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.
Radheshyam S/O Zumbarlal Chandak, Aged About 60 Years, Vs. the Distric ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
1. This writ petition is placed before us to decide the following question of law, upon reference being made by the learned Single Judge (Shri B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) as per his order dated 26-4-2010 : "Whether the Court invested with small cause powers under Section 28 of 1869 Act can function as such and exercise unlimited jurisdiction under Chapter IV A-1 of 1887 Act, without any ceiling on its pecuniary jurisdiction ?2. The learned Single Judge of this Court, Shri M.S. Deshpande, J. (as he then was), in his judgment in Salimkhan s/o Azimkhan v. Mohammad Ibrahimkhan, reported in 1987 Mh.L.J. 283, has taken the view that a Civil Judge, Senior Division, invested with the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes by the High Court under Section 28 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869, has jurisdiction to try the suits or proceedings between a licensor and licensee, or a landlord and tenant irrespective of the value of the subject-matter of such suits or proceedings, as contemplated by ...
Mulji Narshi Shah. Vs. Basantkumar Jain.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
1. The substituted Petitioning Creditor seeks an order of adjudication against the debtor.2. The question that arises for consideration is whether an insolvency petition is maintainable at the instance of a substituted creditor if his claim is barred by limitation on the date on which he was substituted, even if it was not barred by limitation on the date on which the act of insolvency was completed.I find myself compelled to answer the question in the affirmative in view of a judgment of a Division Bench of this court.3. On 21st August, 1993, Insolvency Notice No.120/1993 was issued at the instance of the original Petitioning Creditor. It was served on the debtor on 26th November, 1993. The act of insolvency was committed on 1st November, 1994. On this date, the substituted Petitioning Creditor's claim was not barred by limitation. The original Petitioning Creditor filed the above petition on 25th January, 1994. The original Petitioner's claim was subsequently settled. On 3rd December...
Shantilal R. JaIn Rajesh Totla Vs. Commissioner of Customs (imports), ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko 1. These appeals are directed against an order dated 19/11/90 passed (ex-parte)by the Collector of Customs and issued to the appellants on 30/01/2002. Both the appellants are aggrieved by the penalties imposed on them. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that, after the above order was passed by the learned Collector, another order was passed by him in adjudication of the same show-cause notice after hearing the noticees, which was passed on 30/04/91 and issued on 16/07/91. We further note that the said order dated 30/04/91 was challenged by these appellants in appeals C/561 and 564/91-Bom and that the said appeals were allowed on 25/10/2000 vide order No.C-1/3824-25/WZB/2000. We further note that, in the said order dated 25/10/2000, this bench had noted that an ex-parte order on the same subject matter had been passed by the learned Collector but not communicated to the parties. The said ex-parte order is impugned in the present appeals. The le...
Commissioner of Customs (imports) Vs. Vikas Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko 1. This appeal filed by the department is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Customs in adjudication of a show-cause notice. The proposals in the show-cause notice are to be discerned from the Commissioner s order as the appellant has not furnished a copy of the notice though the appellant in this appeal is out to justify the allegations contained in the show-cause notice and the demand of duty and other proposals contained therein. It appears from the impugned order that the department wanted to reject the value declared by the respondent in respect of the goods imported by the latter, and to enhance the value of the goods for the purpose of levy of duty of Customs on the basis of certain contemporaneous imports coupled with a confessional statement given by the importer. The findings of the learned Commissioner indicate that he examined various aspects of the question whether the discount claimed by the importer was reasonable and in acc...
Anil Chandrakant Londhe, Age 22 Years, Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-2010
1. Present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.5.2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No.114 of 1999, whereby the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant/accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine in the sum of Rs.500/ in default to suffer R.I. for three months. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, present appeal is filed by the appellant through jail.2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that : First informant Manik (PW4) had lodged the report bearing Crime No.70 of 1999 (Exh.16) at Miraj City Police Station in respect of assault by means of knife by Anil Chandrakant Londhe (appellant herein). In the result, Shakuntala (first informant's sister), who had intervened during the exchange of words between Manik & Anil. Anil had rushed towards Manik with knife but when Shakuntala intervened Anil assaulted h...
Balasaheb Digambar Mane. Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-2010
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents State.2. The Criminal Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 6th November 2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, whereby the appellant came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Sentences were directed to run concurrently.3. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as under :- The deceased Kavera was the wife of the appellant and out of the wedlock two children were born, viz., Somnath (P.W. ...
Mahesh Balasaheb Thakoor. Vs. the State of Maharashtra, and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-2010
1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner-original accused no. 3 and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner-accused no. 3 is seeking quashing of the order dated 19th July 2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pune, tendering pardon to original accused no. 2 under section 307 of Cr.P.C.3. The petitioner is accused no. 3 in Sessions Case no. 106 of 2010 along with accused no. 2 and two others in a prosecution initiated by Yerwada Police Station under Sections 302, 201, 364 and 394 of IPC vide C.R. No. 534 of 2009. The accused have been charged for kidnapping and murder of a young married woman Naina.4. After the case was committed to the Sessions Court, original accused no. 2 Rajesh Pandurang Chaudhary submitted application before the Sessions Court for permission to turn approver and for tender of pardon. The learned Sessions Judge called for say from the prosecution. The prosecution submitted detailed reply and stated that it does not have any objection to the said applic...
Mahesh Balasaheb Thakoor Age 24 Years, Vs. the State of Maharashtra, a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-2010
1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner-original accused no. 3 and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner-accused no. 3 is seeking quashing of the order dated 19th July 2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pune, tendering pardon to original accused no. 2 under section 307 of Cr.P.C.3. The petitioner is accused no. 3 in Sessions Case no. 106 of 2010 along with accused no. 2 and two others in a prosecution initiated by Yerwada Police Station under Sections 302, 201, 364 and 394 of IPC vide C.R. No. 534 of 2009. The accused have been charged for kidnapping and murder of a young married woman Naina.4. After the case was committed to the Sessions Court, original accused no. 2 Rajesh Pandurang Chaudhary submitted application before the Sessions Court for permission to turn approver and for tender of pardon. The learned Sessions Judge called for say from the prosecution. The prosecution submitted detailed reply and stated that it does not have any objection to the said applic...
Anil Chandrakant Londhe, Age 22 Years, Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-2010
1. Present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.5.2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No.114 of 1999, whereby the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant/accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine in the sum of Rs.500/ in default to suffer R.I. for three months. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, present appeal is filed by the appellant through jail.2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that : First informant Manik (PW4) had lodged the report bearing Crime No.70 of 1999 (Exh.16) at Miraj City Police Station in respect of assault by means of knife by Anil Chandrakant Londhe (appellant herein). In the result, Shakuntala (first informant's sister), who had intervened during the exchange of words between Manik & Anil. Anil had rushed towards Manik with knife but when Shakuntala intervened Anil assaulted h...
Kalpesh Hemantbhai Shah, Aged 29 Years, Vs. Manhar Auto Sotres, and or ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
1. Heard. Admit on the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal.2. In the present letters patent appeal there is a challenge to the judgment and order dated 23.2.2010 in W.P. No. 5521 of 2009 by which the writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed. The counsel for the respondents, Mr. A.C. Dharmadhikari, raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present letters patent appeal in the light of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in 2010 (7) SCALE 428 decided on 23.7.2010. Since the preliminary objection was raised to the above effect relying on the aforesaid decision of Supreme Court, we have heard both the learned counsel for the parties on the said preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the letters patent appeal.3. In support of the preliminary objection, counsel for the respondents made the following submissions(i) The subject matter of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »