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.
Manojkumar Pradeep Gupta and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) All these appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 02.03.2007 passed by the 2nd Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Jude, C.R. No.8, Sewree, Mumbai in Sessions Case No.344 of 2003 and 264 of 2004. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted all the appellants under Sections 396, 397 and 449 read with 34 of IPC and sentenced them as follow:-Convicted u/S.Sentenced to396Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000 each IDRI for 6 Months.397R.I. for 7 Years449 r/w 34RI for 10 Years and fine of Rs. 1000 each IDRI for 1 month. The learned Sessions Judge also directed that the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the appellants as they were referred to before the trial Court as follow:Appeal No.Name of the AccusedReferred in Trial Court695 of 2007Ashok Appa ChavanAccused No.1185 of 2007ChandyaRamswarup PawarAccused No. 2119...
M/S. J. Gala Enterprises Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the Gove ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
K.K. Tated, J. 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 By this Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A, the Petitioners seek declaration that clause 10(a) of Appendix III under Regulation 33 (7) of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 as embodied in the Notification dated 21st May, 2011 is unconstitutional, ultra-virus, void, illegal and of no effect. 3 A few facts of the matter are as under: In or about 1992, the Petitioners purchased property being a piece and parcel of land bearing City Survey No.1A/782, 2/783, 783, 784, 785 and 786 of Mazgaon Division known as Doctors Compound, admeasuring about 11968 square meters situated at D.L. Marg, Chinchpokli (East), Mumbai 400 012. The said property consists of 17 cessed structures and 11 non-cessed structures. Near about 220 families were occupants/tenants in respect of the said property. The Petitioners with the co...
Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur Vs. Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
A.P. Bhangale,J. 1 Rule. Counsel for the respective Respondents waive notice. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2 The Petitioner-in-person claims that he is a Social Activist and takes up Social causes in public interest. He prays for a writ of mandamus against Respondent No.1, the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred as NMMC for short) for direction to cancel development permission (Exh.'N') given to Hotel Tunga Regency Private Limited, Vashi, the Respondent no. 4 herein (hereinafter referred to as Tunga for short) and for the direction to City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra, the Respondent no. 2 (hereinafter referred as CIDCO for short) to cancel the leave and license agreement at Exh. 'B' regarding allowing parking of the vehicles upon public parking plot no. 36-B and to hand over the said plot to NMMC, the Planning Authority, for public parking management and for direction to the State of Maharashtra to investigate the events leading...
Sparebanken Sogn Og Fjordane and Another Vs. M.V. Bos Angler and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Plaintiff for directions in the suit relating to the admissibility of the documents of the Plaintiff, the cross examination of the Plaintiff's witnesses and for expeditious progress of the hearing of the above suit and the suits filed by the defendants herein being Admiralty Suit Nos.32 of 2011, 26 of 2011, 53 of 2011 and 54 of 2011. 2. It may be at once be mentioned that in view of the amendment of the Civil Procedure Code in 1999 and 2002 (CPC) more specially by the amendment to Order 8 Rule 1 and Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC, all suits are in essence expedited. 3. So soon as writ of summons is served or is even deemed to be served and the defendants are represented in the suit, the Written Statement would have to be filed within 30 days, except when the Court, for specified reasons, allows the defendant to file the suit within a extended period of 90 days under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC. 4. After the Written Statement is filed it is for the cou...
Gajanan Laxminarayan Pedhiwal Vs. Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the report of the Grievance Committee dated 9.7.2012 as also the communication issued by the Registrar of the Amravati University dated 12.7.2012, informing the petitioner that the Vice-Chancellor has by exercising the power under Section 14 (7) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1994 for the sake of brevity) accepted the report of the Grievance Committee, holding that the respondent no.6 was senior to the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as a lecturer in the College at Washim on 30.11.1992. In the year 1995, the petitioner was declared as surplus in the College at Washim and was absorbed in the respondent no.5 College at Akola. The respondent no.6 was also appointed as a lecturer in the respondent no.5 College at Akola in December, 1997. It is the case of...
Namdeo Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
NareshH. Patil, J. 1. The Appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 27th May, 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No.102 of 2010, convicting the Appellant Namdeo Bapurao Gund under Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-(Rupees One thousand), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 10th April, 2010 the husband of PW3 Parubai Gund, namely, Kisanrao had gone to field known as Saundadicha Mala in the morning hours at about 10.00 a.m. There were tamarind trees in the field and fruits from those trees were to be thrashed. One servant namely Katkar resident of Ruie village was engaged in that work. Radhabai, Vijubai, Reshmabai were also in the field for collecting fruits of tamarind trees. These ladies were resident of villa...
Bharat S/O Bahadur Ingale Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
Oral Judgment: (Naresh H. Patil, J.) 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3] The petitioner, who is a life convict, challenges the order dated 30.10.2012 of the Home Department of the State of Maharashtra. Under the impugned order passed by the State, the petitioner was placed in category 2(c) of the guidelines issued by the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, on 15.3.2010 under a resolution. 4] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that considering the facts of the case and the reasoning adopted by the trial Court, the petitioner has to be placed in category 1(c) of the old guidelines of the year 1992. The learned counsel places reliance on two judgments of Division Bench of this Court delivered in Criminal Writ Petition No.1030/2011 on 13.2.2012 and another in Criminal Writ Petition No.630/2010 on 21.9.2010. The learned counsel submits tha...
PravIn G. Joshi and Others Vs. Mrs. Sarojini Gangdhar Kulkarni and Oth ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member: [1] These three appeals since are in the nature of sister appeals, are disposed of by this common order. All these appeals arise out of an order dated 23/6/2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (hereinafter referred to as the Forum for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.171 of 2004, Shri Pravin G. Joshi and Others Vs. Smt. Sarojini Gangadhar and Others. Hereinafter the parties are described with reference to their respective status in the consumer complaint. [2] Complainants, Mr. Pravin G. Joshi, Mr. Sanjay V. Valsangkar, Mr. Balkrishna H. Saravade and Mr. Sanjay G. Paranjape are the apartment-owners in a building known as Shri Samarth Krupa and their respective apartments are situated on the first floor and second floor of the said building and their apartment numbers are 101, 102, 201 and 202 respectively. The Opponent No.1, Smt. Sarojini Gangadhar Kulkarni is a housewife who is occupying ground floor cons...
Rajaram Tukaram Pawar Since Deceased Through Legal Heirs and Others Vs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-2013
Oral Judgment: By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Pune, dated 3 September 1990 in Revision application No.MRT/MS/XI/5/89. The impugned order declares the respondent No.1 as a tenant of the land. The petitioner is aggrieved by this declaration since the petitioner is a purchaser of the land from the original landlord. 2. Dispute relates to Survey No.173 (Gat No.213) situated at village Pachwad, taluka Wai, district Satara. The original landlord of the land was one Vasudev Kale. The husband of the respondent ie Narayan, and his brother-Hari, were tenants of the land from the year 1932 onwards. After the death of Narayan, Muktabai-the respondent, became the tenant of the land. 3. Before the impugned order was passed, some proceedings were undertaken in respect the land. The first proceeding took place in the year 1964 when the Tahsildar and the Agricultural Land Tribunal Wai (the Tahsildar) conducted proceeding under section 32 (G)...
Chandrashekhar Kashinath Patange Vs. Ramesh Kashinath Patange and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-2013
Oral Order: 1 Rule with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The above Petition takes exception to the order dated 6/7/2012 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Bombay by which order the Notice of Motion No.1305 of 2011 in SC Suit No.2123 of 2008 came to be rejected. 3 By the said Notice of Motion No.1305 of 2011, the Petitioner herein had sought the stay of the suit filed by the Respondent No.1 herein being SC Suit No.2123 of 2008 till the probate proceeding being Testamentary Suit No.33 of 2010 filed by the Petitioner herein is decided. 4 The suit in question has been filed by the Respondent No.1 for an injunction restraining the Defendant No.1 from objecting, obstructing, or interfering with the Plaintiff from managing the affairs of the suit property i.e. plot of land admeasuring 555.18 sq.meters bearing CS No.101/74 of Suparibaug Estage, Plot No.131 of Parel Sewree Division along with a building known as Shanti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »