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.
Sunil Subhashrao Ubale Vs. Vandanabai Sarjerao Mhaske and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-05-2013
Oral Judgment: With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The claimants had filed petition U/Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The same was partly allowed. The Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount to the claimants and recover from the owner. The owner has assailed the said order to the extent of directing the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the owner. 3. Shri Bora, the learned counsel submits that, merely because excess passengers were carried, that was no ground to direct the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the owner. According to the learned counsel, there was sole claimant. The total capacity of said ape rickshaw was three plus one. According to the learned counsel the claim was made only in respect of one person and in such a case, the Insurance Company would not be entitled to recover the amount from the owner. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V...
Smt. Vaishali Sudhakar Badhe Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-05-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Shri Sirpurkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Nayak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Rule. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties and the learned A.P.P., heard forthwith. 3. Briefly, the facts leading to filing of the petition are as under.: The petitioner herein initially filed a report against respondent No.2 for commission of an offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code at Civil Lines Police Station, Akola. Since the police did not take any action, the petitioner filed criminal complaint under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.1 at Akola on 06/12/2008. The learned Magistrate passed an order under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P. C. directing investigation on 17/12/2008. Pursuant to the said order, the Officer-in-Charge of Civil Lines Polic...
Padmabai Dattatraya Bhojne Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-05-2013
PER COURT: 1) Heard. By the present Criminal Application, the applicant Smt. Padmabai has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 3rd January, 2013 below Exhibit-6 in RCC No.2/2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 3rd Court, Paithan. Order: "In the present case, charge sheet has been filed on 2.1.2013, and today accused is furnishing bail, therefore, in such circumstances, considering legal position, right of accused to furnish bail, has stood forfeited as soon as charge sheet is filed. Hence, following Order; Application stands rejected." 2) The said order was confirmed in Criminal Revision on 11.12.2013. 3) Mr.Gore, while extensively arguing the matter, placed reliance to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of, a) Uday Mohanlal Acharya Vs. State of Maharashtra 2001 AIR (SC) 1910; b) Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujrath 1996 AIR (SC) 2897; and c) Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi Vs. State, GNCTD and Ors. - 2012 AIR SCW 6026....
Ramdas Borkar, Rep. by Goa Shipyard Workers Union and Another Vs. M/S. ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-05-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri A.F. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri M.S. Bandodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1. 2. The above petition challenges the order 24/04/2003 and award dated 1/07/2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Panaji inter alia holding that the action of the employer/the respondent no.1 herein in terminating the service of their workman/petitioner herein with effect from 16/02/1984 is legal and justified. 3. Shri A.F. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on three counts. It is his first contention that the first order dated 24/04/2003 being the findings on the preliminary issues no.1, 2 and 3 stand vitiated as according to him the inquiry which was conducted by the respondent no.1 is in breach of the principles of natural justice. It is further the contention of the learned Counsel that the petitioner was not even offered liberty of engaging an authorized representative to d...
Renuka Chandrasekaran and Another Vs. Dharam Deepak Khosala Prop. of M ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2013
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member 1. This is a complaint against the opponent/builder/developer alleging deficiency in service in respect of agreement to purchase a bungalow developed and constructed by the opponent/builder as per the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and agreed to be purchased by the complainant for the consideration of Rs. 87,00,000/- as per MOU dated 26/06/2008. The reliefs claimed inter-alia include making the title clear by the opponent/builder/ developer claiming possession of the bungalow by way of removal of deficiency, and also a compensation for the delayed possession, mental torture and inconvenience caused, etc. 2. The subject matter of the dispute is a Bungalow no.470 situated on Plot no.36 in the project Prem Nagari situated in Gat no.27 at Village Pali Devad, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. 3. It is the case of the complainant that consequent to MOU dated 26/06/2008, which was entered between builder/developer Mr.Dharam Deepak Khosla and his fathe...
Gopal Singh Vs. the Union of India, Through the General Manager Cst, M ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2013
A.K. Basheer, Member (J) 1. Applicant while he was working as Senior Publicity Inspector at Solapur under the Central Railway had faced disciplinary proceedings under Rule 9 of the Railway Servant's (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules 1968 on a charge that he had demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.800/-from one Y.K.Magar who had been permitted to install a Glow Sign Board near the exit gate of platform Nos.2/3 in Daund Railway Station. The gravamen of the charge was that the applicant in his capacity as Publicity Inspector had met the licensee Shri Y.K.Magar, (owner of Hotel Yogiraj) and informed him that he was liable to pay charges for both sides of the Glow Sign Board even though the Railway Administration had been collecting license fee only for one side. According to the licensee he was forced to pay Rs.1,200/to the applicant in order to settle the issue and escape from the liability to pay the alleged arrears of license fee for the previous three years. Even thereafter...
Hitesh Kanhaiya Wadhwani Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2013
P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The learned APP submits that there is some undisplaced fracture of the right patella according to the Medical Certificate issued by Bhagwati Hospital. The learned counsel for the applicant has made available for my perusal a copy of Medical Certificate which he has obtained by paying requisite fees to the Bhagwati Hospital. Medical Certificates are taken on record and marked as 'X' for identification. It shows that there is no fracture on the right patella. What has been observed in the Medical Certificate produced by the learned APP is only a suspected fracture which upon X-ray was found to be non-existence. The learned APP also states that a rod has to be recovered and applicant has to be put to test identification parade for being identified by two witnesses, who do not know the applicant. Considering nature of allegations made particularly, the fact that the first informant - injured person had, not only stated that he h...
Ramkrishna @ Sameer @ Balkrishna Chandra Parsekar Vs. State of Maharas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2013
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) This appeal is directed by the appellant-original accused against the Judgment and Order dated 26.06.2006 passed by the learned I Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.184 of 2005. By the said Judgment and Order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- i.d. R.I. for six months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (i) Deceased Kunda, daughter of P.W. 1 Yeshwant Kharat and P.W. 2 Sunita Kharat was married to appellant 3 years prior to the incident. The appellant used to sell snacks on the handcart. While doing his business a quarrel took place between appellant and the police. Hence the appellant was put behind bars for some time. During that period Kunda was residing with her parents. After returning from the jail, the appellant came to the house of P.W. 1 Yeshwant and he resided in Yeshw...
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs. the Official Liquidator (Hukumchand) M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2013
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard finally. 2. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 23rd October, 2012, passed by the Recovery Officer suo moto recalling an order dated 20th August, 2005, also passed by a Recovery Officer. 3. The case in a nutshell is this. A recovery certificate dated 26th February, 2004 was issued inter-alia in favour of the ICICI Bank Limited under The Recovery of Debts Due Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as DRT Act). ICICI assigned the debt to the petitioner. On the petitioner's application, the Recovery Officer by an order dated dated 20th August, 2005, added the name of the petitioner in the recovery certificate in the place of ICICI. Over seven years later, another Recovery Officer by the impugned order dated 23rd October, 2012, suomoto recalled the order dated 20th August, 2005 on the basis that only the Presiding Officer and not the Recovery Officer had jurisdicti...
Suresh Ganpat Makhamale Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2013
Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J. This appeal is directed by the appellant-original accused against the Judgment and Order dated 28.03.2006 passed by the learned 3rd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.435 of 2004. By the said Judgment and Order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- i.d. S.I. for two months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (i) Deceased Aruna was the first wife of the appellant. She was residing at Talegaon Dabhade, Taluka, Maval, District Pune. Thereafter, the appellant got married to one Sarala. On 23/7/2004 at 9.30 p.m. appellant came home and told Aruna that he does not want her and she should die. Saying this, the appellant poured kerosene on Aruna and set her on fire. Aruna was taken to Sasoon Hospital. There Aruna gave dying declaration. P.W. 2 Dr. Balwant was the medical officer on duty. P.W. 3 police he...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »