Mumbai Court April 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.
Yusuf Mmehtab Qureshi Vs. Afzal Khan Safdar Khan and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent, calling for record and proceedings dispensed with. By consent heard finally, forthwith. 2. The petitioner had filed a complaint against respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein, alleging commission of various offences, such as cheating, forgery etc. by them. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 34th Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai, in whose court the said complaint was filed, had ordered an investigation into the matter as contemplated under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After investigation, the police reported that, there was no case for proceeding against the respondents i.e. the accused named in the complaint. The learned Magistrate, based on the report of investigation, concluded that, the dispute was of a civil nature and that, there were no ingredients of any of the offences. Holding so, he dismissed the complaint, by an order dated 18/3/2010. 3. The petitioner then approached t...
Ratan Vs. Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Limited and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
Oral Order: These two petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the proceedings filed by the respondents under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners contend that the proceedings filed are gross abuse of process of law. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner in the first petition, Mr. Lath, is a Director of the Company by name M/s. Valmark Developers Pvt. Ltd., (herein after referred to as 'the company'). The petitioner in the second petition, Mr. Tolia, is a businessman. The respondent no.1 herein had advanced a sum of Rs. 25 Crores to the company and Mr. Tolia for acquiring exclusive mining rights in respect of Iron ore mines situated in Karnataka. The amount of advance was agreed to be returned by exclusive sale of Iron ores from the mines to respondent no.1. The advance had been made in the year 2009 by issuing two cheques, one dated 26th September, 20...
Vilas S/O Rangrao Mahalle and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Thr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
By this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 15 Directors of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Amravati (Respondent No. 4) question the order dated 27.12.2011 passed by Respondent No. 2 District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, superseding it under Section 45 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as 1963 Act) and appointing an Administrator on it. The Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation), Rules, 1967 framed under this Act are hereinafter referred to as 1967 Rules. 2. This Court has on 16.01.2012, restrained Administrator from taking charge of A.P.M.C. and thus elected body viz., petitioners still continue to function. 3. The Notice under Section 45 of 1963 Act for supersession is on various grounds which require scrutiny of material on record as the petitioners wish to contend that the Charges are not proved against them. But th...
Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik Vs. Kalicharan and O ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
R.C. Chavan, J. Admit. Heard finally with consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal questioning judgment dated 16/8/2011 of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4339/2010 has been taken up for final hearing pursuant to the order dated 16/11/2011. 3. The facts, which are material for deciding this appeal, are as under : The respondent no.1 was employed by respondent no.2 Society in its respondent no.3 College as a Lecturer in the subject of 'Sharir Kriya' since 9/7/1986. It appears that he was appointed to teach Post Graduate Classes in the subject of 'Sharir Rachna' sometime in 1991 when the College was permitted to start such Post Graduate Courses. Armed with such experience, on 14/9/1996, the respondent no.1 is stated to have been promoted as a Reader in the Department of Sharir Rachna by the respondent nos.2 and 3. Though the appellant University was established in 1998, as regards post graduate courses, the affairs of respondent no.3 College were under the ...
Ku. Renu D/O Murlidhar Makde Vs. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj, Nagpur U ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. By consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-student seeks declaration that she is entitled to appear for 7th Semester Examination in the course of Engineering in view of clearing of backlog of 3rd and 4th Semester subjects in Summer Examination-2012, as per the result of the revaluation declared on 8.12.2012 and 1.12.2012. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2College, gave her provisional admission to Fourth Year of Engineering, which comprised of 7th and 8th Semesters, on 6.6.2012. 3. The petition came to be filed on 24.12.2012 and on that day, the Vacation Court issued notice. On 26.12.2012, this Court after hearing other side, by way of interim order, directed respondents to allow the petitioner to appear for Winter Examination-2012 for 7th Semester scheduled to commence from next day. The petitioner accordingly has appeared...
Hdfc Ltd. and Another Vs. Jesna Jose
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member (1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 25/11/2010 in Consumer Complaint No.457/2009, Jesna Jose Vs. 1.H.D.F.C.Ltd. and ors., passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane (Forum in short). (2) The facts of the case in brief can be summarized as under:- The complainant had taken a Forex Card from the opponent No.2 as she had to go to USA. She purchased the said card for security and convenience. The card No. is 4213 3100 0040 7245 and the credit limit of the card is $10,000. The opponents informed the father of the complainant that some unknown person had used the card for the purchase of $6,000. On 20/12/2008, the opponents were informed that the complainant has not used the card and further informed to freeze the card. She registered a criminal case on 24/12/2008 in Burbank Police Station, Los Angeles. She requested the opponents to supply the details of purchases made on the card. The opponents informed that out of 29 transactions...
Prakash Gobindram Ahuja Vs. Ganesh Pandharinath Dhonde and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
1. This appeal by the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.104 of 2012 before the IInd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan questions the order passed by him below Exhibit-5, rejecting his application to restrain defendant No.7 from creating third party interests in the suit property pending hearing of the suit. 2. It is the appellant's case that defendant Nos.1 to 6 owned the suit land and agreed to sell it to the plaintiff by two Agreements of Sale for Rs.30,00,000/- and Rs.17,40,000/-, of which the agreement for Rs.30,00,000/- was registered on 28-1-2011 and the other agreement remained to be registered. The plaintiff paid to defendant Nos.1 to 6 Rs.13,36,600/- towards the transaction. Defendant Nos.1 to 6 however executed registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.7 on 29-3- 2012 and the plaintiff now apprehends that defendant No.7 may create third party interests pending the suit. He, therefore, sought temporary injunction by application Exhibit-5 in the suit filed by him....
Raju Bhimrao Naik Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) This appeal is directed by the appellant-original accused against the judgment and order dated 07.12.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No.43 of 2007. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default S.I. for six months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (a) PW 2 Shankarayya is the first informant in the present case. He was working as a labour contractor in Rajarambapu Cement Factory situated at Laxminagar, Miraj, Sangli. As a labour contractor, he used to engage labourers from various villages. Some of the labourers he had engaged were Daryappa (deceased), the appellant and PW 6 Deepak. Rooms were provided to the labourers to reside in the factory premises. The appellant was residing in room No.4. Deceased Daryappa was residing in room No.2. So ...
Suresh Bhagwan Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) This appeal is directed by the appellant-original accused No.1 against the judgment and order dated 10.03.2006 passed by the learned II Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Baramati in Sessions Case No.19 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/- in default R.I. for six months. The appellant is also convicted under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/- IDRI for 3 months. The learned Sessions Judge directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (a) PW 9 Nanda was residing with her husband Chandrakant (deceased) at Village Hol, Taluka Baramati, District Pune. They had 7 milch cows which were kept for doing milk business. Chandrakant used to daily carry milk to Navnath Milk Dairy at Karanje Pool on his red colour ...
Girish Shrikrishna Sule and Another Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
In the midst of hearing it is noticed that the appeal can be disposed of finally on limited question of law. Therefore, Admit. 2. Respective Advocate agree for final disposal. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 3. Union of India filed suit seeking various reliefs which are in the nature of declaration and injunction. 4. The suit is based on title to suit property received by the Plaintiff through various proceedings for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. The declaratory relief that no area of land is parcel of suit survey number is left with defendants in suit is based on an analogy that no land was left with original owner in the plan of suit survey No.103-A annexed to the plaint, due to various acquisitions and parting of land by original land owner. 5. It is seen that the suit was resisted on various grounds ultimately by discussion and reasons contained in the judgment it has been partly decreed to the extent of prayer clause (c) covering 60 acres and 38 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »