Mumbai Court June 2008 Judgments
D.D. Udeshi and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR2282
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the process issued on 21.7.2006 against the applicants i.e. the accused Nos.4 to 10 in complaint case No. 97/SS/2006 pending before the Special Metropolitan Magistrate, 49th Court, Borivali. 2. The undisputed facts in this case are as follows:Applicant Nos.1 to 6 are the trustees of applicant No. 7 trust which is a charitable trust. On 11.7.1978, the trust entered into an agreement with Jasmine Builders Private Limited (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Jasmine builders') to lease a plot of land alongwith the structures standing on it for a period of 50 years. One building on that property had already been leased to a third party and, therefore, it was provided in the agreement that when the lessee vacates that part of the land on which the structures leased to him were erected, Jasmine builders would be leased that land as well. Thereafter, on 28.9.1985, the t...
Tag this Judgment!Deorao S/O Sonbaji Bhalerao and Kulbhushan S/O Deorao Bhalerao Vs. the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR2132; II(2008)DMC537; 2008AllMR(Cri.)1921
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. The two appellants in the instant appeal have challenged the judgment and order dated 30.11.2002 made by the II Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, in S.T. No. 219/01, convicting both of them for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that appellant No. 2 Kulbhushan and deceased Sunita Bhanse were residing at Ghatanji, district Yavatmal. Deceased Sunita was married to one Chandrakant Bhanse but she had developed extra marital relations with appellant No. 2 and had left her husband. Appellant No. 2 and Sunita came to Amravati and started residing as tenant in the house of Vishwanath Alone (P.W. 3). They stayed there for about 10 15 days. 3. On the date of incident, i.e. 5.7.2001, at about 10 p.m., appellant No. 1 Deora...
Tag this Judgment!Suhasini Gopinath Dadkar (Since Deceased Through L.Rs. Gopinath Ganesh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR85; 2009(1)MhLj339
P.R. Borkar, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by the heirs of Dattatraya Mahadeo Kamble, who along with respondent No. 2 was the original landlord of Survey No. 41 admeasuring 10 acres 24 gunthas land, situated at village Kauthe Malkapur, Taluka Sangamner. Respondent No. 1 Rabhaji Gangaram Naikwadi is the tenant of the suit property. The original landlord Dattatraya Mahadeo Kamble expired. Original petitioner Suhasini Gopinath Dadkar was his daughter who is also now deceased and represented by her legal representatives. 2. The petitioners challenge the order passed by the Designated Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune-1 in Case No. MAT.AH.XII.5/90(TNC.B.358/90) Pune-1, decided on 6.3.1995; whereby he confirmed the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar and A.L.T. Sangamner in Tenancy Case No. 32-G/10/81 decided on 30.3.1983, as confirmed in Tenancy Appeal No. 23/83 decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner Division, Sangamner on 30.7.1990; whereby it is declared that ...
Tag this Judgment!Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs. Dai Ichi Karkaria Limited, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR294; (2008)110BOMLR2209; 2008BusLR731(Bom)
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th August, 2001, of the learned single Judge passed in Arbitration Petition No. 416 of 2001 by which the learned single Judge modified the award of the Arbitrator to the extent of rate of interest provided by the Arbitrator by reducing the same from 12 per cent to 10 per cent from February, 1993 upto the date of the award. The rest of the award was confirmed by the learned single Judge. 2. The facts in a nutshell are as under:2.1 The respondent, Dai Ichi Karkaria Limited, is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office in Mumbai. The respondentclaimant carries on business of manufacture and sale, inter alia, of Pour Point Depressant ('PPD' for short). The appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking engaged in oil exploration, development, production and treatment of oil and natural gas. The appellant floated a global tender for supply of 2,450 metric tons...
Tag this Judgment!Jivan Vikas Shikshan Sanstha and ors. Vs. Shashikant Shravan Chaudhari ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)MhLj43
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. These proceedings arise out of a judgment of the School Tribunal in an appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The First petitioner conducts a Post Basic Ashram School at Shigaon. The school was recognized in June, 1990 and was allowed to conduct secondary school classes. Besides the Ashram school at Shigaon, the petitioners conduct a secondary school at Palghar and at Dandi. All the schools are in receipt of grant-in-aid from the Government. The first respondent was an assistant teacher who had completed his B.Sc. in 1988 and his B.Ed. in 1989 and his date of appointment was 18th June, 1990. The management of the school passed a resolution of its managing committee on 4th July, 1993 resolving to appoint him as a Headmaster with effect from 7th July, 1993. On 18th August, 1993 the Project Officer Integrated Tribal Development, granted his approval to the appointment of the first responde...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Wasudeo Wanjari Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR898
Joshi A.H., J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Advocate Mr. A. Shelat for the petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. Ambarish Joshi for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Service on respondent No. 4 is not necessary in view that no effective steps have been taken to serve him.2. Petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. Trial Court has ordered issue of process by order dated 28th August, 2006. This order of issue of process was challenged by accused by filing a Revision Application under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code in Sessions Court.4. Learned Sessions Court allowed the Revision Application and dismissed the complaint by quashing the order of issue of process.5. On perusal of the judgment, it reveals that the learned Judge found that it was not a case of issue of cheque for a debt, in as much that it was a cheque issued by company under the signatures of its Chairman and Directors, in the name of the same Company, i.e...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. Gopalkrishna N. Gaggar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR451
Dharmadhikari S.C., J.1. Rule. Learned Advocates for respective respondents waive service. Heard parties by consent.These writ petitions are by the State of Maharashtra and they are directed against the order of the School Tribunal dated 3rd November; 2007 in a batch of appeals preferred by the employees. The appeals of the employees/teachers have been allowed in the following terms:a) The respondent No. 1 and 2 to forward the name of appellant as surplus teacher due to reduction in workload to the respondent No. 3 within a period of thirty days from the date of this order.b) The respondent No. 3 is directed to absorb the appellant as surplus teacher in another aided Junior College in the City of Mumbai. Till then the Department shall pay the salary to the appellant.2. The petitions are filed by the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Department of School Education and Sports and the Director and Dy. Director of Education, Greater Mumbai Regional Secretary. Petitioners state th...
Tag this Judgment!Hdfc Bank Ltd. and anr. Vs. Kishore K. Mehta and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR340
Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. We have heard at length the learned Counsel for the appellants and the respondents. Admit. Learned Counsel appearing for respective respondents waive service. By consent, heard forthwith.2. Since common questions of law and facts arise in both these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The short but very important point which arises for consideration in both these appeals is whether an insolvency notice can be issued under Section 9(2) of the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, hereinafter called as 'the Insolvency Act', on the basis of a recovery certificate issued under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1994, hereinafter called as 'the RD Act'.4. As a prelude to the above point for consideration, it would be necessary to ascertain the meaning of 'decree or order' under Section 9(2) of the Insolvency Act as well as that of the expression 'of any Court' unde...
Tag this Judgment!Brijlal Amarbanshi and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ87
A.H. Joshi, J.1. The appellants herein have challenged the judgment and order of conviction rendered in Special Criminal Case No. 83/2006 passed by Special Judge, (NDPS), Nagpur on 6th October, 2007.2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. R. M. Daga for the appellants and perused the records.3. The appellants claim remand on the foundation of following grounds.:(a) In the present case charge was framed against appellants on 19/6/2007 and at that time they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.(b) Thereafter some persons gave understanding to appellants that if they pleaded guilty to the offence, they would be let off with simple sentence.(c) In view that Court has acting upon plead guilty awarded full sentence, has opened their eyes, that they did not understand in reality what were the actual consequences of sentence which followed the conviction.(d) They would not have pleaded guilty had they understood that the consequences would be so severe.(e) They did not understand the implications ...
Tag this Judgment!Waman S/O Bhimrao Mendhe and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra Through P.S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR2410
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Fifteen accused convicted by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Sessions Trial No. 233 of 2001 on 03.10.2002 of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code with life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-each and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, further convicting them of an offence under Section 147 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to pay fine of Rs. 500/-each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, as also holding them guilty of an offence under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to pay fine of Rs. 500/-each or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, have filed these three appeals under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that all these accused attacked house of victims Jyoti and her husband Jaffer in the night of 17.6.2000. The deceased i.e. Jyoti and Jaffer were at their ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »