Mumbai Court September 2012 Judgments
Avinash S/O Ramkrushna Lokhande Vs. Miyasaheb GramIn Bigarsheti Sahaka ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 3. The petitioner herein is the original accused in criminal case bearing No. S.T.C. 494 of 2009, filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "the said Act"), whereas the respondent is the original complainant therein. The factual matrix of the case, for deciding the instant writ petition, are as under:- 4. The respondent Patsanstha has contended that the petitioner had applied for loan for the purpose of business and accordingly the petitioner has executed necessary documents. It is further contended that for repayment of the loan amount, the petitioner has issued a cheque No. 611005, dated 29.5.2009, for an amount of Rs.2,57,295/-. It is further contended that the said cheque was presented for encashment on 13.6.2009. However, the sa...
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 No.2 b...
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!Mukesh S/O Ramshankar Shivhare Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. R.M. Patwardhan, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mrs. S.S. Jachak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. Admitted. With the consent of the learned counsel for respective parties, this Revision is finally heard at the stage of admission. 3. The present Application impugns the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.157/2009 below Exh.216. Exh.216 originally was the Application for recall of two Police Officers who had participated in investigation of the case i.e. Crime No.285/2008 of Ganeshpeth Police Station. It appears that the prayer for recall of witnesses was extended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor by filing a pursis to call the Chemical Analyser from the office of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, to examine him as a witness. As far as two Police Officers are concerned, it was stated before the learned trial Court that one of the Police Officers had recorded memorandum of st...
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!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. Chatterjee, le...
Tag this Judgment!Avinash S/O Ramkrushna Lokhande Vs. Miyasaheb GramIn Bigarsheti Sahaka ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 3. The petitioner herein is the original accused in criminal case bearing No. S.T.C. 494 of 2009, filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "the said Act"), whereas the respondent is the original complainant therein. The factual matrix of the case, for deciding the instant writ petition, are as under:- 4. The respondent Patsanstha has contended that the petitioner had applied for loan for the purpose of business and accordingly the petitioner has executed necessary documents. It is further contended that for repayment of the loan amount, the petitioner has issued a cheque No. 611005, dated 29.5.2009, for an amount of Rs.2,57,295/-. It is further contended that the said cheque was presented for encashment on 13.6.2009. However, the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Wainganga Bahuuddeshiya Vikas and Others Vs. Diwakar and Others
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 the Un...
Tag this Judgment!Taher Khan S/O Wahed Khan Vs. Sambhaji Khanduji Nagare (Deceased Throu ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
Oral Order: I have heard learned counsel for the parties present before the Court. 2. During pendency of this second appeal Respondent No.1 Sambhaji died. His legal representatives are brought on record as Respondent Nos.1A to 1G. 3. This second appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the first Appellate Court in MARJI No.86 of 2011 below Exhibit-1. 4. Few relevant facts for consideration of this second appeal are listed herein below: (a) Deceased Respondent No.1 had filed Regular Civil Suit no.346 of 1995 on 19th April, 1995 in the Court of learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad. This suit was for recovery of possession of Agricultural Land bearing Gat No.291, corresponding Survey No.187 situated at village Satara, Taluka and District Aurangabad, admeasuring 4 Acres and 27 Gunthas. It is alleged by deceased Respondent Sambhaji and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. the original plaintiffs that Land Gat No.187 was owned and possessed by Narayan Shivla...
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!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »