Mumbai Court December 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.
Star India Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-2010
1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement on 20/08/2004, wherein he has rejected the preliminary objections raised by the petitioners and held that the show cause notice dated 31/5/2002 is valid and that the said show-cause notice does not violate the mandate of Section 49(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 ('FEMA' for short).2. Petitioner No.1 company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 is engaged in the business of television advertisements through the channels of 'Star TV'. Petitioner No.2 is the Director of petitioner No.1 - company.3. On 06/06/2002, the petitioners received a show cause notice dated 31/05/2002 whereby the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate called upon the petitioners to show cause in writing within 10 days as to why adjudication proceedings, as contemplated under Section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('FERA' for short) read with Section 49(3) and (4) of ...
Bilquis ZakiuddIn Bandookwala and Others Vs. Shehnaz Shabbir Bandukwal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-2010
1. The plaintiffs have applied for review of the order dated 14 October, 2010 on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record and for the reasons considered sufficient by the plaintiffs. 2. The order dated 14 October, 2010 came to be passed in the above Notice of Motion which was taken out by the plaintiffs for administration of the estate of the deceased son of the plaintiff No.1 and brother of the other plaintiffs. The Suit has been filed for administration of his estate on the ground of intestacy.3. The defendant produced Will of the deceased who is her deceased husband. The marriage of the defendant and the deceased was registered under the Special Marriage Act. Consequent upon such registration, they would be governed by the Indian Succession Act for the purpose of succession, both intestate or testamentary. Since the deceased would be governed by the Indian Succession Act, he would have no restrictions on him to bequeath only 1/3 of his property by a Will as per the ...
Souren Chander Alimchandani Vs. Chander Rupchand Alimchandani and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-2010
1 The Petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act). It was filed on 18th November, 2009 for interim reliefs; (a) appointment of Receiver of the original share certificates and (b) dealing with the same in any manner till the final award and pending the Arbitration Proceedings and also prayed for injunction in terms of prayer clause (c) from exercising voting rights in respect of the trust shares constituting 11.47% of the shareholding of the company at the AGM of the company which was fixed on 24th November, 2009. 2 After hearing both the parties, on 24th November, 2009, while admitting the Petition, this court not granted prayer clause (c) by observing as under:"5 Admittedly, there is a clause/provision in the trust deed itself, which provides an authorizes the trustees, in a given case, to extend the said period also. There is a resolution of a minutes of meeting of the board of trustees of the trust held on 12th January, 2007 by...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Sanjay Eknath Ingle and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-16-2010
1. The State of Maharashtra has assailed the acquittal of respondents/ original accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code rendered by the Sessions Judge, Buldana in Sessions Case No. 42 of 1997 vide judgment and order dated 19th July 1997. Bahinabai Kaniram Baja (P. W. 2), mother of victim Shrirang has similarly challenged the said acquittal by filing Criminal Revision Application No. 158 of 1997.2. The incident leading to the prosecution of respondents/accused as could be gathered from the evidence of P. W. 2 Bahinabai, P.W. 6 Gopal and P.W. 8 Shrikrishna is that on 4.1.1997 wife of deceased Shrirang was away from matrimonial home as she had gone to her parents' place and, therefore, P. W. 2 Bahinabai who was residing just few houses away from the house of Shrirang had gone to his place for cooking food for Shrirang and his children. She left the place of Shrirang at about 08.30 p.m. Immediately thereafterafter her son Shrirang ...
Balu Vasant Sonawane Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-2010
: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents State.2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29th November 1996 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant questioning the validity of the judgment and order of conviction.3. The prosecution case in nutshell is as follows:- On 31st October 1995 at about 8.00 p.m. deceased Meenabai was present in her residential house, which was consisted of two rooms. Her husband was consuming liquor in the another room. The appellant who is brother-in-law of the deceased came inside the house and asked deceased Meenabai why did she asked him and his wife to leave their house. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was very angry because Meenabai told him and his wife to leave the house and therefore ...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Sunil Son of Vishwanath Borkar
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-15-2010
Judgment :1. Heard rival submissions at length on this appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra against acquittal of respondent/original accused. Perused the evidence recorded before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. Also perused the reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while deciding 2. The impugned judgment and order acquitting the respondent/original accused was passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 10th March 1997. Respondent/accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of acquittal, the State of Maharashtra preferred the appeal which is under consideration.3. Initially, another lawyer was representing respondent/accused. However, when the matter was taken up for final hearing before us, respondent was not represented. As such, ultimately, learned Advocate Mr A. S. Mardikar was appointed to represent the respondent in the present appeal.4. ...
Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nusli Neville Wadia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-2010
:1. This Petition was filed for revocation and annulment of the order dated 20th November 2003 authorising and permitting the Respondent to continue to act as Administrator of the estate of one Eduljee Framroze Dinshaw passed in Miscellaneous Petition No.41 of 2003, to remove the Respondent from the office of Administrator of the estate of the deceased and to appoint a fit and proper person, including the Petitioner as such Administrator, for disclosure of the estate of the deceased and accounts.2. The deceased died in New York, United States of America (U.S.A.) on 14th March 1970 leaving behind his last Will and Testament dated 4th February 1970 (the Will). Under Clause IV of the Will, the deceased (the testator)bequeathed a life interest in the net income of his properties in India to his sister one Mrs.Bachoobai Woronzow Dashkow (Bachoobai) and upon her death to two charitable institutions in the U.S. the Salvation Army and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Anim...
Both R/O Sangvi (Bk), Tq. Yaval, District Jalgaon Vs. Maharashtra Reve ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-15-2010
1 Heard learned counsel for respective parties. 2 The brief facts of the case, as disclosed in the petition, are as under;-The suit land situated in survey No. 56/1-C admeasuring 1 Hector and 20 R assessed at Rs.5/- and 93 paise, situated at village Sangvi (Bk), Tq. Yawal, district Jalgaon. The said land previously was held by the respondents as an owners and they have sold their land to the petitioners herein in the year 1968 for consideration of Rs.9000/- under a registered sale deed and from the said consideration they have purchased another big peace of land. The petitioners thereafter improved the suit land by spending more than Rs.50,000/- and converted the dry land into Bagayat land. Thereafter, a consolidation scheme was made applicable in the said village and the suit land alongwith other lands are consolidated into Gat No.160 and at present the suit land is no more in existence. The petitioners are in exclusive possession and control, enjoyment of suit land till today. It is ...
Eknath Pandurang Dighole Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-15-2010
1. Heard. Admit. Taken up for final hearing by consent of the parties.2. This appeal is filed by a Kerosene dealer against the order of suspension of Kerosene license granted to him under the provisions of the Maharashtra Kerosene Dealers' Licensing Order, 1966, framed under the powers conferred by clauses (c), (d), (i), (ii) and (j) of subsection (2) of section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.3. It was questioned before the learned Single Judge, that the District Supply Officer, Buldhana suspended the license of the appellant without specifying any period during which it would remain in force. In other words, the suspension is for an indefinite period. The power to suspend license has been conferred on the authority by clause (10) of the Maharashtra Kerosene Dealers' Licensing Order, which reads as follows."10. Provision for cancellation or suspension of licence. No holder of a license or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf shall contravene any of th...
Bapurao S/O Umaji Bapmare Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-14-2010
:1. This petition is filed challenging the proceedings in case No.1978/ICH/R/2295, the judgment and order dated 26.9.1991 passed by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal (for short, referred to as the S.L.D.T.) in Case No.75/ICH/887 and also the judgment and order of M.R.T., Aurangabad dated 10.2.1992 in case No.74/A/91/B, to the extent of remand order.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had filed returns under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1960 (for short, referred to as the said Act) on 26.11.1975. He has shown his total holding to the extent of 92 acres and 14 gunthas. The said holding was shown including the survey number held by his major son Babasaheb and the other lands which were in the names of other members of the family. The S.L.D.T., Majalgaon instituted enquiry proceedings against the petitioner in the year, 1975 in file No.1975/ICH/887 and after making full-fledged enquiry, the S.L.D.T., came to the conclusion that a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »