Mumbai Court November 2015 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.
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Prabhakar Nanaji Di ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-21-2015
1. This appeal has been preferred by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Nagpur, the acquiring body, challenging the judgment and order dated 22.12.2000, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur, in Land Acquisition Case No. 113 of 1995, enhancing the compensation for acquisition of the land i.e. Survey No. 288, admeasuring 3.15 HR from Rs. 55,000/- per hectare to Rs. 3,00,000/- per hectare. The claimants have also filed Cross Objection No. 3 of 2007 for claiming further enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq.mtr . Hence, both the matters are heard together. 2. The facts of the case are as under: The notification under Section 32(2) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), which is equivalent to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 04.02.1992 for acquisition of Survey No. 288, admeasuring 3.15 HR owned by the claimants. The notification under Section 32(1) of...
Subhash Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-21-2015
Oral Judgment : 1.Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 09th March, 2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, in Sessions Case No. 2 of 2013 convicting the appellant Subhash Balkrushna Buradkar of the offences under Sections 9 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month, and also for the offence under Section 354-A of Indian Penal Code, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant, who is in jail from 5th July, 2013. 2.In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution case is based on the solitary testimony of the girl child witness aged about nine years, and the Trial Court recorded conviction on the basis of the said evidence. He submitted that though the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a witness, but then, in th...
M/s. Gold Touch Real Estate Private Limited and Others Vs. Suresh and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-21-2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This First appeal by plaintiff assailing the dismissal of its suit for specific performance came to be admitted on 03.04.2013 and at that stage while passing orders on Civil Application No. 2507 of 2012, the appellant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.15 crore with the registry of this Court by 31.05.2013. Subject to such deposit interim direction to maintain status quo was continued. The said direction was questioned before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has on 07.07.2014 directed expeditious disposal of appeal. The deposit of Rs.4 crore made by the appellant with the Registry of the Hon'ble Apex Court was directed to the transferred to this Court. The amount of Rs.15 crore was thus substituted by the amount of Rs.4 crore. In the meanwhile, on 13.12.2013, Cross Objection filed by Respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 also came to be admitted for final hearing. 2. As per orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 07.07.2014, the Appeal and Cross Obje...
Dr. Purushottam Dattulal Paldiwal and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-21-2015
1. All these appeals are concerned with the compensation in respect for release of 8,000 sq.mtrs. of land (which is equivalent to approprimately 4 acres) out of Survey No.291/3, situated at Shegaon, from acquisition, under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, which shall hereinafter be called as the land in question?. The land in question was reserved in the draft development plan sanctioned under sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 by issuing the notification on 31-8-1976 in the official gazette for the purposes of Telecom Exchange Building with an expectation that it shall be acquired within a period of ten years therefrom, expiring on 3181986. Accordingly, a notification under sub-section (4) of Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act for acquisition of the land in question was issued on 6-7-1986. Though the draft award was prepared on 11-5-1987, by an order dated 28-7-1988 issued under Section 48 of the Land...
Sharma B. V. Coutinho Vs. Andre Lourenco Fernandes and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-20-2015
Heard S. Shet, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard by consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Mr. B. Sardessai, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of th e respondents. 4. By this petition the original defendant no. 4 has challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge(Ad-hoc), Margao below Exh. 41 dated 4.12.2014 by which the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. 5. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- The suit for the declaration was filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 11 against the present petitioner and respondent nos. 12 to 14. Summons were duly served upon the petitioner. The petitioner appeared on 17.7.2012 and matter was fixed for filing Written Statement on 2.8.2012. However, the defendant no.4/present petitioner failed to remain present. Subsequently matter was fixed on 30.8.2...
Faim @ Lala Ibrahim Khan and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-2015
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The appellants have questioned the correctness of the judgment and order dated 10.7.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai, District Thane in Sessions Case No.329 of 2007. By the said judgment and order dated 10.7.2012 the appellant- original accused No.2-Haresh Patil has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment of one year. The appellant -original accused No.1 Kamlesh @Babla @ Bablya Shankar Malpedi, accused No.2 Haresh Patil and accused No.3-Faim @ Lala Ibrahim Khan have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each. The Trial Court has thus convicted the original accused No....
Sanjay Gajanan Chivate Vs. Dr. Ramesh Yadu Kadam and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-2015
PC : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of parties. 3. Petitioner herein questions the correctness and validity of the order dated 29/01/2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Criminal Revision Application No. 15 of 2012. 4. Petitioner herein happens to be appropriate authority under the Preconception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (Hereinafter referred as PCPNDT Act). Petitioner herein filed a complaint against present respondent i.e. Dr. R. Y. Kadam who runs Mukta Hospital at Satara Road Taluka Koregaon. It is alleged that appropriate authority had reliably learnt that Dr. R. Y. Kadam i.e. present respondent is conducting his profession in utter violation of provisions of PCPNDT Act, 1994. That he has indulged into the activities such as detection of sex of the foetus and disclosing the same to the pregnant women. That with the aid and assistance of Advocate Varsha Deshpande (Member of District...
Balgonda Daulata Patil and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-2015
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The appellants, original accused Nos. 1 to 3 have challenged the Judgment and order dated 9.3.2007 passed in Sessions Case No.128 of 2005 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Sangli thereby convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to under go imprisonment for life. The appellants have also been convicted under Section 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months. The appellants have also been convicted under Section 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 months. The appellants have been further convicted under Section-201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months. The Trial Court has directed that all the substantive sentences to run concurrently. By the same Judgment and order dated 9.3.2007, the Trial Court was plea...
Purshottam Yeshwant Fal Dessai (deceased) and Others Vs. Ramakant Pain ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-20-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, Mr. Shivan Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents in Second Appeal nos. 25 and 28 to 31 of 2009 and Shri R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent in Second Appeal no. 60 of 2010. 2. Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, in support of the above Appeal and the substantial questions of law framed by this Court, has pointed out that before the learned Lower Appellate Court, the Appellants had produced the document of the Land Registration Records pertaining to the property described under no. 6352 which, according to the Appellants, corresponds to the suit property. Learned Counsel has thereafter taken me through the Judgment of the Lower Appellate Court to point out that though an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed by the Appellants which was allowed granting leave to the Appellants to produce such...
Saraswati Rajnikant Mayekar Vs. State of Maharashtra through its Secre ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2015
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner has challenged the order passed by Respondent No.2-Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 dated 30 July 2013, thereby declined to validate her Caste Certificate belonging to Macchimar Daldi?, Other Backward Caste, though the Vigilance Report supports her caste claim. The Petitioner thereby, also suffered an action of automatic disqualification as elected Corporator because of invalidation of her Caste Claim. Therefore, the present Petition. 3. This Court by order dated 24 October 2013, directed Respondent No.4-State Election Commissioner not to declare by-election from ward No.4(A) which is reserved for Backward Class of Citizens women of Respondent No.3-Corporation. The said order has been in force till this date. 4. The basic contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is revolving around Rule 17(11)(i) of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »