Mumbai Court March 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.
Kalyan S/O Dhondiba Lende Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Its Sec ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-05-2013
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. This petition takes exception to the order date 23.04.2012, passed by the Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, Maharashtra, State, Mantralaya, Mumbai in Revision No. (VAM-1012/PK 108-12/NP-21). 3. The background facts, which lead to institute the present writ petition, as disclosed in writ petition, in nutshell, are as under:- a) The petitioner herein is the card holder of the fair price shop of respondent No.5 and on the basis of the complaints made by the petitioner and other villagers, the licence to run the said fair price shop has been cancelled. The said fair price shop was allotted in favour of respondent No.5 for village Hirapur. Respondent No.5 was selling the food grains at higher rate and was giving less quantity of food grains to the card holders. He was also selling the food grains and kerosene in black market. Therefore, the petitioners and other card holders made complaints against...
Gulabrao Ganpat Bawaskar and Others Vs. Sau. Bebi W/O Dnyaneshwar Ingl ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-05-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Notice for final disposal of the matter was issued by this Court on 10-10-2012. The respondent is served and is represented by Shri S.G. Gawai, Advocate. 2. Admit. Heard the matter finally by consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties. 3. Regular Civil Suit No.47 of 2001 was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Buldhana. Hence, the original plaintiff preferred the Regular Civil Appeal No. 180 of 2003. By Judgment and order dated 17-10-2005, the appellate Court allowed the appeal and passed a decree, declaring the Sale Deed dated 20-4-1999 bearing No.1489 executed by the appellant No.1 in favour of the appellant No.3 and the Sale Deed dated 16-2-2000 executed by the appellant No.3 in favour of the appellant No.2 to be null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The defendant No.2 is directed to handover the possession of the suit land to the appellant and enquiry into mesne profits as contemplated under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code ...
Nagorao Parshuram Sugave and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra Thro ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-05-2013
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. This petition takes exception to the order date 06.06.2012, passed by the Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai in Revision No. VAM-1011/P.K.302-11/N.P. 21. 3. The background facts, which lead to institute the present writ petition, as disclosed in the writ petition, in nutshell, are as under:- a) The petitioners herein are the card holders of the fair price shop of respondent No.6 and on the basis of the complaints made by the petitioners and other villagers, the licence to run the said fair price shop has been cancelled. The said fair price shop was allotted in favour of respondent No.6 for village Ghungrala. The card holders from village Wanjarwadi were also attached to the shop of respondent No.6 for some period. Respondent No.6 was selling the food grains at higher rate and was giving less quantity of food grains to the card holders. He was also selling t...
Jose Marie Albert Vales, Alias Robert Vales Vs. the District and Sessi ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-05-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri S. G. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Ms. Milena Pinto, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent. 2. The above Petition challenges an Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 31.07.2012 in the Revision challenging the Order dated 29.02.2012 passed by the learned JMFC, Margao, in Criminal Case no. 380/S/03 dismissing the application dated 25.01.2012 filed by the Petitioner, came to be rejected. 3. The short point for consideration in the above Petition is what procedure is to be followed in proceedings which have been initiated at the instance of the learned Sessions Judge for offences punishable under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code which is a warrant triable case otherwise than on police report. 4. Shri S. G. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, pointed out that though the proceedings are to be considered as a warrant triable case otherwise than on police report, the learned Magistrate h...
SachIn S/O. Dnyaneshwar Shete Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-05-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. ADMIT. 3. Heard finally by consent of parties. 4. Both the writ petitions are being decided by a common judgment as the impugned orders passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate against the petitioners are more or less similar. Both the petitioners are brothers. About 6 to 7 criminal cases are pending against both of them. Last case reported against the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.123 of 2013 is of the year 2010. Similarly, last case reported against petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.124 of 2013 is also of the year 2010. Both of them are involved in Crime No.112 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. There are no adverse report after 2010 against either of the petitioner. The orders of the Sub Divisional Magistrate are based on the reports submitted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer. It appears from the orders that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had agre...
Samadhan S/O Suryakant Akoskar Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through I ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-05-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.H. Joshi, J.) 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned Advocate for the parties. 2] Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner, learned AGP for the respondent nos.1 and 3 and the learned Advocate for the respondent no.2. 3] The petitioner had applied to the respondent no.3 for issue of a tribe certificate. His claim was that he belongs to Koli Mahadev scheduled tribe. His application has been rejected by order dated 22.9.2011. The said order is a speaking order and is seen at Annexure C page 33 of the paper book of the petition. 4] The petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent no.2. It is designated as appellate authority u/s 5 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act in short). Th...
Vidarbha Mining Association Vs. Central Government Tribunal and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-05-2013
Oral Judgment On Preliminary Issue. (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) Heard Shri S.V. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri V.S. Kukday, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.K. Mishra, learned A.S.G.I. for respondent no.2, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.3 and Shri G.G. Modak, learned Counsel for respondent no.4. As requested by them, preliminary objection raised by respondent no.4 regarding territorial jurisdiction, is being, decided finally by this order. 2. Submission of respondent no.4 is, as the revision is decided by the Mining Tribunal constituted under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 at Delhi and its decision is being questioned in the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, no part of cause of action has accrued in the State of Maharashtra within the jurisdiction of this Bench. 3. Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel while meeting with this preliminary objection has invited attention to parag...
Vinayak Ranum D.P. Loundo Vs. Ms. Amira A. Razaq and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-05-2013
Oral Judgment:- Heard Shri S. G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above petition seeks to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 21.03.2011 passed in Eviction Appeal No. 10/2007 and also the order dated 16.11.2011 passed in Review Application No. 8/11. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondents filed an application for eviction under Section 22(2)(a),(b),(c),(f) and 23(b) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 before the Rent Controller at Panaji. The petitioner filed his written statement disputing the claim put forward by the respondents. The ground for eviction on which the respondents sought the eviction of the petitioner is essentially on the ground that the premises which is consisted of a garage was leased to Shri R. D. P. Loundo situated on the ground floor of the building known as Yasin Manzil s...
Somnathappa S/O Nagnathappa Halge Vs. Kamalbai W/O Govindlal Goud, Sin ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-05-2013
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 15th December, 2010 (Annexure-F) passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parali Vaijinath, below Exhibit115 in Regular Darkhast No. 55 of 2004 and order dated 15th December, 2010 (Annexure-H) passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parali Vaijinath, below Exhibit1 in Regular Darkhast No. 44 of 2004 thereby dismissing the Execution Petition on the point of limitation. It is further prayed that, Regular Darkhast No. 55 of 2004 may be restored to its original position. The petitioner herein, is the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 271 of 1976. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff herein, that, on 15th December, 1973 father of petitioner namely Nagnathappa s/o Tatyaappa Halge had allotted property worth Rs. 2,00,000/to his son Prabhuappa Halge out of his self acquired property but the aforesaid Nagnathappa had enjoyed the possess...
Smt. Sonali Sanjay Duragkar and Another Vs. Smt. Panchfulla and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-05-2013
Oral Judgment Admitted. Heard finally by consent. Heard learned counsel Mr.B.P. Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicants; Mr.M.G. Sarda, learned counsel for non-applicant no.1 and Mr. Nitin Rode, learned Addl. P.P. for non-applicant no.2-State. 2. The applicants are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 418, 420 and 423 of the Indian Penal Code on the complaint made by the respondent no.1. 3. The respondent no.1 had filed a private complaint before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur against the applicants and two others, namely, Raju Thakre (accused No.3) and Prakash Gawande (accused No.4). It is the case of respondent no.1 that an agreement in respect of sale of property situated at Plot No.98-B, Khasra No.24, City Survey No.40 admeasuring 1440 sq.ft. was entered into by the accused no.3-Raju Thakre on behalf of the applicants. The respondent no.1 had parted with an amount of Rs.45,500/- by way of part payment towards the purchase of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »