Mumbai Court January 2013 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.
Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Konkan Mercantile Co-operative Ban ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, petitioner seeks to challenge the award dated 23rd June, 2010 made by the learned arbitrator allowing the claims made by the respondent against the petitioner in the sum of Rs. 5 lacs with further interest at the rate of 10% p.a. 2. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: (a) Respondent nos.2 to 5 are members of the respondent no.1 bank. The respondent nos. 2 to 5 obtained housing loan of Rs. 5 Lacs from the first respondent. The first respondent issued Pay Order in favour of P and K Estate towards purchase of flat by respondent no. 2. It is the case of the first respondent that the said pay order was collected by the second respondent to hand it over to P and K Estate. Respondent nos. 2 to 5 executed various documents in favour of the first respondent for availing the said loan. The second respondent failed to make repayment of the loan to...
Vedansh Hospitality and Resorts Limited Vs. New India Co-operative Ban ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2 The Petitioners (original-Respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5) have challenged award dated 13 July 2011 passed by the sole Arbitrator (Respondent No.4), under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act) and Section 84 of the Multi-States Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (for short, MSCS Act). 3 The operative part of the impugned award is as under:- AWARD 1) I, Suresh B. Pawar, Arbitrator, under Section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 do hereby declare that the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover from the Opponents, jointly and severally a sum of Rs.15,80,25,186.54 with interest thereon @ 12.50% p.a. from 01.08.2010 till realization of claim. Hence, all Opponents do pay jointly and severally to the Disputant Bank Rs.15,80,25,186.54 with costs of Rs.25,000/- and interest thereon @ 12.50% p.a. from 01.08.2010 till realization of claim. 2) The applicant Bank is entitled to dispose of th...
Mahadev Vs. State Through P.P.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) The appellant, who is the original accused, is challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 20th September, 2011, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, South Goa, Margao in Sessions Case No.19/2010. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, by the judgment and order was pleased to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence him to suffer rigorous life imprisonment and payment of fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years. It was directed that the fine amount should be paid to the mother of the deceased. (Hereinafter, the appellant, shall be referred to as the "accused"). 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused was the uncle of the deceased and the families of both, the accused and the deceased, were residing in their ancestral house in separate parts of the house. The deceased was staying in his hou...
Vilas Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
This appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 19th October, 2011 passed by the Special Judge, Osmanabad in Special (Atro.) Case No.13 of 2010. Appellant is convicted for offence under Section 342 of Indian Penal Code and directed to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer S.I. for one month. For offence under Section 3(i)(xii) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and directed to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for one month. For offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and directed to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/-, in default, to suffer S.I. for six months. For offence under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and to undergo S.I. for ten days and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to suffer S.I. for one day. All sentences were directed to run concurrently. FACTS :- 2. On 25th Janu...
Gajendra Puranrao Tayade Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Misc. Criminal Case No.178/2011 on 3rd October 2012, which runs as under:- "1) The application below Exh.7 is hereby rejected. 2) As the complaint was sent for investigation u/s 156(3) of Cr. PC. To PSO Khallar and PSO has registered FIR. There is no any proceeding is pending in this court to pass any order accordingly proceeding below Exh.1 is disposed of." 4. This order was passed by the learned Magistrate below applications (Exhibits 1 and 7). The petitioner wanted the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(v), 3(1)(viii), 3(1) (ix), 3(2) (vii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 to be added in the F.I.R. registered by Police being F.I.R. No.M-1 dated 23rd November 2011. The s...
Bharat Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Buldana on 21st September, 2012 directing externment of the petitioner for a period of two years from the districts of Buldana, Akola, Washim, Jalna, Parbhani and Aurangabad and dismissal of appeal filed by him before the Government of Maharashtra. The impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is dated 21st September 2012 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal is dated 29th November 2012. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Sadavarte for the petitioner has submitted that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in his order has nowhere stated that he himself was satisfied that order under Section 56 was necessary to be passed. Sub-Divisional Police Officer. It is submitted that the order, therefore, suf...
Balasaheb Bansi Raut Vs. Savita Shrihari Khetre and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. 2. Rule was issued on 30th June, 2006. Stay to the prosecution to the extent of original accused no.7 (petitioner) was granted. Mr.Bora informs, prosecution against rest of the accused has turned into acquittal, however, he has no certified copy of order. Learned counsel for original complainant does not dispute this position. 3. Irrespective of such acquittal, perusal of F.I.R. of the victim demonstrates that sweeping allegations are made against the petitioner who is maternal father-in-law of the complainant. He resides independently at Nalwandi, Tq.Georai, away from the residence of her husband. 4. In the result, F.I.R. to the extent of applicant - Balasaheb is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute....
MohioddIn and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard learned Adv. Mr. F.T. Mirza for the applicants and learned APP Mr. M.K. Pathan, who waives notice on behalf of respondent. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this Application is heard finally at the stage of admission. Affidavits filed by all the applicants are taken on record. 2. By this application, the applicants seek quashing of First Information Report No.2/2013 dated 4th January, 2013 registered at Khandala Police Station, District Yavatmal, for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. While the Applicant Nos.3, 4 and 5 are the accused, the applicant Nos.1 and 2 are first informant and injured respectively. 4. All the applicants have filed their individual affidavits, inter alia, stating that they have settled the dispute amongst themselves and criminal proceedings initiated by applicant no.1 by lodging the First Information ...
Vitthal Janardan Phadke Vs. Prabhakar Mohiniraj Wable and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
1] Heard learned Advocates for the applicant and the respondent no.1 as also learned AGP for the respondent nos.2 to 4. 2] Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Advocates for the parties. 3] This is an application for review of the judgment and order dated 23.10.2012 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 146/2012 in Writ Petition No.4914/2012 passed by Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble S/Shri Justices Naresh H. Patil and A.B. Chaudhari. 4] At present, Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh H. Patil is not sitting at Aurangabad. The matter could have waited till arrival of Justice Patil, however, the relief subject matter of Letters Patent Appeal and the civil application for review has a life only up to 31.3.2013. In that background, learned Advocate for the applicant urged for taking up the civil application for review by this Court, which even otherwise could have been taken in view of present standing orders. The matter is, therefore, taken up for hearing. 5...
Shankar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. The appeal is admitted on 23rd May, 2012. Since the appellant is in custody, priority is given to the appeal, pursuant to order of this Court dated 19th June, 2012. 2. The appellant impugns conviction recorded in Sessions Case No.14/2011 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhokar, District Nanded, for an offence under Section 307 of IPC, directing to undergo R.I. for seven years and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, R.I. for three months by order dated 15th May, 2012. 3. The complainant - Bhagwan Maroti Pimpale resides at Balegaon, Tq.Umri while the accused is also resident of the same village. In the wee hours on 8.10.2010 at around 3.00 a.m., when the complainant Bhagwan was sleeping in court-yard with his wife PW No.2 -Smt. Satyabhama Pimpale, the accused sneakily barged and brutally assaulted the complainant with bamboo stick by 5-7 strokes. In fact, the presence of the accused/appellant was sensed owing to barking of the dogs, resultantly, PW No.1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »