Mumbai Court September 2012 Judgments
Phulchand S/O Uttamrao Andhare and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. Both the Writ Petitions are based on similar facts and involve common question of law as such are decided together. 3. The petitioners in both these petitions were issued licences for running LoknatyaKala Kendras. The same were issued by the Additional Collector, Latur under Rule 92 of the Rules for Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusement (Other than Cinemas) and Performances for Public Amusement Including Mela, Tamashas, 1960. The said licences of the petitioners are in force till 2015 as contended by the petitioners. 4. It appears that show cause notices were issued to the petitioners seeking explanation from them as to why their licences should not be cancelled. The said notices are received by the petitioners on 17.08.2012. On 21.08.2012, the petitioners sought time to file their say. On same day i.e. on 21.08.2012, respondent no. 3 Thasildar ...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Its Divisional Manager Vs. Sheik ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the “Act”) taking an exception to the judgment and award dated 18.12.2007 passed by Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act-Labour Court, Yavatmal in W.C.A. No.39/2002 whereby the petition for grant of compensation was partly allowed directing the appellant and respondent no.4 to pay total amount of compensation of Rs.87,034/- on account of injuries sustained by one Shaikh Rashid (since deceased). 2. Shaikh Rashid, the deceased was working as a driver on Truck No. MH-29/6677 owned by respondent no.4. On 10.08.2002, the truck met with an accident and in that accident Shaikh Rashid got injured, resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 35%. On 19.09.2002, the deceased filed petition claiming compensation of Rs.1,74,068/-. On 29.05.2004 i.e. during the pendency of the petition, he died. Hence, his legal heirs-respondent nos. 1 to 3 were brought on record. 3. Mr. ...
Tag this Judgment!Otto Jaime Hamilton P. De Souza and Another Vs. Pandurang Vishnu Mahat ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri S. Karpe, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. None for the respondent though served. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith. 3. The short point for consideration in the above petition is as to whether the impugned orders passed by the Authorities below to the effect that the Rent Controller has no power to grant an amendment of the main eviction application under the provisions of Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 are justified. The Authorities below have come to the conclusion that no such powers are vested in the Rent Controller in view of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.814/2010. The said judgment passed by the learned Single Judge came to be referred to a Larger Bench and by order dated 11/09/2012 passed in the above proceedings the learned Division Bench has come to the conclusion that the Rent Controller has powers to grant an amendment of the main application and/or re...
Tag this Judgment!Uttamkumar S/O. Chandrakant Wagh and Another Vs. the State of Maharash ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
1. Heard Adv. Mr. V.D. Salunke with Adv. Mr. B.N. Patil for the applicants, and learned APP Mr. B.J. Sonwane for the respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, taken up for final hearing. 3. By the present application preferred by the applicant nos.1 and 2, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants have prayed that the judgment and order dated 4-8-2012, passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Latur, in Criminal Revision No. 58/2012, thereby dismissing the revision, and the order dated 25-7-2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Court No.5, Latur, C.R. No. 3015/2012, registered at M.I.D.C. Police Station, Latur, in respect of cancellation of bail of the applicants, be quashed and set aside. 4. The factual matrix which gave rise to the present application is as follows : (a) An offence was registered bearing No. 3015/2012 under the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of Bombay Prevention ...
Tag this Judgment!Raju S/O Dadarao Mhaslekar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
U.D. Salvi, J. 1. Judgment and order dated 13.7.2011, passed by the learned Extra Joint Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in Sessions Case No.81/2010 find challenge in the present appeal. The appellant/ accused has been convicted of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and is presently undergoing life imprisonment. The appellant/ accused has also been sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for two years in addition to the life imprisonment imposed on him for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He has been further sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default to suffer S.I. for six months on the second count. 2. The appellant/ accused and the deceased Laxmibai were husband and wife who lived together at village Mhasla, Taluka Badnapur, District Jalna. The appellant/ accused was a stunt man, who performed daredevil acts (Maut K...
Tag this Judgment!Raju S/O Shankar Kadam (In Jail) Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Bhangale, J.) 1. The appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.8.2008 delivered by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad in Sessions Case No.69 of 2006, whereby the accused was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in-default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. The accused was also found guilty of offence punishable under section 404 of the Indian Penal Code for which he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.200/- in-default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. Substantive sentence of imprisonment was directed to run concurrently. 2. The facts stated briefly are as under: Deceased Balwant Bhimrao Shinde was a teacher and had taken on contract the field of Tejmal Gandhi Trust for cultivation. Shri Balwant Shinde was cultivating the field with the help ...
Tag this Judgment!Unique Integrated Transport and Management Consultancies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
1. The Plaintiff has sued for recovery of Rs.8,03,77,289/- from the Defendants jointly or severally along with the interest and costs from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of realisation as would be awarded by this Court. 2. The Plaintiff has averred that it was awarded contracts worth Rs.2.14 Crores by Defendant No.1 for construction of PVC Duct System for cables for telephones in Bombay area. The Plaintiff has made various allegations of how Defendants 2, 3 and 4 who are the officers of Defendant No.1 sought to be corrupted and, since the Plaintiff did not surrender to their demands, made baseless claims against the Plaintiff. 3. The Plaintiff has averred that 3 bank guarantees were given by the Plaintiff through Oriental Bank of Commerce and Federal Bank Ltd., towards the contracts of the Plaintiff. The guarantees expired. Thereafter they were wrongfully got extended by the Defendants and encashed. The Plaintiff has also averred that payments were withheld and the cl...
Tag this Judgment!Wainganga Bahu-uddeshiya Vikas and Others Vs. Diwakar S/O Maloji Kambl ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Heard. Admit. Taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties. 2. In these Letters Patent Appeals, a common judgment and order dated 12th September, 2011, passed in Writ Petition Nos.1301/2011 (Wainganga Bahuuddheshiya Vikas Sanstha and others Vs. Anil Devaji Gaikwad and others), 1978 of 2011 (Diwakar Maloji Kamble vs. Wainganga Bahuuddheshiya Vikas Sanstha and others), 1979 of 2011 (Anil Dewaji Gaikwad vs. Wainganga Bahuuddheshiya Vikas Sanstha and others), 1315 of 2011 (Wainganga Bahuuddheshiya Vikas Sanstha and others Vs. Rajkumar Kisanrao Bhagat and others) and 1314 of 2011 ((Wainganga Bahuuddheshiya Vikas Sanstha and others Vs. Diwakar Maloji Kamble and others), by which the learned Single Judge of this Court held that the prior permission of the Nagpur University was required before terminating the services of the original appellants Anil Gaikwad, Diwakar Kamble and Rajkumar Bhagat who had filed appeals before ...
Tag this Judgment!Sumer Builders a Partnership Firm and Another Vs. Municipal Corporatio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
1). The petitioners carry on business as builders. In the year 1995, they purchased the land in question alongwith the structures/buildings standing thereon. The dispute raised in the present petition relates to the property taxes payable in respect of the land to respondent no.1-Municipal Corporation. Respondents no.2 to 5 are the officers of respondent no.1. 2). For the purpose of its development, whenever the petitioners demolished the structures standing on the land in question, the assessment of property taxes in respect thereof had been revised in view of the demolitions. Later, when the petitioners submitted the building construction plans for approval to respondent no.2, they had paid sewerage charges. They had also been paying water taxes separately. Therefore, they had contended before the respondents that they were not liable to pay water tax and sewerage tax included in the property tax bill and requested for deletion of the two taxes. The contention of the petitioners was ...
Tag this Judgment!A.P. Kamble Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secret ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
Oral Judgment:- (A.M. Khanwilkar, J.) Heard Counsel for the parties. 2) Rule. Mr.Gokhale, learned AGP, waives service for Respondent No.1 and Mr.Kumbhakoni waives service for Respondent No.2. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 3) This Petition takes exception to the decision of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, in Original Application No. 730 of 2012, dated 2nd August, 2012. By that order, the Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Respondent No. 2 challenging the transfer order passed against him, dated 2nd August, 2011. The Tribunal has recorded the following reasons in support of its decision, which reads thus:- “8. After hearing Shri. Bandiwadekar, the learned Counsel for the Applicant, Shri D. B. Khaire, the learned C.P.O. For Respondent No. 1 and Shri K.R.Jagdale, the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2, it is clear from the record of the transfer file that there was no proposal to transfer either the applicant or Respondent...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »