Mumbai Court November 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.
Chandrakant and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. The petitioners are the accused in R.T.C. No. 315 of 2012 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar. The said case arises on the basis of a complaint lodged by the respondent no.2 herein, alleging commission of offences punishable under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and section 495 of IPC, read with section 109 of IPC. The Magistrate, after examining the respondent no.2 on oath, in accordance with the provisions of section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), directed to issue process against the petitioners with respect to the aforesaid offences, by an order dated 05.01.2013. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have approached this Court invoking its constitutional jurisdiction. 3. Heard Mr. N.V. Gaware, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Heard Mr. S.R. Palnitkar, the learned Addi...
Sumit Santosh Sahadev (Varma) Vs. the Electoral Registration Officer a ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2013
Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. 1. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is heard finally. 2. The petition pertains to the petitioner's claim for inclusion of his name in the voters list for the purpose of Elections of Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation. 3. Present writ petition and few more petitions espousing similar cause were heard on 13.11.2013 till 6.00 p.m. and the judgment was reserved. 4. The petitioner claims that:- [a] He is a resident of Ahmednagar. [b] He has applied for inclusion of his name in the voters list on 25th September, 2013. [c] As per the programme regulating elections declared by the State Election Commission for the purpose of preparation of voters list, the respondent No.1 was to publish the Final Voters' list on 13.11.2013 under Section 7A of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act ("MMC Act" hereinafter, for the sake of brevity). The electoral role under the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 ("Act of 1950" hereinafter, for the sake o...
Gayatri Narendra Kulkarni @ Diplai Suhas Tare Vs. the State of Maharas ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2013
RavindraV. Ghuge, J. 1. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is heard finally. 2. The petition pertains to the petitioner's claim for inclusion of her name in the voters list for the purpose of Elections of Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation. 3. Present writ petition and few more petitions espousing similar cause were heard on 13.11.2013 till 6.00 p.m. and the judgment was reserved. 4. The petitioner claims that :- [a] She is a resident of Ahmednagar. She got married on 5.5.2011 and her name changed to Gayatri Narendra Kulkarni. [b] As per the programme regulating elections declared by the State Election Commission for the purpose of preparation of voters list, the Electoral Registration Officer [not impleaded in this petition] was duty bound to include her name in the voters' list on 13.11.2013 under Section 7A of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity "the MMC Act"). The electoral roll under the Representation of...
Maharashtra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Another Vs. Kawadu Pandurangj ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-21-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2] This petition challenges the order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No. STC/81/2003, deciding a preliminary issue and holding that the appointment of the respondent no.1 employee was as per the provisions of Section 5 of M.E.P.S. Act read with Rule 9 (9) of the Rules framed thereunder. The order holds that the respondent no.1 employee belongs to Scheduled Caste category and though he was appointed against a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate, there was no restriction for making an appointment of a candidate belonging to another reserved category, if the candidate belonging to category for which the post is reserved is not available. 3] The petition also challenges the ultimate judgment and order dated 06.01.2012 passed by the School Tribunal in the said Appeal, holding that the initial appointment of the responden...
Sudamrao Keshawrao Aher and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Throu ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2013
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. These Writ Petitions relate to step up of pay of the Petitioners to the level of employees junior in service as employees junior are drawing higher pay. 3. Learned counsel for both sides agree that both the Petitions raise similar dispute. As such for details, we are referring to the facts and material as brought before us in Writ Petition No.10283 of 2012, although both Petitions are heard and are being disposed together. 4. The Petitioners were working as Associate Professors in the Respondent No.5 College. Now Petitioners (as in Writ Petition No.10283 of 2012) have retired. Petitioners had obtained their Ph.D. Degrees in respective faculties. There are other Associate Professors who are juniors to the Petitioners and obtained their Ph.D. Degrees subsequent to the Petitioners. In the implementation of the 6th Pay Commission, they are getting higher salaries. Their names are...
Sudhir Kanulna Vs. State
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-20-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) The appellant-accused has approached this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 4th/5th June, 2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (2), South Goa, at Margao in Sessions Case No.8/2008, thereby convicting the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sentensing him to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of two months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under: The accused and the deceased were residing in the same locality. It is the prosecution case that the accused, deceased and their friends celebrated a Christmas party on 25th December, 2007 and when the party was going on, the accused and the deceased left the party to consume some liquor in the bar of one Chandrakant alias Raghunath PW.9; that they consumed liquor at the bar and thereafter left the bar. The dead body ...
Shrikrishna Ganuji Sonone Vs. Vitthal
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-20-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Khamgaon in Regular Civil Appeal No.68 of 1988 on 14.10.1997 thereby partly allowing the appeal and setting aside the decree of specific performance granted in favour of appellant in Regular Civil Suit No.86 of 1987, decided on 22.4.1988. 2. This appeal is being heard afresh on merits after the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent bearing Civil Appeal No.10537538 of 2011 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos.2859728598 of 2010) filed against the judgment of this Court in this appeal delivered on 17.12.2009. By this judgment, this Court had allowed the present appeal and decreed the suit as ordered by the trial Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court, however, for the reasons stated in the order dated 2nd December, 2011 passed in aforestated Civil Appeal, set aside the said judgment and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal on merits. 3. It was the case of the app...
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Udhao and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-20-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. First Appeal No.859/2012 arose out of the judgment and award dated 28.2.2011 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.64/2006, whereby the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur allowed the application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- along with simple interest @ Rs. 7% per annum from the date of application till its realization. 3. First Appeal No.861/2012 arose out of the judgment and award dated 28.2.2011 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.65/2006, whereby the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur allowed the application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- along with simple interest @ Rs. 7% per annum from the date of application till its realization. 4. It is not in dispute that both the awards under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act arose out of the same incident of accident. In the case registered as MA...
ishrat HussaIn Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. The applicant was prosecuted vide RCC No. 649/2008 on the allegation that he had committed an offence punishable under section 174A of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the petitioner was an accused in RCC No.913/1999 which was in respect of an offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. That, the petitioner did not remain present before the trial court in that case inspite of the fact that a proclamation requiring him to remain present was issued by the Trial Court as contemplated under section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate, after holding a trial, convicted the petitioner of an offence punishable under section 174A of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to suffer R.I for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, but further directed that instead of sending the petitioner to prison, he be released on his executing a bond of Go...
Mala Umesh Mehta Vs. Avr Logistic Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2013
Oral Order : 1. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally. 2. The applicant is one of the accused accused No.4 in SCC No.232/2012 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Aurangabad. The said case is in respect of an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and arises on a complaint filed by the respondent no.1 herein. The respondent nos.3,4 and 5 herein are the other accused accused nos.1,2 and 3 respectively, in the said SCC No.232/2012. The applicant is aggrieved by the order issuing process against her as passed by the Magistrate and has approached this Court invoking its inherent powers and praying that the order issuing process against her be quashed and set aside. 3. I have heard Mr. P.K.Lakhotiya, the learned counsel for the applicant. I have heard Mr.Amol Gandhi the learned counsel for the respondent no.1. I have heard Mr.P.N.Muley, the learned APP for the respondent no.2. 4. It is the contention of the learne...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »