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.
Vijay Ramchandra Thopate, and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra Throug ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2010
1. Both these Appeals arise from the order of conviction and sentence passed on 25th July, 2000 in Sessions Case No.526 of 1997. By the said order all the accused came to be acquittd under Section 120B of the I.P.C., and accused No.1-Arun Ananda Londhe, accused No.2-Vijay Ramchandra Thopate and accused No.6-Ganpat Bhikaji Bamane have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 147 of I.P.C., accused Nos.2 and 6 have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 144, 148 and 302 of I.P.C., accused No.6 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C., accused No.1 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., accused Nos. 2 and 6 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, accused No.1 is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 2...
Vijay Ramchandra Thopate, and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra Throug ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2010
1. Both these Appeals arise from the order of conviction and sentence passed on 25th July, 2000 in Sessions Case No.526 of 1997. By the said order all the accused came to be acquittd under Section 120B of the I.P.C., and accused No.1-Arun Ananda Londhe, accused No.2-Vijay Ramchandra Thopate and accused No.6-Ganpat Bhikaji Bamane have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 147 of I.P.C., accused Nos.2 and 6 have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 144, 148 and 302 of I.P.C., accused No.6 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C., accused No.1 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., accused Nos. 2 and 6 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, accused No.1 is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 2...
Variegate Realestate Private Limited, Vs. Tehmul R. Irani, of Mumbai I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2010
1. Admit. With the consent of all the Learned Counsel and of the Original Third Defendant who appears in person, the Appeal has been taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. This appeal arises out of a judgment of a Learned Single Judge on a motion for interim relief. By the order of the Learned Single Judge: (i) The First Defendant has been restrained by an interim injunction from creating any third party interests in the suit property and from inducting any third party, save and except the Second and Third Defendants into the suit premises; (ii) The First Defendant has been restrained from creating any further interests in favour of the Second and Third Defendants; and (iii) The Defendants have been restrained from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiff over the rest of the suit property, save and except for the First Floor of the building. The original Plaintiff is in appeal. The carving out of the exception for the Second and Third Defendants gives rise to the appeal.3....
Ujwala Wd/O Uday Pimple, Aged About 41 Yrs., Vs. the Maharashtra Fishe ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-19-2010
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties.2. The respondents have terminated the service of the petitioner under the provisions of the Maharashtra Fisheries Development Corporation (MFDC) Service Regulations by offering one month's pay in lieu of notice. The only ground for termination of services of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed by the order dated 22/2/2010 in pursuance of an advertisement dated 29/9/2009 and that she had already crossed the age of 33 years which was the age limit imposed in the advertisement.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the termination is bad since there are no rules prescribing the maximum age limit for appointment and that in the advertisement the respondents arbitrarily imposed the age limit of 33 years. There is no merit in this argument because it is open to an employee to impose an age limit in the advertisement even if there is no age limit prescribed in the Regulations. In any case the pet...
Rahul S/O Vijay Haul, Age 24 Years, Vs. the Union of IndiA. and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-19-2010
01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.02. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and thereby prayed for writ of mandamus or any other writ or directions to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to conduct the medical test of the petitioner and to issue appointment order to him for the post of Constable (G.D.) in pursuance of the advertisement dated 12.1.2007 issued by Respondent No.2. Respondent No. 1 herein is the Union of India and Respondent No.2 is the Additional Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, Group Centre, CRPF, Talegaon Dabhade, post Vishnupuri, Taluka Maval, District Pune, whereas Respondent No.3 is the Presiding Officer, Central Reserve Police Force, Recruitment Board, Centre at Ahmadnagar, Ahmednagar. 03. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.1.2007 issued by Respondent No.2 for recruitment to t...
M/S. Rishad Shipping and Clearing Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2010
Per : P.G. Chacko After hearing both sides on the stay application, we are of the view that the appeal itself should be summarily disposed of. Accordingly, we take up the appeal. 2. The appeal is by a CHA holding a licence issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Indore. The appellant-CHA has obtained permission of the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai to operate their business in Mumbai Customs Zone. This permission, which was granted under Regulation 9(2) of the CHALR, 2004, has been suspended by the Commissioner under Regulation 20(2) of the CHALR, 2004 with immediate effect by order dated 8.3.2010. The order indicates that it was issued by the Commissioner at a time when an inquiry was contemplated against the CHA under Regulation 22 in relation to certain exports handled by the CHA and covered by nine shipping bills which were filed during the period from November, 2009 to January, 2010. Apparently, the learned Commissioner was informed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export...
M/S. Rishad Shipping and Clearing Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2010
Per : P.G. Chacko The appeal is against the order dated 07.04.2010 of the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai debarring the appellant (CHA) from operating in Mumbai Customs Zone under Regulation 20(c) of the Customs House Agents Licencing Regulations (CHALR for short), 2004. The application is for stay of operation of the Commissioner’s order. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we are inclined to dispose of the appeal itself finally and, accordingly, we take up the appeal. 2. The appellant M/s Rishad Shipping and Cleaning Agency Pvt. Ltd. obtained a licence from the Commissioner of Customs, Indore (Licence No. IND/R-I/99) in the year 1999 for operating business in any Customs Station in India. ‘The appellant obtained permission from the Commissioners of Customs, Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Chennai and Kolkata to operate business in the respective Customs Zones, on the strength of the licence issued by the Indore Commissioner. The permission of the Commissioner...
Manohar Sidram Ukarande, Age: 35 Years, Vs. Suresh Dattu Bhojane, Age: ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2010
1. These are the appeals preferred against the judgment and order of conviction under Sections 147, 148, 302 & 307 r/w. 149 of the I.P 1860 in Sessions Case No.56/99 passed by the learned II .C., Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur at Pandharpur on 21/2/2002. The accused No.7 Kondabai Bhimrao Nakate and accused No.8 Chhaya Rama Bhojane were acquitted in the said case and the State has preferred to remain silent as regards the challenge to the judgment and order of acquittal of the said accused.2. Accused No.4 Manohar Sidram Ukarnade, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.450/02, accused No.5 Suresh Dattu Bhojane and No.6 Anna @ Anil Maruti Bhojane, the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.451/02, accused No.1 Dhondappa Bhimrao Nakate, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.452/02 and accused no.2 Sachin Rama Bhojane and No.3 Satish Rama Bhojane, the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 453/02 were sentenced as under:(i) to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of ...
Dilip S/O Kisanrao Khasbage, Aged About 35 Years, Vs. Leeladhar S/O Pa ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-15-2010
1. In present petition filed as writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner Plaintiff has challenged the order dated 15/2/2010 passed below Ex. 101 by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Warud, rejecting his application to transfer Regular Civil Suit No. 119/2000 filed by him for specific performance along with counterclaim of Defendants for his eviction, for possession and damages to the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati. The transfer is sought by pointing out claim in suit valued at Rs.70,600/ and claim in counterclaim valued at Rs.40,000/ together being above Rs. One lac, exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of court of Junior Division. Trial Court has found that immovable property involved in specific performance and in eviction or recovery of possession proceedings is same and can not be clubbed or added again to determine its jurisdiction. Notice for final disposal is already issued by this Court. Hence, heard finally by making Rule r...
Twentieth Century for Film Corporation. Vs. Sohail Maklai Entertainmen ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2010
1. The Plaintiff claims copyright in the literary and artistic work being the script and screenplay of its film Phone Booth assigned to the Plaintiff under certain agreements. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants have infringed its copyright in their film Knock Out which is to be released on Friday, the 15th October 2010. The Plaintiff claims injunction restraining the Defendants from releasing its film Knock Out in theatres or broadcasting or otherwise communicating it to the public in any manner or exporting its copies so as to infringe the script, screen, storyline and dialogues in its copyrighted work or so as to pass off the said film as and for the Plaintiff s film as an Indian version thereof. The Plaintiff has also prayed for an order directing the Defendants to destroy and/or deliver the script of its film and for appointment of a Receiver in respect thereof.2. The Plaintiff, as the producer, is the author in respect of the cinematographic film under Section 2(d) (v) of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »