Mumbai Court June 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.
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Umashankar S/O. Narmadaprasad ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-26-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr.B.Lahiri, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mrs.M.H.Pathade, learned Counsel for respondent no.1. Though served, none appears on behalf of respondent no.2. 2. The appellant/Insurance Company has questioned the judgment and order passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No.891 of 1999 on 4.7.2008 whereby it was held that the claimant was entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs.1,05,500/- along with interest @ 7.5 % p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation. Joint and several liability was imposed upon the Insurer as well as owner of the vehicle by the Tribunal. 3. It is the case of the appellant/Insurer that the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.MH-31/AA-9407 was a Bajaj Scooty with engine capacity of 60 cc and, therefore, a person below the age of 16 years could not have been allowed to drive the said vehicle in the public place. It is contended that there was breach of Section 4 of the Motor Veh...
Satish S/O. Dhanmal Sanghavi Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-25-2013
1. The proceeding is filed for challenging common order made by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon in M.C.A. Nos. 686/2010 and 694/2010 and also to challenge the common judgment delivered by Jalgaon Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Nos. 51/2011 and 55/2011. The revisions were filed against the aforesaid common order made by J.M.F.C. Both the sides are heard. 2. The petitioner had taken loan from a Credit Society for purchasing Volvo bus No. MH-19/Y-4444. It is his case that he had repaid the entire loan amount, but the Credit Society had taken the custody of bus from him prior to that and Credit Society refused to give custody of vehicle to him. It is his case that he then gave report to police against Chairman and Directors of the Society and on the basis of report, the crime came to be registered for offences punishable under sections 406, 420 etc. of Indian Penal Code. The said vehicle came to be attached in the crime and the petitioner filed M.C.A. No. 686 of 2010 for int...
Sambhaji S/O Chindhuji Pachare Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-25-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1) The present Criminal Appeal takes exception to judgment and order dated 31.3.2009, passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Chandrapur, in Sessions Case No.113 of 2008, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months; and for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2) The case of the prosecution in nut-shell is as under: The appellant Sambhaji s/o Chindhuji Pachare had given information to the Police Station, Ghuggus, that on 5.6.2006 at about 4.00 am, his wife Shalu was seen burning in the house near the cot and in the said incident in which his wife died. On the ...
Union of India, Through General Manager, Central Railway, Cst Vs. Smt ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-25-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is an appeal against judgment and order dated 10th August 2007 delivered by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench directing appellant Railway to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 400,000/-. 2. Facts, briefly stated, are thus On 7.1.2002, respondent was travelling from Kalyan to Kanpur along with her son Satendar Kumar. They purchased railway tickets no. 63094952 and 63094953 for general compartment of Kushinagar Express. However, on arrival of the train at Kalyan Station, the doors of general compartment were not opened by the passengers inside and they entered reserved compartment. Respondent Sumitradevi requested TTE of reserved compartment to allot them berths in a sleeper coach to which TTE said that since there was no berth then available, he would allot them as and when there is availability. Respondent and her son then sat on floor near toilet. TTE could not allot berths upto Bhusawal and advised them to approach...
Vinod S/O Khimji Lodaya Vs. Muljibhai S/O Maujibhai Patel and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-25-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The present Civil Revision Application takes exception to the Order dated 03/10/2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad, thereby rejecting the application below Exh. 80 filed by the applicant. 3. It is the case of the applicant that the land bearing City Survey Nos. 12889, 12889/1 and 12889/2 i.e. old Survey No. 38 situated out side Jafar Gate, Mondha Road, Aurangabad is the subject matter of the proceedings before the Maharashtra State Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad in Wakf Case No. 11 of 2005 and the Wakf Case No. 22 of 2005 pending before the Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad. The Wakf Case No. 22 of 2005 is already decided, however Wakf Case No. 11 of 2005 is yet pending before the Maharashtra State Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad. 4. It is the further case of the applicant that the respondent No. 17 has i...
Hareshwar Hiraji Patil, Since Deceased by His Heirs and Legal Represen ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Oral Judgment: (V. M. Kanade, J.) 1 None appears on behalf of the Petitioners. We have perused the Petition. By the interim order which was passed in the Civil Application, this Court was pleased to direct the Respondent-Corporation to deposit 80% amount of Provident Fund, Gratuity and other retirement dues in this Court and to pay balance of 20% amount to the Applicants, heirs of the Original Petitioner. 2 The brief facts of the present Petition are as under: The Petitioner was convicted for giving bribe of Rs.400/- to his Officer in Special Case No.1 of 1987 by the Special Judge, Thane under Section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Appeal filed by him against the order of conviction was admitted. During the pendency of the Appeal, a show cause notice dated 31.07.1991 was issued by the Divisional Controller of the Respondent asking the Petitioner to show cause why his services should not be terminated. Despite the reply being filed by the Petitioner, the Divisional Controller...
Adityadeep Flat Owners Association and Another Vs. State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Oral Judgment: (R.M. Borde, J.) Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3. Petitioners who are residents of Adityadeep Complex, N-6, Sai Nagar, Aurangabad, are praying for issuance of directions to respondents restraining them from constructing public toilet and latrine on the open space adjacent to the shopping complex. According to petitioners, Development Control Rules framed by Aurangabad imposes prohibition for construction of latrines in the open space. Rule 13.3.1.3 of the Rules reads thus : "13.3.1.3. The structures to be permitted in the open spaces shall be as per the following provisions; i) They shall be single storyed structure with the maximum area not exceeding 10% of the open space. This shall be further subject to a maximum of 200 sq. m. ii) The structure shall be used for the purpose of pavilion or gymnasia or other activities which are related to open spaces; and iii)...
Harichandra Pundlik Ughade and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, Throu ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2) The petitioner No.1 claims that he had purchased agricultural land Gat No.282/2, situated at Mouza Rasa, Tahsil Wani, District Yavatmal from legal heirs of Bapurao Wararkar on 20/08/2001 under registered sale deed. According to the petitioners, it was for the first time on 09/07/2004 respondent No. 6 Sou.Nirmala Baburao Turankar had obstructed petitioners' right of way enjoyed by the petitioners, since the date of their registered sale deed dated 20/08/2001. Therefore, instead of quarreling with the said lady, the petitioners claiming right of way had approached Revenue Authorities i.e. Tahsildar, Wani, District Yavatmal. On 19/03/2005, Naib Tahsildar Wani heard Revenue Case No. 1/RTW/2004-05 and passed order dated 19/03/2005 granting 4 feet wide right of way using the boundary of adjacent land bearing Field Survey Nos.316 and 317, ...
Dipak S/O. Ambadas Gaikwad and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Both the appellants have been convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati by his order dated 18th September, 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 366A and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the former offence and rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the later offence. Appellant Dipak Gaikwad in Appeal No. 502 of 2012 and appellant Raja @ Rajesh Gawai in Appeal No.521 of 2012 will be referred as appellant No.1 and appellant No.2, respectively, hereinafter. Both the appeals are being decided by a common judgment and order as they arise out of one and the same judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. 2. The appellants and the complainant/ victim Puja Thakur are residents of same locality of Amravati town and are very well-known to each other. The incident in question had occurred on 12th December, 2010 at about 20.00 to 20.30 hrs. It was r...
Dhondiba Namdeorao Bhosale Vs. Syed Ismail Syed Asadulla (Died Through ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.8.1987 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 13/1982 decided by 2nd Additional District Judge, Latur, by which, the lower appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court. 2) In support of the appeal, Mr. S.S.Bora, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Second Appeal is being pressed only in so far as the part of the appellate decree in Para No.28 of the judgment, setting aside the decree of the trial court in respect of costs of improvement. Mr. Bora further submitted that no other points are being raised by him in this appeal except the above. 3) According to Mr.Bora, the lower Appellate Court placed reliance on Section 51 of The Transfer of Property Act,1882 to come to the conclusion that the Civil Court cannot decide the issue about costs of improvement and the issue be always left to be decided by the Executing Court when the execution proceedings are filed. The only reason, given by the low...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »