied the claim. 2. The learned Tribunal framed as many as ...
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...
Raul Prazeres Vs. State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri S. Narvekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents no.1 and 2, Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.3 and Shri M.B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor. 2. The above petition challenges an order passed by the respondent no.2 dated 9/12/2005 whereby the petitioner was directed to demolish the disputed structures in the property surveyed under no.266/2 of Mandrem village. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are that the respondent no.3 on 10/08/1992 issued a permission to the predecessor in title of the petitioner for reconstruction of the existing old house bearing no.435, 435/4, 435/5 and 435/6 in the property surveyed under no.266/2 at Mandrem village. On 5/01/1993, the respondent no.3 issued a reconstruction permission to the said predecessor in title for reconstruction of the existing old ...
Bharat Biotech International Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Oral Judgment: (S.A. Bobde, J.) 1. Heard Mr Aspi Chinoy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners,Mr. E.P.Bharucha, learned Senior Counsel for respondent-nos.1 and 2 - M.C.G.M and Chief Engineer, Central Purchase Department, Mr M.M.Vashi, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Mr D.D.Madon, learned Senior Counsel for respondent nos 4 and 5, at length. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, with consent of parties. 3. The petitioners have challenged the grant of a contract in pursuance of a Tender for the supply of Rabies Vaccine in favour of respondent no.3, who is a Distributor of respondent no. 4 and respondent no. 5 is a Division/manufacture unit of respondent no.4. The main contention of the petitioners is that respondent no.3 is not qualified since the Performance Certificate submitted by them is not in accordance with the prescribed proforma, which is a mandatory condition of the Tender document. 4. Respondent no.4 is a limited Company. Respondent no.5 is a...
State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Sou. Shantabai W/O Sacchidanand Ag ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Oral Judgment: All these four appeals are arising out of judgments and awards passed by the Reference Court -Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati in the matter of references sought by the land owners under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. These references were sought disputing the compensation awarded for the lands acquired for the public purpose i.e. for establishing Amravati University Campus being L.A.C. No. 87/1987, 09/1987, 15/1987, 7/1989 and 23/1987. 2] Details like survey number, area acquired, compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer are reproduced below in tabular form: Sr NoCase No.Survey / Gat No.Total area (H.R.)Area acquired (H.R.)Name of ownerCompensation awarded by S.L.A.O.LAC No.Date of DecisionCompensation by Reference courtName of Advocate for Respdt.Appellant1525/96525/96 12/2 12/32.43 2.882.43 2.88Sou. Shantabai w/o. Sachhidanand Agrawal...(Resp).35,000/-87/8724/04/961,25,000/- P.HAdv. P.N. and P.P. Kothari, S. Ansari, V.S. Kolhat...
G.N. Gawade Vs. State of Goa (Through Chief Secretary) and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Counsel for the respondents waive notice. By consent, heard finally forthwith. 2. By this Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12/3/2012, passed by the State Police Complaints Authority, Altinho, Panaji-Goa, as against the petitioner and also the Charge Memorandum bearing No. DE-16/2012/6747/2012 dated 31/7/2012 issued by the Office of Director General of Police, Goa, pursuant to the impugned order dated 12/3/2012 passed by the State Police Complaints Authority. 3. The Respondent no. 3 had filed a complaint dated 06/08/2007 to State Police Complaints Authority (S.P.C.A.). alleging that on 8/7/2005 when he had questioned one Ramanand Chodankar about the cutting of bhendi tree by him from the property of respondent no. 3, said Ramanand came and assaulted him with a koita on his left forearm as result of which he suffered injuries. It was further al...
Ram S/O Atmaram Dongarwar Vs. the Corporation of the City of Nagpur, T ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) Heard Shri. A. M. Ghare with Shri. Gadhia, leaned Advocate for petitioner and Shri. S. M. Puranik, learned Advocate for respondent No. 1. Nobody appears for respondent No. 2. 2. Effort of petitioner is to demonstrate that for promotion to the post of Assistant Education Officer, as per 50 points roster, first 19 points have been exhausted and against point No. 20, earmarked for open category, candidate from Scheduled Caste has been promoted. It is pointed out that initially when petition was filed, this promotion order was not issued and petition has been allowed to be amended to incorporate challenge to that order. Respondent No. 2 is the person, who has been promoted as Scheduled Caste candidate. 3. In reply, respondent No. 1 has pointed out that in said roster, total 24 points were already exhausted and point No. 25 was open for promotion. That point was meant for Scheduled Caste category and accordingly, respondent No. 2 has been promoted aga...
Bharat Biotech International Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Oral Judgment: (S.A. Bobde, J.) 1. Heard Mr Aspi Chinoy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners,Mr. E.P.Bharucha, learned Senior Counsel for respondent-nos.1 and 2 - M.C.G.M and Chief Engineer, Central Purchase Department, Mr M.M.Vashi, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Mr D.D.Madon, learned Senior Counsel for respondent nos 4 and 5, at length. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, with consent of parties. 3. The petitioners have challenged the grant of a contract in pursuance of a Tender for the supply of Rabies Vaccine in favour of respondent no.3, who is a Distributor of respondent no. 4 and respondent no. 5 is a Division/manufacture unit of respondent no.4. The main contention of the petitioners is that respondent no.3 is not qualified since the Performance Certificate submitted by them is not in accordance with the prescribed proforma, which is a mandatory condition of the Tender document. 4. Respondent no.4 is a limited Company. Respondent no.5 is a...
G.N. Gawade Vs. State of Goa (Through Chief Secretary) and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Counsel for the respondents waive notice. By consent, heard finally forthwith. 2. By this Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12/3/2012, passed by the State Police Complaints Authority, Altinho, Panaji-Goa, as against the petitioner and also the Charge Memorandum bearing No. DE-16/2012/6747/2012 dated 31/7/2012 issued by the Office of Director General of Police, Goa, pursuant to the impugned order dated 12/3/2012 passed by the State Police Complaints Authority. 3. The Respondent no. 3 had filed a complaint dated 06/08/2007 to State Police Complaints Authority (S.P.C.A.). alleging that on 8/7/2005 when he had questioned one Ramanand Chodankar about the cutting of bhendi tree by him from the property of respondent no. 3, said Ramanand came and assaulted him with a koita on his left forearm as result of which he suffered injuries. It was further al...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »