Mumbai Court October 2010 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.
Mrs.Sabah Sami Khan. Vs. Adnan Sami Khan.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2010
1. The Petitioner-wife has challenged a part of the order of the learned Judge, 2nd Family Court, Mumbai, dated 15th June 2010, in not restraining the Respondent-husband from entering upon the matrimonial home and in allowing him to reside therein wherein she has been allowed to reside. Consequently, both the Petitioner-wife and the Respondent-husband have been allowed to reside in the matrimonial home.2. The parties admittedly have a large matrimonial home as also other residential flats and an earlier matrimonial home. The matrimonial home of the parties consists of 5 flats on the 13th and 14th floors of the building Oberoi Sky Garden, Lokhandawala Complex, Andheri, Mumbai in which both wife as well as husband have been allowed to reside under the import of the order of the Family Court. The parties have two flats on the 12th floor of the same building also. The parties have had another matrimonial home at 203, Ankita Apartments, Versova, Mumbai.3. The parties have been unable to liv...
Harshal Suresh Rawate, Vs. Harshal Suresh Rawate,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2010
01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 02. The petitioner has assailed the communication/order dated 15.5.2009 passed by Respondent No.2-Principal District Judge, Beed, thereby discontinuing the services of the petitioner as a peon. 03. The factual matrix of the present case is that the petitioner had applied for the post of peon, in District Court, Beed, in pursuance of the advertisement published in newspaper. According to the petitioner, name of his father in the village record was recorded as "Suryakant", whereas his school record disclosed his father's name as "Sureshrao". Accordingly, in the application made for the post of peon, the petitioner mentioned his father's name as "Sureshrao" as per the school record.04. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for written test by Respondent No.2, on 17.9.2006 (page 11). The petitioner appeared thereto and passed the said w...
Kausal Yabai Kisan Chouhan. Vs. Sakharam Namdeo Gaikwad.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-21-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Petitioner, by this application, seeks review of the order passed by this Court on 16.2.2009 in Writ Petition No.156 of 1989. Petitioner also seeks remand of the matter to the trial Court with direction to decide the matter afresh in view of the changed circumstances by considering the requirements of the heirs, if any. 4. This Civil Application appears to have been filed by tenant on 2.3.2009. In response to the notices issued by this Court, all respondents have entered their appearances. Shri S.P.Shah, Advocate has filed affidavit in reply on behalf of respondents. It has been sworn by one Purushottam Gaikwad on 7.5.2009. Thereafter, on behalf of the petitioner, additional affidavit has been filed, sworn in by Kausalyabai Chavan on 23.7.2010. Some documents have been placed on record along with this additional affidavit of the petitioner. Affidavit on behalf of respondents is ...
Kishor S/O Mallayya Sandry, Age 43 Years, Vs. the State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-21-2010
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.2) The petitioner has assailed the order of his transfer dated 15.6.2009 (Exh. 'B'), issued by respondent no.2, transferring him from Nagar Parishad, Jalna to Chief Engineer Divisional Department, Aurangabad, by present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3) The petitioner was working as Dept. Engineer at Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran Division, Aurangabad i.e. respondent no.2. By communication dated 30.8.2008, he was transferred on deputation to Nagar Parishad, Jalna by respondent no.2 for the period of three years and copy thereof is annexed at Exh. 'A'. Accordingly, the petitioner was relieved before 15.9.2008 and joined his services at Jalna on 1.10.2008.4) However, according to the petitioner, respondent no.2 again on 15.6.2009 issued transfer order, thereby retransferring the petitioner to Aur...
Balbhim S/O Sureshrao Alias Suryakantrao Tapse, Age 28 Years, Vs. the ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-20-2010
01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 02. The petitioner has assailed the communication/order dated 15.5.2009 passed by Respondent No.2-Principal District Judge, Beed, thereby discontinuing the services of the petitioner as a peon. 03. The factual matrix of the present case is that the petitioner had applied for the post of peon, in District Court, Beed, in pursuance of the advertisement published in newspaper. According to the petitioner, name of his father in the village record was recorded as "Suryakant", whereas his school record disclosed his father's name as "Sureshrao". Accordingly, in the application made for the post of peon, the petitioner mentioned his father's name as "Sureshrao" as per the school record.04. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for written test by Respondent No.2, on 17.9.2006 (page 11). The petitioner appeared thereto and passed the said w...
Anil So Marotrao Dhongade Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2010
1. These appeals arise out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence awarded to ten accused persons, who were tried in Sessions Case No.57/2008 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Nanded, passed on 10th Nov.,2009. 5 2. Heard Advocate for the respective parties and perused the record. 3. The accused were charged for offences under Sections 302, 120(b), 341, 323, 504, 506, 324, 147, 148, 149 of IPC and Section 4(25) of Indian Arms Act. 4. Prosecution story, in brief, can be narrated as follows: At a location known as Jangamwadi Chowk, the quarrel began over allegation that accused persons have thrown stones on the motor cycle of Nikhil Kurdukar. The incident resulted into quarrel. All accused persons flocked there. Prashant Medpallewar arrived and tried to pacify. Ultimately, the unlawful assembly of accused persons assaulted the deceased and other prosecution witnesses, by use of Khanjar, stick, stones, etc. Prashant Medpallewar suffered severe injuries and, ultimately,...
Sanjay Shah Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P), Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko These appeals are directed against the Commissioner’s order which was passed in adjudication of show-cause notice dated 15.5.1998. 2. Shri Sudip P. Dabir (appellant in appeal No. C/1323/02) as proprietor of M/s. ASD International, had exported potassium citrate to Dubai in September 1994 under the DEEC scheme. The goods, which arrived at Dubai port, were not cleared by the consignees for a long period and consequently the port authorities disposed of the same by auction. Based on this, the DRI launched investigations which ultimately disclosed that the value of the goods had been misdeclared in the relevant shipping bills for the purpose of endorsement of fulfilment of export obligation in the relevant DEEC books and for obtaining endorsement of transferability of the advance licence from the DGFT. The advance licences along with the respective DEEC books as well as the export contract with the UAE buyers were processed through Shri Jawahar Bhuta (appellant in ap...
Tecumseh Products India Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs (i ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko These appeals are directed against a common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Today, there is no representation for the appellant in appeal C/1403/02 despite notice, nor any request for adjournment. The appellants had imported non-asbestos gasket material without import licence during the period 13.4.1998 to 17.8.1998, during which the said item could not be legally imported without specific licence. The original authority confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act with option for redemption against fine. That authority, however, refrained from imposing any penalty on the importers under Section 112(a) of the Act after observing that there was no ‘misdeclaration of any kind’ by them and that the above item was freely importable prior to and after the period of imports. The orders of adjudication were reviewed and appeals filed with the Commissioner (Appeals) by the department, wherein the prayer was to enhance the quanta of fine...
Commissioner of Customs (Ep), Mumbai Vs. Pan Asia Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) granting the assessee’s request for return of Rs.15,42,520/- which had been appropriated towards Customs duty on goods covered by bill of entry dated 13.4.1994, from the sale proceeds of the said goods disposed of by auction by the Mumbai Port Trust. The goods had been imported by the respondent under DEEC scheme and cleared after debiting the duty amount in the DEEC book. Though, subsequent to the import, SIIB detained the goods for certain reasons, the consignment was released subsequently. However, it so happened that the goods were disposed of by the Port Trust in auction proceedings. Out of the sale proceeds, an amount of Rs.15,42,520/- was transferred to the Customs department towards duty and a sum of Rs.18 lakhs was paid to the importer (owner). Unaware of the transfer of money by the Port Trust to the Customs department, the importer applied to the Assistant Commission...
GramIn Yuvak Adhar GramIn Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Ma ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-19-2010
1. This Civil Revision Application is filed, challenging the Judgment and Order dated 16th April, 2004 in Special Dharkhast No. 50 of 2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar.2. The respondent Nos. 4,5 & 6 filed Regular Civil Suit No. 10 of 2001, before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar, for partition and separate possession and for perpetual injunction and for the property land bearing Survey No. 41/1A/1, admeasuring 21 R of Village Mangalapur, Tqhasil Sangamer, Dist. Ahmednagar. The notices were served upon all the defendants to the suit. On 27th June, 2001 the said Civil Suit No. 10 of 2001 was decided against the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 exparte, whereas against the respondent No. 2 without Written Statement suit was proceeded. By Judgment and Order dated 26th June, 2001, the said suit came to be decreed. The Special Dharkhast bearing No. 26 of 2002, was filed by respondent Balasaheb, seeking partition and separ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »