Mumbai Court January 2009 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.
Ranjeeta W/O Deepak Balsekar, Vs. Deepak S/O Baburao Balsekar and the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR823
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Both the applications and the above referred writ petition are being disposed of together inasmuch as they arise out of common judgment rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Nanded in Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 104/2007 and 138/2007 interse parties.2. By the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge partly allowed criminal revision Petition No. 104/2007 filed by Ranjeeta and others. She was granted maintenance allowance @ Rs. 800/- per month from date of order of the learned Judicial Magistrate. Whereas, request for enhancement of maintenance allowance in respect of the children was turned down and the criminal revision petition No. 138/2007 filed by Deepak was dismissed.3. Admittedly, Ranjeeta and Deepak entered wedlock on 17th June 1997. It was a registered marriage under provisions of the Special Marriage Act. The couple resided together at residential house of Deepak after the marriage. They were blissed with twins, namely, Raj and Deepti, on 01.08.1998...
Sinhgad Technical Education Society Vs. Mr. P.L. Pathade, Asstt. Commi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR862; 2009BusLR263(Bom); (2009)222CTR(Bom)333; [2009]180TAXMAN246(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.2. This petition is filed to challenge the order dated 12-1-2009 passed by the CIT (A), whereby while fixing the appeals for hearing on 4-2-2009, the CIT (A) has disposed of the stay applications by directing the petitioner to pay 10% of the demands raised for A.Y. 2005-06 and A.Y. 2006-07 by 30-1-2009 and further directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs by 27th of every month till the appeals are heard and disposed of.3. The petitioner - trust which was established in the year 1993 to impart education in different branches had obtained registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) on 17-1-1994 as a result whereof the income of the assessee was exempted from payment of income tax.4. On 20-7-2005, the premises of Shri M.N. Navale, principal trustee of the petitioner was searched wherein cash amounting to Rs. 1.20...
Satish Fakira Dhangar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3216
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Challenge in this Appeal is to Judgment rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, in Sessions Case No. 150 of 1994 whereby Appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Section 498A and 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and for three years along with fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each.2. Appellant No. 1 Satish is husband of deceased Kalpana, Appellant No. 2 Bapu is his elder brother. Appellant No. 3 Latabai is the wife of Appellant No. 2 Bapu. The marriage of deceased Kalpana and Appellant No. 1 Satish was performed on April 20th, 1990 at village Kadane. She resided with the Appellants in a joint family house for some period. Appellant No. 2 Bapu runs a grocery and fair price shop in the village. The parents of deceased Kalpana are inhabitants of a nearby village, namely War (Kadane) .There was partition of the house prop...
Good Value Marketing Company Limited and anr. Vs. Montex Corporation a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3209
A.S. Oka, J.1. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties have been heard. The facts of these three applications are more or less similar. Hence, for the sake of convenience, I am referring to the facts in Criminal Application No. 1170 of 2008. The applicants are the accused in a complaint filed by the first respondent alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1881'). The learned Magistrate acquitted the applicants in this application. The first respondent filed Criminal Application No. 2081 of 2008 in this Court invoking sub-section 4 of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Code of 1973'). The said application was heard on 28th July, 2008. This Court granted leave and admitted the appeal. This Court directed that an action be taken under Section 390 of the said Code of 1973. The prayer in this application is for recall of the said...
Vijay Dattatraya Kale Vs. Peico Electronics and Electricals Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2009
Reported in: [2009(121)FLR577]; (2009)IIILLJ262Bom; 2009(2)MhLj628
S.A. Bobde, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the award of the IInd Labour Court, Pune, dated 23.2.1995 holding that he is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', and therefore dismissed the reference.2. The Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Pune, referred the question of the petitioner's termination by the respondent No. 1 for adjudication under Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 read with Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act.3. The petitioner's services were terminated by the respondent-company with effect from 24.3.1990 while he was working as Asstt. Purchase Officer (Logistic Management). He was then drawing a salary of Rs. 3,630/- and was posted in M-1 grade which is meant for Managers.4. In the reference, the petitioner examined himself and the respondent No. 1 examined its Stores Officer. Inspection of the documents sought by the petitioner was granted. The Labour Court considered the ev...
Javed Hanif Quareshi Vs. Lakhani Traders Through Its Mnager Shri Nadim ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)MhLj663
S.S. Shinde, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties heard finally.2. This application is filed, challenging the judgment and order dated 21st June, 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar below application, Exh. 4, in Criminal Appeal No. 2/2008.3. The present applicant is the original accused in S.T.C. No. 60/05 which is tried by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Navapur for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.4. The present respondent filed a private complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Navapur, alleging that the accused had purchased the live chicken stock from the complainant of worth Rs. 3 lacks. Towards the payment of said amount the accused had issued one cheque bearing No. 194321 to the complainant for the amount of Rs. 3 lacks. The said cheque dated 22nd November, 2004 was drawn on the State Bank of India, Branch at Songad.5. On 29.2.2008 the learned Judicial Magistrate,...
Shri Abdul Hafiz Abdul Sattar Qureshi Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR818
V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. Through this appeal, the appellant-orig. accused has challenged the judgment and order dated 31.1.1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 331 of 1991. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 17 & 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act and the appellant came to be sentenced to RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default, SI for six months.2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under:On 9.6.1991 at about 2:00 p.m. information was received by the vigilance branch that the accused was selling brown sugar in Taj Bakery lane. The said information was noted down and conveyed to the superiors. Thereafter the raiding party left for the spot. On reaching the spot, they found the accused on the spot. On enquiry, the accused informed his name to them. Then the raiding party asked the accused whether his search should be taken in presence of an Gazetted Officer or a Magis...
Shalikram Urkuda Chambare and ors. Vs. Pandurang Kondu Chatukhodpe and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Bom103
ORDERS.R. Dongaonkar, J.1. Heard Shri C.S. Kaptan, Ad vocate, for the petitioner and Shri A.I. Sheikh, Advocate, for the respondents.2. By this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order of the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur, in Revision No. 22/RTS-64/2004-2005, by which the revision application of the petitioners to challenge the order of Additional Collector, Chandrapur, in appeal, was dismissed.3. Some facts which need to be noted are that, initially the land to question was recorded in the names of the petitioners. The respondent raised objection to that. The said objection was decided on 8-5-2000 In Revenue Case No. 6/RTS-64/1999-2000, by Tahsildar, Mul. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The same was decided. It was held by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Chandrapur, that the petitioners and respondents both are successor of deceased Gang...
Askok Marotrao Kayarkar Vs. Education Officer (Secondary) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-2009
Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR495
Dongaonkar S.R., J.1. Heard Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.2. By this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 27.2.2008 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur. By the said order, the Education Officer has ordered thus:As per Government Resolution No. TCM/2002/C.N. 297/Section 4 dated 3rd April, 2003, the qualification for the post of Principal of D.Ed. College is M.A., M.Ed. The claim of Shri Kayarkar for the post of Principal could not be accepted since he is not qualified.Since M.E.P.S. Act, 1977 and M.S.P.S Rule, 1981, are applicable to secondary schools and D.Ed. Colleges, the seniority list shall be common. Since Smt. Deotale is qualified for the post of Principal of D.Ed. College, the promotion given to her by the Society is proper and thus she will come in .B. category since the date of her promotion.(Free English Translation)3. T...
Sushma Suresh Nigudkar and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4267
V.M. Kanade, J.1. The appellants are challenging the Judgment and Order dated 14-9-2005 passed by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 403 of 1996. By the said Judgment and Order, the Trial Court was pleased to acquit accused No. 3 - Uday Manohar Dalvi for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court, however, convicted accused No. 2 - Ankush Rajaram More, the appellant No. 2 herein, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and accused No. 1 - Smt. Sushma Suresh Nigudkar, appellant No. 1 herein, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Court, however, acquitted accused No. 1 - Sushma Suresh Nigudkar for the offence punishable under Section 304-B. The Sessions Court was pleased...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »