Mumbai Court November 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.
Vitthal S/O Nagorao Chapote Vs. Divisional Controller
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2010
:1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent.2] By order dated 17/8/2010, two weeks time was granted to file the terms/minutes of the order which was filed before the Industrial Court, Jalna. The learned counsel for the petitioner has now placed on record certified copy of the purshis of settlement.3] It is surprising to note that inspite of the settlement purshis dated 14/10/09 being on record, the Industrial Court,Jalna, has passed the impugned order on 2/11/2009 on merits. The impugned order therefore, deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 4] The learned counsel for the respondents concedes that the settlement purshis was infact signed and filed in Industrial Court, he however, objects to any reliefs being granted against the respondents in the above petitions. The objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents is stated merely to be rejected in view of the settlement purshis which has admittedly been signed by the parties and whic...
Sankapaka Laxman Bhoomaiah Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2010
:1. The appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 27.7.1995 passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S.)Court for Greater Bombay in N.D.P on .S.27.7.1995, whereby the appellant accused was acquitted of offence punishable under Section 8 (c) read with Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (N.D.P.S. Act). The accused were directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. However, learned Special Judge directed that muddemal property to be destroyed after the appeal period is over, while the cash amount of Rs.10,000/ (US dollar 1000) and amounts under the fixed deposit receipts were directed to be forfeited to the State, after the appeal period is over.2. The learned counsel for the appellant remained absent at the time of final hearing. None is represented by Respondent No.1. Shri D.P.Adsule, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor is present and he supported the impugned judgment and order. Relavant o...
Shri Ashok Magan More Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2010
.:1. This appeal by the appellant is directed against the judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar in Sessions Case no.28/1994, decided on 24.11.1994, whereby the appellant was held guilty for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and pay fine in the sum of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer R.I. for three months.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the appellant Ashok More, who was aged about 19 years at the time of the incident, and was taking education in 10th standard in public high school at Visarwadi. According to the prosecution, his class mate was a girl, by name Ms Malti, studying in the same school, while Ravidas Gavit ( examined as PW 2), alleged victim in the case, was ex student of that school and was intending to appear for 12th standard examination externally. According to the prosecution, said Ravidas was in love with Ms Malti. He came to know that the appel...
Shaikh Babamiya Usman Vs. All R/O. Momainpura
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2010
:-1 This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 7.4.1988 passed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar in Misc. Application No. 91 of 1986, thereby dismissing application for condonation of delay.2 The facts, which necessitates to file this petition, are as under;- It is the case of the petitioners that they are residents of Sangamner and are beneficiaries and interested persons of Masjid known as new Momainpura Masjid registered as public Trust bearing PR.T No. B-85. The respondent Nos. 1 and 3 are trustees of new amalgamated trust.It is further case of the petitioners that in or about 1981 respondent Nos. 1 to 3 preferred an application to respondent No.4 under Section 50A (2) of the Bombay Public Trust Act (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "the said Act") for amalgamation of new Momainpura Masjid and another Masjid. It is further case of the petitioners that on 12.8.1981, respondent No.4 i.e. Joint Charity Commissioner passed an exparte or...
Vasant Laxman Galande Vs. Smt. Shakuntala Shankarrao Kolse and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-26-2010
:1. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 24th December, 1990 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune-1 in Revision Application No. MRT/AH/III/2/88(TNC).B.46/88) arising out of Tenancy Case No.112of 1982 and Tenancy Appeal No. 24 of 1986.2. The brief facts of the case are as under: The suit land was of ownership of Namdeo Vithoba Dhanavate, who was lunatic on 1st April, 1957 and he died on 20th June, 1971. Heir-ship of Namdeo was devolved on applicants and his wife Godabai who died on 16th October, 1981. The applicants and Godabai had filed T.C. No.7/1974 for obtaining possession from the opponent i.e. present petitioner on the grounds that the opponent i.e. present petitioner had failed to intimate his willingness to purchase the suit land on the date of death of original landlord Namdeo Vithoba Dhanavate, who died under mental disability on 20th June, 1971.The Additional Tahsildar, who had conducted the T.C. NO.2/74 ordered disposal of the suit l...
Laxman Raghunath Galande. Vs. Smt. Shakuntala Shankarrao Kolse, Adult. ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-26-2010
1. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 24th December, 1990 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune-1 in Revision Application No. MRT/AH/III/2/88(TNC).B.46/88) arising out of Tenancy Case No.112of 1982 and Tenancy Appeal No. 24 of 1986.2. The brief facts of the case are as under: The suit land was of ownership of Namdeo Vithoba Dhanavate, who was lunatic on 1st April, 1957 and he died on 20th June, 1971. Heir-ship of Namdeo was devolved on applicants and his wife Godabai who died on 16th October, 1981. The applicants and Godabai had filed T.C. No.7/1974 for obtaining possession from the opponent i.e. present petitioner on the grounds that the opponent i.e. present petitioner had failed to intimate his willingness to purchase the suit land on the date of death of original landlord Namdeo Vithoba Dhanavate, who died under mental disability on 20th June, 1971.The Additional Tahsildar, who had conducted the T.C. NO.2/74 ordered disposal of the suit la...
Mrs. Charu Kishor Mehta, Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2010
1. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of learned Counsel representing the parties. Heard submissions.2. The Petitioner prayed for issuance of the writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding Respondent no. 2 to forthwith file a FIR and carry out a thorough investigation in to the offences set out in the complaint of in the said complaint for punishment of the Accused therein and all persons connected with the said offence in accordance with law.3. Facts briefly stated are-The Petitioner- Complainant had by an communication dated 25th April 2008 addressed to the Additional Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Crime branch C.I.D., Mumbai, made accusations that Shri Vijay Kirtilal Mehta, in pursuance of Criminal Conspiracy alongwith Dr. Narendra Trivedi, Dr Sanjay Prabhat Kapadia, Shri Rozario F. Paacheco, Shri Anant Kamath, Shri Lawrence Pareira, Shri Rajendra Kairnar, Shri Charanjit Singh Rekhi, Shri Dushyant Madhukant Mehata, Smt Jasm...
Neon Laboratories Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Troikaa Pharma Limited, and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2010
1 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the grant of Patent No.231479 dated 04.03.2009 vide Patent Application No.96/MUM/2005 evidenced by AnnexureU to the petition and the order dated 03.06.2009 (AnnexureZ to the petition).2 The Petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at the address mentioned in the cause title. It is a pharmaceutical company manufacturing, distributing, marketing and exporting pharmaceutical products particularly active pharmaceutical ingredients and finished dosage forms.3 The Respondent No.1 is also a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office in the State of Gujarat at the address mentioned in the cause title. It filed the above Patent Application which has been allowed by the authorities, who are Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to this Writ Petition.4 It is stated that on 01.02.2005 the Respondent No.1 filed a patent applicat...
Jayesh Pratap Doshi Age 40 Years. and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. These are group of writ petitions and the intervention applications therein moved to question the legality and propriety of the decisions taken by the State of Maharashtra in the matters of appointment of special Public Prosecutors under Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. The applicants in Criminal Application Nos.140 of 2010 and 178 of 2010 are seeking intervention in Criminal Writ Petition No.747 of 2010 on the ground that their interest in the appointment of Special Public Prosecutors in Criminal Case bearing MECR No.14 of 2002 arising out of complaint case No.279/PW of 2006 pending before the 33rd Metropolitan Magistrate, Ballard Pier, Mumbai are akin to those of the petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No.747 of 2010 Mr.Jayesh Doshi, the coaccused in the said criminal case.3. Admittedly, the intervenors are the coaccused in the said criminal case and, therefore, their intervention in the present proceedings is justifiable. Their pleas, therefore, on the b...
Morarji Umarshi Clearing and Forwarding Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko 1. This appeal is dismissed as withdrawn as the appellant (A CHA) has obtained favourable orders from the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai who revoked the suspension of the CHA licence vide order No. 38/2009 dated 11.8.1009. A copy of the Commissioners order has been brought on record alongwith the appellant's letter advising their counsel to withdraw the appeal. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »