Advanced Search Results

Audumbar Manohar Randive and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and O ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 102, 141, 147, 148, 149, 300, 302, 304, 323, 326, 504 and 506; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 154, 165 and 313; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 3, 27, 45, 59 and 61

Reported in : 1998(5)BomCR53; 1998(2)MhLj511

Advocate for Appellant : Ms. Revati Mohite-Dere, ;Ms. J.S. Pawar, ;Adhik Shirodkar, ;Rajendra Shirodkar, ;Ms. B.L. Mahant and; P.N. Patil, Advs.

ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Since these four connected matters arise out of same set of facts and a common impugned judgment, we are disposing them off by one judgment.2. Five persons, namely Audumbar Manohar Randive, Sharad @...

Dattatraya Kundlik Gund Vs. the State of Maharshtra

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 304-B, 306 and 498-A; Code of Crimianl Procedure, 1973 - Sections 154, 161, 235, 313, 374, 377(1), 378(1) and 401(3); Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 3, 8, 9, 59 and 113-(A & B)

Reported in : 1999(4)BomCR21; (1999)2BOMLR641; 1999(3)MhLj149

Advocate for Appellant : P.N. Patil, Adv.

ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal the appellant challenges the Judgment and Order dated 7th November, 1992 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No. 89 of 1992, convicting and sentencing him...

Suri Rajendra Tower S.R.A. Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd Dinesh V. Shah (Chairm ...

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member 1. The consumer complaint is filed by the complainant/Society against the builder/developer, namely, Prithvi Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as ‘builder) and against its partners opponent Nos.2to5 for recovery of monetary claim...

Ramdas Abbasaheb Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Acts : Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986 - Sections 3(1) and 7; Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samities Act, 1961 - Sections 16(4) and 16(5)

Reported in : 2007(4)ALLMR276; 2007(2)BomCR615

Advocate for Appellant : P.N. Patil, Adv.

S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith and heard.2. The petition challenges an order dated 3-3-2005 passed by respondent No. 2, the Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune.3. It would be appropriate to preface...

Sampat Ramrao Shelke Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 149 and 304; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 3, 59, 61, 101, 105 and 114

Reported in : 1996(1)BomCR224

Advocate for Appellant : V.M. Thorat, ;P.N. Patil and ;Ratnakar Singh, Advs.

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31-7-1993, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, in Sessions Case No. 20 of 1992 convicting and sentencing him to under-go 7 years Rigorous...

Smt. Shantidevi Kamaleshkumar Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra Through I ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Reported in : 2006(1)ALLMR50; 2006(1)BomCR151; (2005)107BOMLR1040; 2006(1)MhLj111:2008AIRSCW7480

Advocate for Appellant : Y.S. Jahagirdhar, Sr. Adv., ;V.M. Thorat and ;P.N. Patil, Advs.

V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21st November, 2003 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste certificate given to the petitioner by the appropriate authority. According to...

Sunil D. Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 167(2); Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 376

Advocate for Appellant : P.N. Patil, Adv.

ORDERD.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard.2. By this application, the applicant takes exception to the order dated 25th September 2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ichalkaranji refusing to accept the bail and surety furnished by the...

M.A. Panshikar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Property

Acts : Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Sections 21, 21(2), 21(5), 22, 22A, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 28(2), 28(4), 29, 30, 30(1), 31, 31(1), 31(2), 32, 37, 37(1), 37(2), 40, 51 and 154; Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971 - Sections 3A; Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (Amendmend) Act, 1994; Development Control Rules, 1974; Draft Development Control Rules, 1985; Development Control (Amendment) Rules, 1994; Development Control Regulations, 1985; Draft Development Control Regulations, 1994; Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 - Sections 258; Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965

Reported in : 2002(5)BomCR318; (2001)4BOMLR662

Advocate for Appellant : G.E. Vahanvati, Advocate-General, ; N.P. Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader, ;S.G. Aney, ;S.M. Oak and ;R.S. Apte, Advs. ;V.M. Thorat, Adv. ; for P.N. Patil, Adv., ;Shekhar Naphade, Adv. ;for A.A

B.P. Singh, C.J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside three Notifications issued by the Urban Development Department of Respondent No. 1, the State of Maharashtra, all dated 4th October,...

Dr. Shilpa Suresh Shinde and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Other ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15 and 226; Admission Rules, 1991 - Rule 3

Reported in : 2000(4)BomCR242; (2000)2BOMLR80; 2000(3)MhLj529

Advocate for Appellant : V.M. Thorat and ;P.N. Patil, Advs.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 waive service through Counsel. Interveners waive service through Mr. Vashi. By consent, rule called out for immediate hearing and heard.2. The short point which arises for...

Jagdishprasad M. Joshi Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 132

Reported in : (2005)195CTR(Bom)10; [2005]273ITR296(Bom)

Advocate for Appellant : F.V. Irani, ;Murlidharan, ;Sachin Mahale and ;P.N. Patil, Advs. i/b., V.M. Thorat, Adv.

1. Rule. The respondents waive service. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing.2. On March 14, 2002, search and seizure operations were conducted by the Department under Section 132 of the...