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.
Shri Shaikh Barkatullah Hussein. Vs. Muslim Education Committee,sangli ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
1. The petition has been filed to challenge the order of the School Tribunal dated 22.9.2008 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.2. The petitioner is qualified with M.A. and B.Ed. degrees. The management of the school advertised the vacancy for the posts of teachers in different subjects. One of the vacancies advertised was for a part-time teacher in the subject of Marathi for the Urdu medium school of the management i.e. respondent No.2 herein. The petitioner applied for the post on 21.1.1990 and was called for an interview. Since the petitioner passed the interview, he was issued a letter calling upon him to appear for the teaching test which was held on 13.2.1998. He was successful in that test also. On 14.2.1998 respondent No.2 issued an appointment letter to the petitioner as a part-time teacher in respondent No.2 school. The appointment letter clearly states that his appointment was on probation for two years on a monthly salary of Rs.700/- in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-...
Shri Jaysingh Maruti Shelke . Vs. Shri Ashok Raghunath Shelke.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
1.Heard finally, by consent.2. The Applicant/Petitioner is the original Judgment Debtor and Respondents are heirs of original Decree Holders. The Petitioner filed an application below Exh. 50, in Regular Darkhast No. 93 of 2002 under Order 21 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), based upon the consent terms dated 27th June, 2001 in Regular Civil Suit No. 39 of 1995, regarding satisfaction of the decree and thereby claimed the disposal of execution proceedings pending before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara. The same was opposed by the Decree Holders. The learned Judge, after hearing both the parties, and after perusal of the material placed on record, including alleged consent decree and the orders passed thereon, by the impugned order rejected the said application, and, therefore, this Revision.3. Admittedly, the consent terms was not signed by the deceased Ashok Shelke, but signed by the original Plaintiff and other original Defendants except Defend...
Baban S/O Ramesh Avle, Age 41 Years, Vs. the State of Maharashtra, and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
1. THE : 01.10.2010 J U D G M E N T : (Per Shrihari P. Davare, J.) 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned respective counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2. By the present petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.10.2006, passed by respondent no. 2 Committee, invalidating the Tribe claim of the petitioner belonging to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe and prayed for quashment thereof.3. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe and initially respondent no.2 Committee invalidated his tribe claim as belonging to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe on 18.9.2002. The petitioner challenged the said order dated 18.9.2002 before this court by filing Writ Petition No. 7674 of 2005. Accordingly, the said petition came to be allowed partly by this court and this court by order dated 16.12.2005, quashed and set aside the order ...
Dinesh Son of Ramraj Yadav, Aged About 19 Years, and ors. Vs. the Stat ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
1. Criminal Appeal Nos. 130 of 2004 and 343 of 2004 are filed by two different accused-appellants against the order of conviction and sentence. Criminal Appeal No. 403 of 2004 is filed by the State for enhancement of sentence awarded to accused Ajay alias Rajesh Shivprasad Sakhare through the impugned judgment.2. Ajay and Dinesh are Accused Nos.1 and respectively. The Accused No.1 Ajay alias Rajesh was charged for the murder of Rakesh Dattaji Chavan. Both the accused were further charged for intentionally destroying the evidence of murder committed by accused no.1 by disposing of the corpse of Rakesh after cutting it into pieces, shoving those into the gunny bag and the suitcase, and throwing the same in the public place.3. It is alleged that Accused No.1 murdered Rakesh Dattaji Chavan, aged 30 years, by assaulting him by a wooden rafter, knife and Sattoor etc., and in order to screen the evidence, cut the head from body, cut the body into pieces, shoved those into polythene bags and i...
Kashinath Punjaji Shardol, 40 Years. and ors. Vs. the State of Maharas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
1.This is an Appeal filed by all four Appellants/ Accused against Conviction Order dated 28.09.1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, in Sessions Case No. 71 of 1990, for the offences punishable under Sections 302/324 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), by holding that the prosecution has proved that all the accused in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of "Kacharu" (the deceased) and accused No.4, under Section 324, voluntarily caused grievous hurt to AshokComplainant.2 The prosecution case as recorded in the impugned judgment is as under:"Complainant Ashok lives with his brothers Kacharu, Jaywant, Ramchandra, mother Sonubai and father Dhulaji. His wife is Kalpana and sisterinlaw is Shantabai wife of Kacharu. Both of them live with them. Complainant and his family owns some cattle heads. On the day of the incident, Santosh son of Kacharu had taken the cattle for grazing. While Santosh was grazing cattle, accused No.4 Vijay abused him...
Tirupati Fabrics and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs( Acc and Expor ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
Per : S.S.Kang When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. The Tribunal vide stay order dated 26/7/10 directed each of the appellants to pre-deposit 50% of the penalty amount for hearing the appeals. The appellants have not complied with the stay order. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed for non compliance with Sec.129E of the Customs Act....
M/S. Noble Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs(import), Nhava Shev ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
Per : S.S.Kang When this case was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. The Tribunal vide stay order dated 27/7/2010 directed the appellants to pre-deposit 50% of the penalty amount. The appellants have not complied with the stay order. The appeal is dismissed for non compliance with Sec.129E of the Customs Act....
Neo Pharma Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs(import), Nhava Sheva
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
Per : S.S.Kang When this case was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. The Tribunal vide stay order dated 28/7/2010 directed the appellants to pre-deposit 20% of the penalty amount. The appellants have not complied with the stay order. The appeal is dismissed for non compliance with Sec.129E of the Customs Act....
M/S. Indoworth India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central Exci ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
Per : S.S. Kang When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. Shri A.K.Prasad, Jt.CDR appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 2. The Tribunal vide stay order dated 6.5.09 directed the appellants to deposit an amount of Rs. 4 crores towards duty for hearing of the appeal. The appellants filed appeal before the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble High Court at Mumbai, Nagpur Bench vide order dated 18.10.2010 directed the appellants to deposit Rs. Two crores within a period of six weeks. The Hon’ble High Court further held that in case the appellants failed to show compliance by deposit of the above mentioned amount, the appeal filed before the Tribunal shall stand dismissed. 3. The appellants failed to show compliance with the order passed by the Tribunal as modified by the Hon’ble High Court . Therefore, the appeal No. 283/08 is dismissed for non compliance with the provisions of Sec.35F of the Central Excise Act....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›